Chapter 35 5. The rule of virtue or the rule of law

The debate has been going on since the time of Confucius. In the twenty-ninth year of Duke Zhao of Lu (513 BC), the State of Jin cast the punishment tripod after Zichan of the State of Zheng, and made the provisions of the Criminal Law public to the people.This is undoubtedly the harbinger of Legalist thought and practice.Because the Legalists advocated that "there is nothing like the law", and it is to "make it known to the people".In fact, only openness is fair and justice is fair. This is the basic principle of the rule of law. However, Confucius objected. The reason for the opposition is to maintain the rule of ritual, and to maintain the rule of ritual cannot promulgate the criminal law.Because the core of the rule of etiquette is respect, also called dignity.The first word is both a verb and a predicate, that is, reverence.The second word is a noun and also an object, namely Venerable.The terms of the criminal law are controlled by the venerable or the nobles, and the discretion of the punishment is controlled by them, which is one of the manifestations of dignity.

So Confucius said: The people are in the cauldron, why are they honored? Now, read as Cha, which means Cha.That is to say, the people can see the laws and regulations on the tripod, know what is legal and what is illegal, and also know the punishment for breaking the law, so why should they respect noble people? They will only respect the punishment tripod. In this way, Confucius wanted to maintain the privileges of the nobility? No, it is more to maintain the rule of virtue. The rule of virtue is to rule the country by virtue, just as the rule of law is to rule the country by law.The method of the rule of virtue is ritual, and the method of the rule of law is punishment.Of course, the rule of law mentioned here is in the ancient sense, not in the modern sense.The rule of law in ancient times was actually the rule of punishment.Therefore, Han Fei's "ruling the country by law" should also be called "ruling the country by criminal law".Only after clarifying this point can we understand Confucius.

So, why did Confucius oppose the rule of law and the rule of punishment? Because it is not a cure for the symptoms.Confucius said—— Dao is based on government, and uniformity is punished, and the people are exempt from shame; The translation of this sentence is: Guided by government orders and regulated by punishment, the people dare not commit crimes, but they have no sense of shame.Guided by morality and regulated by etiquette, the people not only know shame, but also have self-discipline. This is why Confucius insisted on the rule of virtue and the rule of ritual. Clearly, Confucius had a point.It is definitely better to not want to do evil or not to dare to do evil. Why does Han Fei still object?

Because in his view, the ideal of Confucius could not be realized at all.You must know that the reason why people do bad things is not because of their hobby, but because of their interests.Wherever there is benefit, one flocks to it; when there is harm, one avoids it.If the stakes aren't high, maybe there's some morality to be had.Once the temptation is irresistible, or the harm is unbearable, I'm afraid I can't take care of anything. Therefore, Han Fei believes that the monarch can only use left and right to rule the country.Left, right and both sides are rewards and punishments.Only rewards and punishments can deal with benefits and harms.The rule of law and the rule of virtue are unreliable.

The question is, do the rule of punishment and the rule of law work? It depends on whether your article is sufficient and whether the work is in place.Han Fei's proposition is: Rewards should be generous, keep what they say, and make the subjects profitable.Punishment must be ruthless and ruthless, and it should be severe and fast, so that the subjects will be frightened and frightened.More importantly, law enforcement must be unified, legislation must be long-lasting, and decrees must be made public. High-ranking officials and rich salary, severe punishment and strict laws, and strict laws and regulations, these are Han Fei's "Three Principles of the Rule of Law".It is his basic concept that under heavy rewards there must be brave men, and under high pressure there must be good people.

Is this so-called "rule of law" what we want? It is not surprising that the Legalists have been widely criticized. In fact, the legalists' problem is not law enforcement, but legislation.The issue of legislation is not in the specific clauses, but in the spirit of the legislation.In other words, why should a country have laws and practice the rule of law?The purpose of legalism is very clear, which is to consolidate the rule of the monarch.In order to achieve this goal, they even go to the lengths of cultural and ideological tyranny.Han Fei said—— Therefore, in the country of the Ming Lord, there are no texts in books and slips, and the teaching is based on the law; there are no words of the former kings, and the officials are the teachers; in the defense of the selfless sword, beheading is the courage.

That's really blunt.In fact, the absence of books and slips means that we don’t want all the literature and classics; the absence of the words of the former kings means that we don’t want all the intellectual heritage.Isn't this the preparation of public opinion for burning books and burying scholars? People who grow up in such an environment can only be killing machines that "beheaded for courage".In Han Fei's place, they are appropriately called "king's capital" - the capital of the king's hegemony. Of course, what the princes abide by can only be the king's law.

Now we are caught in a dilemma.Yes, the law of Han Fei is certainly the law of the emperor; the virtue of Confucius is not the virtue of the monarch?Isn't his "junjun, ministers, father and son, son and son" just for Qi Jinggong? One king's law, one king's way, half a catty, right? It seems that we must jump out of the dispute between Confucianism and Legalism. Actually, it's not that hard to cut through arguments.Should a country be governed by virtue or by law?Of course it is law.Germany is not operable.The so-called "ruling the country with morality" is actually "ruling the country with etiquette" or "ruling the country with ethics".The debate between the rule of virtue and the rule of law is actually a debate between the rule of rites and the rule of punishment.

Then there is no need to discuss it. Governing the country with etiquette has long been a thing of the past, and it is impossible to "return a familiar swallow".As for the relationship between morality and law, it is not difficult to settle—governing the country by law and educating people by virtue may be the right choice. What really needs to be considered is probably the following questions: Why do we need the law?Why should we be virtuous?What kind of law do we want?What kind of virtue do we want?I can't help but think about it.Because virtue without virtue must be hypocrisy; illegal law must be evil law.Such a loss, do we still eat less?

Suffer a loss and gain a wisdom.Then think about it!Think about it: How should human nature be viewed?How should the system be constructed?How to forge the soul of a nation?Where does the future lead? However, this is beyond the pre-Qin scholars' ability to answer.

---

Notes: .