You have just read the following English passage from The Prince (Machiavelli) and Mencius A417： “And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.”
Task
Use only the three comparison headings below, write a brief analysis (1 sentence per heading) that explains how the two thinkers differ on each point.
Core value – What is the central value each author makes about how a ruler (or moral agent) should act?
Means & Ends – What is the relationship between means and ends in each case?
Moral Hierarchy – How does each author rank the relationship between virtue, propriety, pragmatism, and higher principles (e.g., the “Way,” the state’s survival)?
Core value:1.Humaneness (ren), righteousness (yi), ritual propriety (li), wisdom (zhi); moral self-cultivation is the supreme good.
2.Power, state-security and empirical success; “the end justifies the means,” morality is instrumental.
Means and End:1.Means and ends must both be ethically legitimate; virtuous conduct is the only reliable route to lasting order.
2.Means are neutral tools; any tactic—deceit, force, spectacle—is permissible if it effectively secures the desired end.
Moral Hierarchy:1.A clear moral hierarchy: the humane “noble man” (junzi) stands above the petty person (xiaoren); rulers must set the ethical example.
2.No fixed moral hierarchy; virtues are praised only when they enhance power, and vices are excused whenever they serve the state.
1.Machiavelli holds that a ruler’s core value is state survival, whereas Mencius emphasizes benevolence as the central value for a moral ruler.
2.Machiavelli argues that unethical means are justified if they serve the end of maintaining the state.Mencius insists that virtuous means must align with just ends.
3. Machiavelli prioritizes the state’s survival over virtues, while Mencius ranks moral principles and benevolence above pragmatism.
Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s primary value, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the moral foundation for a ruler’s actions.
Means & Ends
Machiavelli argues ends (state maintenance) justify morally compromising means, whereas Mencius insists means (virtuous conduct) must align with benevolent ends to be legitimate.
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion, while Mencius places virtue (benevolence) and the Way above pragmatism, framing propriety as integral to moral rule.
1. Core value
Machiavelli argues a ruler’s core value is state survival (even if acting against virtue), while Mencius holds a ruler’s central duty is benevolence (ren) to uphold moral goodness.
2. Means & Ends
For Machiavelli, ends (state maintenance) justify flexible means (abandoning virtue if forced); for Mencius, moral means (virtuous conduct) are inseparable from proper ends (governing well).
3. Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism/state survival above virtue; Mencius prioritizes higher principles (the Way) and virtue over pragmatism, framing morality as foundational to governance.
Core value: Mencius centers on benevolence (ren) as the ruler’s essential virtue, guiding actions to care for the people, while Machiavelli prioritizes the state’s stability and survival as the ruler’s overriding goal, regardless of moral virtue.
Means & Ends: Mencius insists means must align with benevolent virtue (ends and means are inseparable), whereas Machiavelli argues ends (state survival) justify morally questionable means (e.g., deceit, cruelty) when necessary.
Moral Hierarchy: Mencius ranks virtue and the "Way" above pragmatism, while Machiavelli elevates pragmatism and state survival over virtue and propriety as the supreme moral priority.
1. Core value: Mencius asserts that a ruler's central value must be rooted in humanity and righteousness, while Machiavelli argues that a prince’s primary value is the pragmatic maintenance of the state, even if it requires acting contrary to conventional morality.
2. Means & Ends: For Mencius, moral means are inseparable from righteous ends, whereas Machiavelli justifies the use of immoral means if they are necessary to achieve the desired end of political survival.
3. Moral Hierarchy: Mencius places universal virtues like humanity and the "Way" above the ruler's immediate interests, but Machiavelli subordinates traditional virtue and religion to the higher principle of the state's preservation.
Machiavelli prioritizes state maintenance as the ruler’s core duty, while Mencius centers on benevolence (ren) as the moral agent’s guiding value.
Means & Ends
Machiavelli holds that ends (state survival) justify morally compromised means, whereas Mencius insists means must align with virtue to be legitimate.
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion; Mencius places the Way and virtue at the top, with propriety and pragmatism subordinate.
The fundamental difference between Mencius and Machiavelli lies in whether politics should be subordinate to morality.
· Mengzi's answer was "Yes". He constructed an ideal world - what politics should be like. The actions of the rulers must be guided by morality as the highest and sole compass, and their success would ultimately be judged by morality.
· Machiavelli's answer was "No". He described a real-world scenario - how politics actually operates. The actions of the rulers must adapt to this harsh reality, and the sole criterion for their success is the stability of power and the strength of the state.
In short, Mencius taught rulers how to become saints, while Machiavelli taught them how to become successful rulers. These two sets of thought systems represent the two peaks of idealism and realism in Chinese and Western political thought respectively.
Mencius (Confucian thought of benevolent government)-Core value: taking benevolence as the core, advocating "the theory of good nature" and advocating "benevolent government", "the people are precious, the country is second, and the monarch is light". -Purpose: To achieve harmony in the world and social stability, so that the monarch can win the hearts of the people and the dynasty can maintain long-term stability. -Means: the monarch cultivates self-cultivation (expanding the "four ends"), implements benevolent policies (paying little attention to taxes, controlling people's property, and educating people), and serving people with virtue (kingly way). -Hierarchical structure: individual (self-cultivation) → family (filial piety) → country (benevolent government) → world (great harmony), with morality as the core link. Machiavelli (Realistic Political Thought)-The core value: the separation of politics and morality, advocating the theory of "evil nature" and emphasizing that monarchs should give priority to safeguarding state power and stability. -Purpose: To achieve national reunification, consolidate monarchy and pursue practical political results. -Means: The monarch can flexibly use political power (deception, violence, rewards and punishments), "do whatever it takes to achieve his goal" (as long as it is conducive to rule), and convince others by force (bullying). -Hierarchical structure: state power (core) → sovereign authority → people (ruling object), with power as the core link.
Core value – Mencius holds that a ruler's core value is benevolence and righteousness, which are inseparable from his role, whereas Machiavelli argues that a prince's central value is the survival and stability of the state, even if it requires actions contrary to conventional morality.
Means & Ends – For Mencius, moral means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving good ends, while for Machiavelli, the end of maintaining the state justifies the use of otherwise immoral means when necessary.
Moral Hierarchy – Mencius establishes a fixed hierarchy where universal virtue and the "Way" are supreme and non-negotiable, whereas Machiavelli creates a flexible hierarchy where the pragmatic necessity of state survival overrides the consistent practice of virtue and religion.
Machiavelli and Mencius differ fundamentally in three core aspects of governance:
First, regarding core values, Machiavelli regards the state’s stability as the ruler’s primary pursuit, while Mencius takes benevolence and righteousness as the foundation of governance.
Second, on means and ends, Machiavelli holds that morally flexible methods are justified if they serve the goal of preserving power, whereas Mencius insists that both means and ends must conform to moral virtue.
Third, in terms of moral hierarchy, Machiavelli subordinates individual virtue to pragmatic statecraft, while Mencius elevates moral integrity above utilitarian outcomes as a supreme principle.
Core value ： Machiavelli's ruler should prioritize the state's survival and stability, whereas Mencius's ruler must act from inherent benevolence and righteousness to be truly legitimate.
Means and Ends：For Machiavelli, morally questionable means are justified by the end of preserving the state, while for Mencius, virtuous means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving righteous ends. Moral Hierarchy– Machiavelli subordinates traditional virtue and propriety to the higher principle of pragmatic state survival, whereas Mencius places conformity with the benevolent "Way" above any pragmatic concern for power or profit.
For Machiavelli,the core value a ruler must uphold is the survival and stability of the state, even if this requires acting contrary to conventional virtues like fidelity and humanity. Consequently, he argues that pragmatically necessary means, even if immoral, are fully justified by the ultimate end of preserving the state. In stark contrast, Mencius posits that a ruler's core value must be benevolence (ren) and righteous conduct, which are inherent to human nature. For him, moral means are not just preferable but inseparable from achieving righteous ends, as unethical actions corrupt the ruler and jeopardize.
Moral Hierarchy
This fundamental divergence establishes a clear moral hierarchy:Machiavelli subordinates traditional virtue and religious principles to the pragmatic demands of statecraft, making the state's survival the highest principle that can license the suspension of all others. Mencius, however, establishes an absolute hierarchy where virtue and conformity to the benevolent "Way" (Dao) are the supreme principles; pragmatism that violates this moral order is illegitimate and ultimately self-defeating for a true ruler.
Mencius ties political authority to moral idealism (rulers as moral exemplars), while Machiavelli focuses on political realism (power as the end, with ethics subordinated to pragmatism). For example, Mencius advocates reducing taxes and caring for the poor to win hearts; Machiavelli advises the prince to "avoid taking people’s property/women" not out of morality, but to prevent hatred.
Machiavelli argues a prince—especially a new one—can’t always uphold virtues (fidelity, friendship, humanity, religion) esteemed by men. To maintain the state, he may need to act against them, but should stay flexible: cling to good if possible, yet know how to deviate when compelled.
Mencius’s view in A417 and Machiavelli’s in The Prince present contrasting theories of governance. Mencius, extending Confucian ideals, asserts that human nature is inherently good and that a ruler’s legitimacy stems from benevolent governance (ren zheng) and the people’s welfare. He argues that a leader who cultivates virtue will naturally command allegiance, framing morality as the foundation of power.
In stark contrast, Machiavelli, writing during Renaissance political turmoil, separates ethics from statecraft. He advises the Prince that it is safer to be feared than loved if one cannot be both, and that the appearance of virtue often matters more than its reality. For him, effective rule depends on pragmatic strength and the shrewd management of power.
Ultimately, Mencius grounds authority in moral cultivation, while Machiavelli bases it on pragmatic control, highlighting a fundamental divergence between Eastern virtuous leadership and Western realpolitik.
Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s core value, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the moral agent’s foundational guide.
Means & Ends
Machiavelli holds that ends (state preservation) justify morally questionable means, whereas Mencius argues that virtuous means are inherent to just ends (upholding the Way).
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion, while Mencius places higher principles (the Way) and virtue above pragmatism or mere rule maintenance.
Core value – Machiavelli's ruler should prioritize the state's power and security, while Confucius's moral agent should cultivate and demonstrate virtuous character.
Means & Ends – For Machiavelli, a ruler's successful ends morally justify any means, whereas for Confucius, moral means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving righteous ends.
Moral Hierarchy – Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above traditional virtue, while Confucius places conformity to the Way (Dao) and virtue as the supreme principles, with pragmatism and propriety as their expressions.
1. Mencius's core value is that a ruler should act with benevolence (to follow the "Way"), while Machiavelli argues a prince should prioritize maintaining the state (even it acting unethically).
2. Mencius insists that "good means" must align with "moral ends"; Machiavelli claims that "state survival" (the end) justifies using unethical means when necessary.
3. Mencius ranks the "Way" (benevolence, propriety) above all; Machiavelli places "state survival" (pragmatism) above traditional virtues (fidelity, humanity).
1. Core value – Mencius asserts that a ruler must adhere to innate moral virtues like benevolence and righteousness, while Machiavelli argues that a prince must prioritize state stability, even if it requires actions contrary to conventional morality.
2. Means & Ends – For Mencius, virtuous means are inseparable from righteous ends, whereas Machiavelli justifies morally flexible means if they secure the political end of maintaining power.
3. Moral Hierarchy – Mencius places universal virtues like humanity and the "Way" above pragmatic concerns, while Machiavelli subordinates traditional morality to the higher principle of the state’s survival.
Core value: Mencius holds that a ruler's core value is benevolence and righteous conduct, while Machiavelli argues it is the pragmatic survival of the state.
Means & Ends:For Mencius, moral means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving good ends, whereas for Machiavelli, the end of state security justifies the use of immoral means when necessary.
Moral Hierarchy:Mencius subordinates pragmatism to a higher moral principle (the Way), but Machiavelli explicitly prioritizes the state's survival above virtues like fidelity and humanity.
Mencius thought that rulers should govern with benevolence, which is called 仁 and support moral virtues in the whole society. Machiavelli, however, claims a prince may set aside fidelity/morality to maintain the state, putting statecraft as priority, and ignore the use of 仁。
to be more detailt, For Machiavelli, morally questionable means are justified by the end of preserving the state, whereas for Mencius, virtuous means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving righteous ends.
1. Core value: Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s core value, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the moral agent’s guiding principle.
2. Means & Ends: Machiavelli holds that immoral means are justified if they serve state survival (the end), whereas Mencius argues that moral means must align with benevolent ends.
3. Moral Hierarchy: Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/propriety, while Mencius places the Way (Dao) and virtue above pragmatism, with propriety supporting moral action.
Mencius’ core value holds that a ruler should practice "benevolence" (ren), taking morality (such as benevolence, righteousness, loyalty, and trustworthiness) as the foundation of behavior; whereas Machiavelli argues that the core value for a ruler is to maintain the survival of the state, and morality must give way to the needs of governance.
Mencius advocates the "unity of means and ends": a ruler must use moral means to achieve the goal of good governance; Machiavelli, however, believes that "ends take precedence over means"—to maintain rule, a ruler may employ means that contradict morality.
Core value– Confucius emphasizes moral integrity and benevolent leadership as the core value, insisting rulers must act with virtue to inspire harmony, whereas Machiavelli prioritizes political stability and power, asserting that a ruler must do whatever secures authority, even if morally questionable.
Means & Ends – Confucius maintains that noble ends require moral means, believing virtuous conduct inherently leads to good outcomes, while Machiavelli argues that ends justify the means, endorsing deceit or cruelty if necessary for political survival.
Moral Hierarchy – Confucius ranks virtue and the “Way” (Dao) highest, with propriety as essential practice and pragmatism subordinate to ethical principles, whereas Machiavelli elevates pragmatism and state survival above virtue and propriety, treating moral considerations as secondary or instrumental.
1. Core value – Machiavelli centers on pragmatic statecraft where the ruler may need to violate conventional virtues to maintain power, while Mencius holds that benevolent rule (ren) is both moral and essential for lasting authority.
2. Means & Ends – For Machiavelli, morally questionable means are justified by the end of preserving the state, whereas Mencius insists that moral means are necessary to achieve righteous ends.
3. Moral Hierarchy – Machiavelli subordinates traditional virtue to political necessity and state survival, while Mencius places humanity (ren) and righteousness (yi) above pragmatic concerns, seeing them as inseparable from the Mandate of Heaven.
· His focus is power. To obtain and maintain it, a ruler can flexibly use statecraft, including deception, intimidation, and violence. Morality is a tool, not a binding rule. Fear is more reliable and effective than love.
· Erasmus is an idealist.
· His focus is Christian morality. A good ruler must first be a good Christian, governing based on peace, justice, and wisdom. Winning the people's hearts through love and virtue is the path to a stable and prosperous state.
In a nutshell:
Machiavelli teaches a princehow to gain and keep power, while Erasmus teaches a prince how to be a virtuous ruler.
Mencius bound morality and politics together (governing by virtue), while Machiavelli advocated their separation (politics takes precedence over morality). Mencius held the theory of innate goodness (believing that people can be educated), while Machiavelli held the theory of innate evil (thinking that people are selfish and need to be controlled). Mencius advocated the "Way of the King" (winning people over by virtue), while Machiavelli advocated the "Way of the Hegemon" (putting power and strategy first). Mencius centered on "people-oriented governance", while Machiavelli centered on "monarchical power/national power".
您确定给 “
