Kermena Ishak

Philosophies of China
Prof. Littlejohn
12/08/2022
Political Philosophy
Responsibility of a Humane Government
The political philosophy of China can be broken down into two main camps: legalism
and Confucianism. Confucianism stresses personal and social values such as family loyalty and
good relations between different social groups and people, while legalism is the view that law
and order are essential to maintain a functional society. These two approaches to political
philosophy are often discussed today to determine the true definition of an ideal form of
government and how societies should function. In this essay, I will discuss Chinese philosophers
who supported Mencius and Confucius’s humane/moral government and the legalist criticism of
such governance.
Confucius’s governance revolved around meritocracy, training and educating a person on
what it takes to be a “worthy” and morally exemplary ruler. Such exemplary rulers should lead a
government that “establish an environment that is life furthering and proper for all the citizens.
Help in natural disasters, enable the free and responsible flow of trade, protect the people from
internal and external enemies and destructive forces, and create the conditions that allow for the
self-cultivation of the citizens” (Littlejohn. 206). Rulers and government should only make
people reach self-cultivation and live exemplary lives with reciprocal relationships and
harmonious society. Politics should by “rectifying,” correcting economic, social, and moral
dynamics such as poverty, discrimination, and prejudices that might hinder self-cultivation of
each individual. A great ruler allows employment for all, develops a society that treats others as
family, shows compassion, and provides for widows, orphans, childless men, and the disabled
(Littlejohn. 209). Robbers, immoral acts, and waste of possessions will not rise due to such
moral and social proprieties (li). Mozi also believed in an exemplary/morally just ruler who
allow humans to flourish and develop a stable economic and social order. He also believed that
the government should provide “food, clothing, shelter, prevent wars, not overtax people, or
benefit only some at the cost of others” (Littlejohn. 213). However, Mozi also believed in the
“five punishments” that brought order to people. For Confucius, however, the government’s
ultimate goal is not to maintain order as Mozi or legalism might offer. Confucius argues that
whether people follow the law or not, there is no assurance that they are enhancing their own
self-cultivation. The ultimate purpose of the ruler and government is to instill in the people a
spirit of peace and the formation of a harmonious society in which all people can grow and
become humane persons (ren). However, one statement that Confucius might not have refined is
that ‘morality can come in many forms.’ Confucius might have created moral discriminations,
overlooking that morality can/will never be defined in similar ways. Moreover, if one person
forces all others to act on that person’s own views of morality, that can be seen as immoral (even
though that might not be Confucius’s intention).
 Essentially Mencius's assertions directly relate to Confucius's social and government
humanness. According to Mencius, a meritorious ruler and a subject should have a moral
connection between a father and his children. He followed Confucius's ideas of an "exemplary"
ruler, stating that if a ruler ignores humanness (ren), justice, the way (dao), appropriateness (yi),
propriety (li), and wisdom, the people's needs would be neglected. If a ruler also puts profit and
power first, no one will be satisfied, and resentment will grow. Ministers should also not hesitate
to expel a ruler such as that. The primary role of the government, according to Mencius, is to
provide/protect the basic needs of the people and one that does not bear their anguish. A ruler
should "not interfere with the timing of the farmers or disallow finely meshed nets in the ponds
and lakes. When there is more grain, more fish and turtles than can be eaten, and more wood
than can be used, the people will be able to nourish the living" (Littlejohn. 215). A ruler should
also blame himself for his wrongs, reduce punishment and taxes, and make the lives of the
people easier so the people can support him. With a humane government, "the masses are neither
cold nor hungry, punishment and execution are practiced sparingly and with regret, and no one
will starve to death. Vulnerable widows, widowers, old people without children, and young
children without fathers will be taken care of" (Littlejohn. 215). Leading such humane
governance will ultimately prosper the country; however, one should not practice humane
governance only for rewards. When people's needs are met, fear of poverty will vanish, and so
will criminality. Mencius's humane government consists of a heart-mind (xin) ruler that puts
people first, land and grain second, and the ruler as least valuable (Littlejohn. 221). Although
ideal, such ideas are criticized greatly by legalists who believe such rulers cannot lead a
sufficient government. However, many philosophers also use Mencius's ideas to support their
own ideas of what a government should prioritize.
Tu Weiming and Wang Anshi’s philosophies were remarkably comparable to Mencius’s
humane government. Tu Weiming’s view that the people’s trust in the government’s ability to
enable self-cultivation and humane persons (ren) is significantly related to Mencius’s humane
government and Confucius’s ideas. Tu Weiming’s idea of a government consists of whether a
government can be self-correcting to fit people’s needs. Tu Weiming also describes great rulers
as “self-conscious” and “self-rectifying,” avoiding corruption and being compassionate with
people’s hearts. Weiming also believed that people could “exhort one another to do good,” a
learning culture that creates trust by the process “of creating and recreating patterns of
humanizations” (Littlejohn. 278). For Weiming, a government should not just make laws but
“monitor and adjust the social process of communal life, including the distribution of economic
good, to bring fiduciary community” (Littlejohn, 275). The government should support the
economic life of its citizens by sorting the distribution of social goods to meet the different
demands of the people. Similarly, Wang Anshi felt that the state is responsible for its people’s
needs. Although Wang Anshi did not directly include many of Confucius’s teachings, he was
influenced by Mencius’s idea of humane governance. Wang Anshi, specifically, supported
Mencius’s ideas of “few punishments and taxes, masses neither cold nor hungry, no pleasure in
execution, and take care of widows, widowers, old people without children, and young children
without fathers” (Littlejohn. 240). Wang Anshi also acknowledged social justice, stability,
economic situations, and the welfare of the working class. Anshi worked towards a distributive
justice financial system by breaking monopolies, improving state revenue, and redistributing
wealth to the middle class through a low-interest loan policy that aided common residents and
farmers in times of distress. Although Anshi’s financial ideas were ineffective in the long run, he
did help establish “public orphanages, hospitals, dispensaries, cemeteries, and reserve granaries.
Wang also established a public school system to educate impoverished students” (Littlejohn.
245). It is clear that, like Confucius and Mencius, Tu Weiming and Wang Anshi’s acknowledged
a humane government that prioritizes people’s services/needs.
Mencius’s “humane government” and Confucius’s “exemplary leader” beliefs do have
much sensible criticism. For instance, Han Fei believed that legalism is the right way of
governance. Han Fei considered an excellent ruler as one who could utilize political instruments
to manage the self-interests of landowners and farmers among the interests of the common
citizens. Fei saw politics as a set of techniques/orders that ought to be regulated based on
people’s preferences and the necessities of their economic situations. According to Han Fei,
politics should not be associated with morality, nor should a ruler be picked on merit virtue,
“even a ruler who is morally deficient in his personal life may nevertheless be a good ruler”
(Littlejohn. 225). Fei also contended that people of virtue and morals, as revered by Confucius,
may be harmful. It might operate against the state and the people’s well-being and disrupt order
and fairness: “kind-hearted men lead to the existence of culprits among the magistrates; virtuous
men, the violation of laws and statutes; chivalrous men, vacancies of official posts; unyielding
heroes, the inefficacy of orders. A humane person might allow his compassion for the poor and
needy to go too far and exhaust public funds, or he may be led to levy heavy taxes to pay for free
riders benefiting from the state’s generosity while contributing little to the state” (Littlejohn. 226)
Indeed, Wang Anshi distributive methods did exhaust public funds. However Wang Anshi’s loan
plan failure was not solely because of “humane” ruling, as Han Fei may argue, but relatively
poor financial planning. Furthermore, Han Fei failed to remark on how morality is directly
related to murder, robbery, and rape and how such things always demand political actions.
Inevitably, morality is associated with politics; it is the question of “by how much” that Han Fei
should argue on. Han Fei’s statements, however, did hold questions that Confucius and Mencius
could not answer. Based on my understanding and Han Fei’s statements, how could one state
practice humane (utopian) governance without it being universal? To be more specific, it is
almost impossible to live in harmony without interference from other nations. Mencius does
mention that not all warfare can be avoided, such as when external forces threaten states or when
the people of the other country are going through abuse or exploitation. Although Mencius does
explain that war should be a “regrettable last resort,” he does not clarify how a humane
population will be able to win, nor does he stress the inevitable loss of morality that results from
war. War requires money, people who can kill, and a tremendous amount of resources. With the
societies Mencius and Confucius presented, it will be challenging to acquire such things. For
such a humane government to function, it needs to be universal; otherwise, it will not last for
generations.
As argued by Mencius, Confucius, Tu Weiming, and Wang Anshi, a government's
responsibility is to prioritize the people and social relationships. A humane government
implements harmony and justice that support the people's basic needs. Although such
governance is ideal, it cannot be used in modern times. The human population has increased
drastically, and hostility is far too global for hunger, robbery, and murder to be eliminated. Such
a "humane government" is possible; however, one must also balance humanity with political
intelligence and a lawful system for a country to function.
 Resources
Littlejohn, Ronnie L.. Chinese Philosophy and Philosophers : An Introduction, Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/
belmont-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6933647.