Of the three most popular schools of Ancient Chinese philosophy with respect to government, Confucianists valued a ruler that would lead by his own virtue, Daoists preferred a government as minimal as humanly possible, and the Legalists had confidence that good laws alone could hold a nation together well.
Although different teachers of Confucian thought differed greatly in what they taught, a very significant undercurrent of the school is best made by Confucius himself, who said that if a ruler will “lead them by means of virtue and regulate them thorugh rituals … they will have a sense of shame and moreover have standards.”[1] Confucianists argue against reliance on laws and rules to control their populations, fearing that “the people will be evasive”[2] and do their best to go agains the government. But if the governor rules by his amazing virtue rather than by laws, “the common people will love their superiors and die for those in charge of them.”[3] In this way, the Confucianist teachers are advocating not for a strong government per se, but a strong ruler.
Legalists, on the other hand, do advocate for laws and regulations, and rather strongly. Han Feizi, for example, considers “the intelligent ruler … [as one who] does not cultivate feelings of empathy but builds up awe for his power.”[4] He disagrees with Confucius’s virtuous ruler, because “if one wishes to curb subordinates by acting righteously, the relationship will be flawed.”[5] Han Feizi reinforces this point, saying that instead of trying to inspire the people to be decent, “the enlightened ruler … increases the guards and makes the penalties heavier; he depends on laws and prohibitions to control the people…”[6]
Lastly, we come to the Daoists, whose ideal form of government emphasizes neither rules or rulers, believing instead in a near-absence of government entirely. Laozi professes in his Dao De Jing, that “the sage takes on the task of doing nothing / And teaches without speaking.”[7] He directly disagrees with Confucianists and Legalists, saying that “those who use knowledge to rule a state / Are a plague on the country,”[8] and that conversely, the best government is one that would “make the state small and its people few.”[9] This mysterious calling to rule without ruling is difficult to imagine and truly flies in the face of the carefully planned governmental procedures of the other two main schools of thought, insisting that the more laissez-faire the government is, the more the subordinates will coexist in harmony.
In conclusion, the three schools of thought can be arranged on a scale from emphasizing government to emphasizing the people. The Legalist school advocates for strong laws and regulations, not trusting the ruler to use his own judgement to lead the people and be able to sustain his state for long. Confucianism, in the middle, is a compromise between laws and people, lightening up on laws (Confucius barely talks about them) and trusting the people to take a virtuous ruler as a role model and follow in his path towards forging a better society. Daoism, though, is on the opposite extreme, willing to forego virtually all governmental functions, leaving the state to the people who will function in it just by going about their daily routine. These are the ways in which proponents of these three schools of thought views the role of government in society and the economy.
[1] Ebrey, Patricia. “6: Confucian Teachings” in Chinese Civilization: a Sourcebook. (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 21.
[2] Ebrey, 21.
[3] Ebrey, 23.
[4] Ebrey, Patricia. “8: Legalist Teachings” in Chinese Civilization: a Sourcebook. (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 37.
[5] Ebrey II, 35.
[6] Ebrey II, 36.
[7] Ebrey, Patricia. “7: Daoist Teachings” in Chinese Civilization: a Sourcebook. (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 28.
[8] Ebrey III, 29.
[9] Ebrey III, 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment