Legalism

[Colonâ„¢]

I stumbled on an article on Wikipedia that's pretty interesting

In Chinese History, legalism (法家; pinyin Fǎjiā) was one of the four main philosophic schools at the end of the Zhou Dynasty (256 BC). Legalists believed that a ruler should govern his subjects by the following three ideas:

1. Fa (法 fǎ): law or principle. The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Under the Zhou Dynasty, law was loosely written and was based on social classes. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish severely those who dare to break them, even if the result of this would on the face of it appear to be undesirable. As an example from Han Feizi, if a gate guard (while on duty) goes to fetch a blanket for the king who has just dozed off, this guard is being irresponsible to his official duty and deserves punishment. Thus it is guaranteed that every action taken is predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
2. Shu (術 shù): method, control or art. Unlike other Chinese systems of thought, morality is not important in Legalism. Special methods and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure the ministers don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the rulers motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the fa or laws.
3. Shi (勢 shì): legitimacy, power or charisma. It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself, that holds the power.

Legalism was the central governing idea of the Qin Dynasty, however most Chinese philosophers and political thinkers have had very negative views toward Legalism blaming it for what today would be considered a totalitarian society. Many Chinese scholars believe that it was a reaction against legalism that gave Chinese Imperial politics its personalistic and moralistic flavor. However, this view of the Qin may be biased, as most of the Chinese historical records were written by Confucian scholars, who were persecuted under the Qin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28philosophy%29

There are several principles in it that are enlightened for something thought out 2 millenia ago, it took Europeans until the 18th century to get to some of those.
However, what interests me is why there was backlash against it, and how many of those principles endured in China's legal culture after the backlash. (my impression is that they've yet to return to central tenets)

[Sava]

ZOMFG FASCITISM!!

[Colonâ„¢]

No seriously, I think it's fascinating that the Chinese had concepts such as equality before law, transparency and predictability, and that those got abandoned. (for the record, those are central concepts underpinning contemporary western law)

[Snotty]

Law (and lawmakers) without morality....?

[Adam Smith]

I don't claim to know much about Chinese history, but I have been reading J.A.G. Roberts A Concise History of China. Roberts describes both Confucianism and Legalism as two different reactions to the wide-spread disorder in the First Period of Disunity. He describes the difference between Confucianism and Legalism as follows (p. 20):

Whereas Confucianists had urged that rulers should rule through benevolence for the benefit of their people, and that ethical and moral issues should have primacy, Legalists argued that the interests of the state came first and that the state should be organized rationally to maximize its power against that of its rivals.

In this characterization Legalism appears to be more Machiavellian or state-oriented, rather than Enlightened or individual-oriented. Roberts also claims (p. 21) that Han Fei, one of the earliest Legalists, motivated Legalism by arguing that man is inherently evil. The Machiavellianism plus the view that man is inherently evil might well explain the authoritarian and somewhat paranoid nature of Shi Huangdi's rule. Early Han emperors appear to have reacted by going more for the Confucian model, as did many of the Tang emperors. The current rulers of China are clearly Legalists as defined by Roberts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Colon


No seriously, I think it's fascinating that the Chinese had concepts such as equality before law, transparency and predictability, and that those got abandoned. (for the record, those are central concepts underpinning contemporary western law)

Legalism does not seem to tackle the most basic question- the purpose of laws and the method one would use to make workable laws. It merely states that if something is law, it must be oveyed by all and be transparent.

Such a system is easy to abuse.

But I would certainly not call it Machiavellian.

[Colonâ„¢]

Yes, that matches this description by Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Legalism, school of Chinese philosophy that attained prominence during the turbulent Warring States era (475-221 BC) and, through the influence of the philosopher Han Fei-tzu, formed the ideological basis of China's first Imperial dynasty, the Ch'in (221-206 BC). (see also Index: Ch'in dynasty)
The Legalists believed that political institutions should be modelled in response to the realities of human behaviour and that men were inherently selfish and short-sighted. Thus social harmony could not be assured through the recognition by the people of the virtue of their ruler, but only through strong state control and absolute obedience to authority. The Legalists advocated government by a system of laws that rigidly prescribed punishments and rewards for specific behaviours. The Legalists stressed the direction of all human activity toward the goal of increasing the power of the ruler and the state. The brutal implementation of this policy by the authoritarian Ch'in dynasty led to that dynasty's overthrow and the permanent discrediting of Legalist philosophy in China.

The article in Wikipedia seem to describe features that shed quite a different light on legalism though.

Is that "A Concise History of China" published by Cambridge?