11 dets. What Was the Main Belief of Legalism
Shen Dao concludes that the ministers may be guided by moral commitment; On the contrary, these exceptional people should not be employed at all. This sentiment is echoed in Han Feizi, a text that expresses with extreme clarity his conviction that each member of the elite – like each member of society – pursues his or her own interests (cf. Goldin 2005:58-65; 2013). There are officials of moral integrity, but they are extraordinary individuals: “One cannot even find a dozen men of integrity and trustworthiness of the service (shi士), while the officials within the borders number in the hundreds. If only men of integrity and trustworthiness can be employed in the ministry, then there will not be enough people to fill the positions” (Han Feizi 49:451). This awareness is the source of the thinker`s great concern about the continuous and intractable power struggle between the ruler and members of his entourage (see below), and is also a source of Han Fei`s (and other legalists`) insistence on the priority of impersonal norms and regulations in dealing with relations between leaders and ministers. A sound administrative system should not be based on the trust and respect of ministers; On the contrary, they should be strictly controlled. A political system that presupposes human egoism is the only viable political system. Other philosophies that defended people`s inherent goodness were seen as dangerous lies that would mislead people. The beliefs of philosophers such as Confucius (l. 551-479 BC), Mencius (l. 372-289 BC), Mo-Ti (l.
470-391 BC) or Lao-Tzu (l. ca. 500 BC). A.D.), with its emphasis on seeking goodness within itself and its expression, were seen as a threat to a belief system that claimed otherwise. Scholar John M. Koller, writing on legalism, notes: Hanfeizi introduced the ideas of legalism into Chinese legalism and emphasized the importance of a legal system. A possible advantage of a legalistic society is that it is likely to be orderly and stable, a disadvantage is that severe penalties are imposed even for minor offenses. For more than 200 years, the Chinese people have experienced war as their daily reality, and a legalistic approach to controlling people`s worst impulses – controlling people through the threat of severely punitive injustice – seemed the best way to deal with the chaos. Shang Yang`s legalism dealt with everyday situations, but also extended to wartime behavior, and he is credited with the global war tactics that allowed the state of Qin to defeat other warring states to control China. The first to use the term fa jia was Sima Qian`s father, Sima Tan 司馬談 (died 110 BC). In an essay on the “nature of the six schools of thought,” Sima Tan notes that fa jia “are strict and have little kindness” and “make no distinction between relatives and strangers, or between nobles and viles: everything is determined by norm (or law, fa).” Sima Tan criticized the legalists` approach as “a one-off policy that could not be applied constantly,” but also praised Jia Fa for “honoring leaders and devaluing subjects and clearly distinguishing functions so that no one can override [his responsibilities]” (Shiji 130:3289-3291; for translations, see Smith 2003:141; Goldin 2011:89). A century later, the bibliographic category fa jia was created.
Han librarian Liu Xiang 劉向 (79-8 BC) identified ten texts from the Han Imperial Library as Fa Jia (Han shu 30:1735). From then on, the “legalistic school” remained a main category of imperial book catalogues. Since the beginning of the 20th century, this term has been widely used to classify and analyze ancient Chinese thought. This seems to be a rare glimpse into the fundamental inability of the administrative system to monitor itself in the long run; However, the discovery does not lead to radical alternatives to the system of control over officials. The chapter merely asserts the superiority of techniques and rules over personal interference by the leader in policy-making, and does not explain how these would prevent the machinations of supervisors. To the extent that techniques and rules are implemented by selfish – or simply erroneous – people, the question remains: to what extent can the impersonal mode of government cure the diseases inherent in the bureaucratic system (cf. Van Norden 2013)? This question remains one of the greatest challenges to the legacy of legalists.