People have likes and dislikes; Therefore, the people can be governed. The leader must examine likes and dislikes. Likes and dislikes are the basis of rewards and punishments. The disposition of the people is to love ranks and references and not to love punishments and punishments. The ruler uses both to guide the will of the people and determine what they want. (Shang jun shu 9:65; Lord Shang Book 9.3) Legalism is an approach to the analysis of legal issues characterized by abstract logical thinking that focuses on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation or jurisprudence, rather than on the social, economic or political context. In its narrower versions, legalism perpetuates the idea that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal documents already contains a predetermined “right answer” to any legal problem that may arise; and that the task of the judge is to ensure this unequivocal answer by means of an essentially mechanical procedure. This application of the Western law school has little to do with the Chinese philosophical school of the same name, which is being discussed from now on. He sees politics as the only way to maintain state power,[241] and emphasizes norms (Fa) that prevent conflicts of language or knowledge as the only protection of the ruler. [14]:366 Fa automatically provides reward and punishment and defines the functions of the state strictly by binding general rules, exclusion from discussion of what would otherwise be an opinion, and avoidance of conflicts of jurisdiction, improper powers, or profits.
To this end, Han Fei`s senior officials focus exclusively on defining by calculation and building objective models judged solely on efficiency. [241] In imperial times, the position of legalism was somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, their ideas have remained very influential, particularly in the field of administrative practice, but also with regard to the policy of enrichment and empowerment of the State, as well as in certain legal practices. On some occasions, some of the leading imperial reformers – from Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 (181-234) to Su Chuo 蘇綽 (498-546), from Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021-1086) to Zhang Juzheng 張居正 (1525-1582) – were able to openly confess their guilt to the legalistic methods of reviving the government apparatus and restoring the economic and military capabilities of the state. On the other hand, most political reformers and activists remained underground legalists at best. For the vast majority of scholars, Shang Yang, Han Fei and others were negative examples; As a result, most of the texts associated with the legalistic school ceased to circulate, and very few merited comment. Open support for Shang Yang, for example, would be virtually impossible for a respected man of letters. ]]> Legalism and Chinese philosophy Unlike the intuitive anarchy of Taoism and the benevolence of Confucianism, legalism is a classical Chinese philosophy that places the need for order above all other human concerns. Political doctrine developed in the brutal years of the fourth century B.C. (Schafer 83). Legalists believed that government could only become a science if leaders were not deceived by pious and impossible ideals such as “tradition” and “humanity.” According to legalists, attempts to improve the human situation by noble example, education and ethical imperatives were useless. Instead, the people needed a strong government and a carefully crafted code of law, as well as a police force that would enforce these rules rigorously and impartially, severely punishing even the smallest violations.
Founder Ch`in based his reign on these totalitarian principles and had high hopes that his government would last forever. The founder of the legalistic school was Hsün Tzu or Hsün-tzu. The most important principle in his thinking was that humans are inherently evil and prone to criminal and selfish behavior. So if people are allowed to engage with their natural inclinations, the result will be conflict and social disorder. As a solution to this problem, the ancient wise kings invented morality. Since morality does not exist in nature, the only way to behave morally is through habituation and severe punishment (Lau 120). Like the Italian political philosopher Machiavelli, Hsün Tzu clearly distinguishes between what belongs to heaven and what belongs to man. Later legalistic thought influenced Chinese political theorists such as Tung Chung-shu, who believed in a rigid mathematical relationship in social arrangements. Although both Confucianism and legalism called for a hierarchy of government and adherence to tradition, the difference between the two schools is that Confucianism advocated a benevolent rule by example. He had an optimistic view of human potential.
(Mencius is often cited as a contrasting example of a Confucian philosopher as opposed to the legalistic doctrine of Hsün-tzu.) The difference is also clearly evident in the imagery of the writings of each philosophy. The predominant imagery in the writings of legalism is to straighten or forcibly bend the crooked branches of trees so that they grow perfectly straight, or to use hot irons to burn the branches of trees so that they grow in the desired direction. Works consulted: Lau, D. C. “Glossary.” Lao Tzu: The Tao Te Ching. NY: Penguin Books, 1963. Schafer, Edward H. Old China.
The Great Age of Man: A History of World Cultures. NY: Time Life Books, 1967. >]]> Han Fei`s repeated anti-ministerial Philippik baffles the reader. It is somewhat ironic that a thinker who actively sought employment in the courts of leaders portrayed his own class as inherently malicious. As many traditional and modern scholars have noted, Han Fei`s personal tragedy—he was slandered, imprisoned, and allegedly forced to commit suicide at the Qin court before he could present his views to the King of Qin—was a byproduct of the atmosphere of distrust towards the ruler and minister created by the thinker himself. But beyond this personal tragedy, there is a more general question: how can the leader maintain his functions in a situation of permanent danger and absolute mistrust between himself and his aides? Well, the reason why a ruler builds high interior walls and outer walls, looking carefully at the bars of doors and doors, is to prepare [against] the coming of invaders and bandits. But whoever assassinates the ruler and takes his state does not necessarily climb difficult walls and slams doors and doors with bars. [He can be one of the ministers who] by restricting what the ruler sees and restricts what the ruler hears, takes his government and monopolizes his orders, owns his people and takes his state. (Creel 1974:344, modified translation) Talent cannot be shown without power. [227] Shen Dao said, “The flying dragon rides on the clouds and the rising serpent wanders in the fog.