A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (27 page)

258-HAN FEI TZU AND THE LEGALIST SCHOOL

standards of value must change. As conditions in the world change, different principles are practised. '

(Book of Lord Shang, II, 7.)

This conception of history as a process of change is a commonplace to our modern mind, but it was revolutionary viewed against the prevailing theories of the other schools of ancient China.

Way of Government

To meet new political circumstances, the Legalists proposed new ways of government, which, as stated above, they claimed to be infallible. The first necessary step, according to them, was to set up laws. Han Fei Tzu writes: "A law is that which is recorded on the registers, set up in the government offices, and promulgated among the people. (Han—fei—tzu, eh. 38) Through these laws the people are told what they should and should not do. Once the laws are promulgated, the ruler must keep a sharp watch on the conduct of the people. Because he possesses shih or authority, he can punish those who violate his laws, and reward those who obey them. By so doing he can successfully rule the people, no matter how numerous they may be.

Han Fei Tzu writes on this point: "in his rule of a state, the sage does not depend upon men doing good themselves, but brings it about that they can do no wrong. Within the frontiers of a state, there are no more than ten people who will do good of themselves; nevertheless, if one brings it about that the people can do no wrong, the entire state can be kept peaceful. He who rules a country makes use of the majority and neglects the few, and so does not concern himself with virtue but with law. (Ch. 50.) Thus with law and authority, the ruler rules his people. He need have no special ability or high virtue, nor need he, as the Confucianists maintained, set a personal example of good conduct, or rule through personal influence.

It may be argued that this procedure is not really foolproof, because the ruler needs ability and knowledge to make laws and keep a watch on the conduct of the people, who may be large in number.

The Legalists answer this objection by saying that the ruler need not do all these things himself. If he merely possesses shu, the art of handling men, he can then get the right men to do everything for him.

The concept of shu is of philosophical interest. It is also one aspect of the old doctrine of the rectification of names. The term used by the Legalists for this doctrine is "holding the actualities responsible for their names.' (Han-fei-tzu, ch. 43.)

By "actualities," the Legalists mean the individuals who hold government office, while by "names,"

they mean the titles of the offices thus held. These titles are indicative of what the individuals who hold the office in question should ideally accomplish. Hence "holding the actualities responsible for their names," means holding the individuals who occupy certain offices responsible for carrying out what should be ideally accomplished in these of-

260

HAN FEI TZU AND THE LECALIST SCHOOL

fices. The ruler's duty is to attach a particular name to a particular individual, that is to say, confer a given office upon a given person. The functions pertaining to this office have already been defined by law and are indicated by the name given to it. Hence the ruler need not, and should not, bother about the methods used to carry out his work, so long as the work itself is done and well done. If it is well done, the ruler rewards him; if not, he punishes him. That is all.

It may yet be asked how the ruler is to know which man is the best for a certain office. The Legalists answer that this too can be known by the same shu or method of statecraft. Han Fei Tzu says: "When a minister makes claims, the ruler gives him work according to what he has claimed, but holds him wholly responsible for accomplishment corresponding to this work. When the accomplishment corresponds to this work, and the work corresponds to what the man has claimed he could do, he is rewarded. Tf the accomplishment does not correspond to the work, nor the work correspond to what the man has claimed for himself, he is punished. (Ch. 7-) After this procedure has been followed in several instances, if the ruler is strict in his rewards and punishments, incompetent people will no longer dare to take office even if it is offered to them. Thus all incompetents are eliminated, leaving government positions only to those who can successfully fill them.

Yet the problem still remains: How is the ruler to know whether an "actuality does in fact correspond to its name ? The Legalist reply is that it is up to the ruler himself, if he is uncertain, to test the result. If he is not sure that his cook is really a good cook, he can settle the matter simply by tasting his cooking.

He need not always judge results for himself, however. He can appoint others to judge for him, and these judges will then, in their turn, be held strictly responsible for their names.

Thus, according to the Legalists, their way of government is really foolproof. The ruler need only retain the authority of rewards and punishments in his own hands. He will then rule by "doing nothing, yet there is nothing that is not done."

Such rewards and punishments are what Han Fei Tzu calls the two handles of the ruler." (Ch. 7) Their effectiveness derives from the fact that il is the nature of man to seek profit and to avoid harm. Han Fei Tzu says: In ruling the world, one must act in accordance with human nature. In human nature there are the feelings of liking and disliking, and hence rewards and punishments are effective. When rewards and punishments are effective, interdicts and commands can be established, and the way of government is complete. "(Ch. 48.)

Han Fei Tzu, as a student of Hsiin Tzu, was convinced that human nature is evil. But he differed from Hsiin Tzu in that he was not interested in the latter s stress on culture as a means of changing human nature so as to make it something good. According to him and the other Legalists, it is precisely because human nature is what it is, that the Legalist way of govern—

i62. HAN FEI TZU AND THE LEGALIST SCHOOL

ment is practical. The Legalists proposed this way of government on the assumption that man is what he is, i.e., naturally evil, and not on the assumption that he is to be converted into what he ought to be.

Legalism and Taoism

"Doing nothing, yet there is nothing that is not done.' This is the Taoist idea of wu wei, having-no-activity or non-action, but it is also a Legalist idea. According to Han Fei Tzu and the Legalists, the one great virtue required of a ruler is lhat he follow the course of non—action. He should do nothing himself but should merely let others do everything for him. Han Fei Tzu says: "just as the sun and moon shine forth, the four seasons progress, the clouds spread, and the wind blows, so does the ruler not encumber his mind with knowledge, or himself with selfishness. He relies for good government or disorder upon laws and methods [shui; leaves right and wrong to be dealt with through rewards and punishments; and refers lightness and heaviness to the balance of the scale. (Ch. 29) In other words, the ruler possesses the implements and mechanism through which government is conducted, and having these, does nothing, yet there is nothing that is not done.

Taoism and Legalism represent the two extremes of Chinese thought. The Taoists maintained that man originally is completely innocent; the Legalists, on the other hand, that he is completely evil. The Taoists stood for absolute individual freedom; the Legalists for absolute social control. Yet in the idea of non-action, the two extremes meet. That is to say, they had here some common ground.

Under somewhat different wording, the Legalist way of government was also maintained by the later Taoists. In the Chuang-tzu we find a passage that speaks about the way of employing human society. Tn this passage distinctions are made between having activity and having-no-activity, and between "being employed by the world" and "employing the world." Hav-ing-no-activity is the way of employing the world; having-activity is the way of being employed by the world. The ruler s reason for existence is to rule the whole world. Hence his function and duty is not to do things himself, but to tell others to do them for him. In other words, his method of rule is to employ the world by having—no—activity. The duty and function of subordinates, on the other hand, is to take orders and do things accordingly. In other words, the function of the subordinate is to be employed by the world by having activity. The same passage says: "The superior must have no activity, so as thus to employ the world; but the subordinates must have activity, so as thus to be employed by the world. This is the invariable way."

(Chuang-tzu, ch. 13.)

The Chuang-tzu continues: "Therefore, the rulers of old, although their knowledge spread throughjout the whole universe, did not themselves think. Although their eloquence beautified all things, they did not themselves

1 6 4 HAN FEI TZU AND THE LECALIST SCHOOL

speak. Although their abilities exhausted all things within the four seas, they did not themselves act."

(Ibid.) A ruler should be so, because if he once thinks about something, this means that there is something else about which he does not think; yet his whole duty and function is to think about all things under his rule. The solution, therefore, is for him not to try to think, speak, and act himself, but merely to tell others to think, speak, and act in his place. In this way he does nothing, and yet there is nothing that is not done.

As to the detailed procedure by which the ruler is thus to "employ the world, the same passage says: Those of old who made manifest the great Tan, first made manifest Heaven, and Too and Te came next.

Too and Te being manifested, the virtues of humanheartedness and righteousness came next. These being manifested, the division of offices came next. These being manifested, actualities and names came next. These being manifested, employment without interference came next. This being manifested, examinations and discriminations came next. These being manifested, judgement of right and wrong came next. This being manifested, rewards and punishments came next. With the manifestation of rewards and punishments, the foolish and the wise assumed their proper positions, the noble and the humble occupied their proper places, and the virtuous and the worthless were employed according to their nature. ...This is perfect peace, the acme of good government. (Ibid.) It is clear that the latter part of this program is the same as that of the Legalists. Yet the passage goes on by saying: Those of antiquity who spoke about the great Too, mentioned actualities and names only at the fifth step, and rewards and punishments only at the ninth step. He who speaks immediately about actualities and names, does not know the fundamentals [that underlie them I. He who speaks immediately about rewards and punishments, does not know their beginning....Such a one knows the implements of government, but not its principles. He can be employed by the world, but is not sufficient to employ the world. He is a one-sided man and only knows how to talk." (Ibid.) Here we have the criticism of the Taoists against the Legalists. The Legalist way of government requires unselfishness and impartiality on the part of the ruler. He must punish those who ought to be punished, even though they be his friends and relatives, and he must reward those who ought to be rewarded, even though they be his enemies. If he fails only a few times to do this, the whole mechanism breaks down. Such requirements are too much for a man of only average intelligence. He who can really fulfill them is nothing less than a sage.

2.66 HAN FFJ TZU AND THE LEGALIST SCHOOL

Legalism and Confucianism

The Confucianists maintained that the people should be governed by li and morality, not by law and punishment. They upheld the traditional way of government, but did not realize that the circumstances that had once rendered this way practical had already changed. In this respect, they were conservative. In another respect, however, they were at the same time revolutionary, and reflected in their ideas the changes of the time. Thus they no longer upheld the traditional class distinctions that were based merely on the accident of birth or fortune. Confucius and Mencius, to be sure, continued to speak about the difference between the princely man and the small man. Yet for them, this distinction depended upon the moral worth of the individual, and was not necessarily based upon inherited class differences.

I pointed ont at the beginning of this chapter that in early Chinese feudalistic society, the nobles were governed according to the li, but the common people only according to the punishments. Hence the Confucian insistence that not only the nobles, but the mass of the people as well, should be governed by li rather than by punishment, was in fact a demand for a higher standard of conduct to be applied to the people. In this sense the Confu — cianists were revolutionary.

In Legalist thought, too, there were no class distinctions. Everyone was e— qual before law and the ruler.

Instead of elevating the common people to a higher standard of conduct, however, the Legalists lowered the nobles to a lower standard by discarding li and putting sole reliance on rewards and punishments for all alike.

The Confucianist ideas are idealistic, while those of the Legalists are realistic. That is the reason why, in Chinese history, the Confucianists have always accused the Legalists of being mean and vulgar, while the Legalists have accused the Confucianists of being bookish and impractical.