How do we become good? What is the process by which we acquire the virtues? We examine these question by focusing on some key concepts in Mencius’s account of moral development such as reflection and extension. This discussion also centers on Mengzi 1A7 and the famous “king and the ox” passage that has been the subject of much conversation and debate.
We are honored and delighted to be joined by Professor Bryan Van Norden, one of the world’s leading scholars of Chinese philosophy and author of numerous highly influential books and articles. Please check out his work at bryanvannorden.com.
Featured passage
Mencius 1A7, “The King and the Ox”:
齊宣王問曰：「齊桓、晉文之事可得聞乎？」
孟子對曰：「仲尼之徒無道桓、文之事者，是以後世無傳焉。臣未之聞也。無以，則王乎？」
曰：「德何如，則可以王矣？」
曰：「保民而王，莫之能禦也。」
曰：「若寡人者，可以保民乎哉？」
曰：「可。」
曰：「何由知吾可也？」
曰：「臣聞之胡齕曰，王坐於堂上，有牽牛而過堂下者，王見之，曰：『牛何之？』對曰：『將以釁鐘。』王曰：『舍之！吾不忍其觳觫，若無罪而就死地。』對曰：『然則廢釁鐘與？』曰：『何可廢也？以羊易之！』不識有諸？」
曰：「有之。」
曰：「是心足以王矣。百姓皆以王為愛也，臣固知王之不忍也。」King Xuan of Qi asked, “May I hear from you of the actions of Huan of Qi and Wen of Jin?”
Mengzi replied, “The followers of Kongzi did not give accounts of the actions of Huan and Wen. Because of this, they were not passed on to later generations, and I have not heard of them. But, if you insist, then may we talk about being King?
The King said, “What must one’s Virtue be like so that one can become King?”
Mengzi said, “One cares for the people and becomes King. This is something no one can stop.”
The king said, “Can one such as Ourserlves care for the people?”
Mengzi said, “You can.”
The king said, “How do you know that We can?”
Mengzi said, “I heard your attendant Hu He say,
While the king was sitting up in his hall, an ox was led past below. The king saw it and said, “Where is the ox going?” Hu He replied, “We are about to ritually anoint a bell with its blood.” The king said, “Spare it. I cannot bear its frightened appearance, like an innocent going to the execution ground.” Hu He replied, “So should we dispense with the annointing of the bell?” The king said, “How can that be dispensed with? Exchange it for a sheep.”
Mengzi continued, “I do not know if this happened.”
The king said, “It happened.”
Mengzi said, “This heart is sufficient to become King. The commoners all thought Your Majesty was being stingy [百姓皆以王為愛也]. But I knew that Your Majesty simply could not bear the suffering of the ox.”
王曰：「然。誠有百姓者。齊國雖褊小，吾何愛一牛？即不忍其觳觫，若無罪而就死地，故以羊易之也。」
曰：「王無異於百姓之以王為愛也。以小易大，彼惡知之？王若隱其無罪而就死地，則牛羊何擇焉？」
王笑曰：「是誠何心哉？我非愛其財。而易之以羊也，宜乎百姓之謂我愛也。」
曰：「無傷也，是乃仁術也，見牛未見羊也。君子之於禽獸也，見其生，不忍見其死；聞其聲，不忍食其肉。是以君子遠庖廚也。」The king said, “That is so. There were indeed commoners who said that. But although Qi is a small state, how could I be stingy about one ox? It was just that I could not bear its frightened appearance, like an innocent going to the execution ground. Hence, I exchange it for a sheep.
Mengzi said, “Let Your Majesty not be surprised at the commoners taking you to be stingy. You took a small thing and exchanged it for a big thing. How could they understand it? If Your Majesty was pained at its being innocent and going to the execution ground, then what is there to choose between an ox and a sheep?”
The king laughed, saying, “What was this feeling, actually? It’s not the case that I grudged its value and exchanged it for a sheep. But it makes sense that the commoners would say I was stingy.”
Mengzi said, “There is no harm. What you did was just a technique for (cultivating your) benevolence [仁術]. You saw the ox but had not seen the sheep. Gentleman cannot bear to see animals die if they have seen them living. If they hear their cries of suffering, they cannot bear to eat their flesh. Hence, gentlemen keep their distance from the kitchen.”
王說曰：「《詩》云：『他人有心，予忖度之。』夫子之謂也。夫我乃行之，反而求之，不得吾心。夫子言之，於我心有戚戚焉。此心之所以合於王者，何也？」。。。
The king was pleased and said, “The Odes say, ‘Another person had the heart, I measured it.’ This describes you, Master. I was the one who did it. I examined myself and sought to find my heart but failed to understand it. But when you discussed it, my heart was moved. So in what way does this heart accord with becoming King?”…
(Mengzi 1A7, Bryan Van Norden’s translation)
Some terms and references mentioned in the episode
- BIJAS Vegetarian Restaurant on the HKU campus
- Congee (zhou 粥 – a kind of porridge popular in Hong Kong dining halls)
- Justin Tiwald and Bryan W. Van Norden, Readings in Later Chinese Philosophy
- Bryan W. Van Norden, Classical Chinese for Everyone
- Reflection (si 思)
- Extension (tui 推)
- Hegemon (ba 霸)
- King (wang 王)
- Hegemonism (baquan zhuyi 霸權主義)
- Juwuba 巨無霸 (Big Mac, whose Chinese translation uses ba 霸, “hegemon”)
- De 德 (Virtue)
- David Nivison, The Ways of Confucianism (edited by Bryan Van Norden)
- Mengzi 7A45 (care with distinction, graded love)
- Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (the Neo-Confucian who refused to cut his grass)
- Arthur Waley, The Analects of Confucius (discusses si 思)
- Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
- Yang Zhu 楊朱
- Mengzi 3A4 (where Mencius suggests that those who “labor with their minds” should ruler over those who “labor with their physical strength”)
- Mengzi 2A2 (“pulling up the sprouts” — damaging nascent moral capacities by trying to do too much)
- Mengzi 6A10
There was a discussion on the podcast about Mengzi’s stance on treating animals. This passage is illuminating:
孟子曰：「君子之於物也，愛之而弗仁；於民也，仁之而弗親。親親而仁民，仁民而愛物。」
Mencius Said: The noble man is kind to animals but does not treat them with humanity. He treats people with humanity, but he is not intimate with them. He is intimate with his parents and treats people with humanity; he treats people with humanity and is kind to animals. (7A 45; tr. Goldin)
I do have a quibble however about the statement that ‘staying out of the kitchens’ serves to help the junzi maintain his compassion for animals. It is probably true that people who actually slaughter animals have their sprout of compassion wither away – as is attested by many reports of mistreating animals in the meat industry. But the junzi would do well to every now and then visit the kitchen to see what really happens there and to forced himself to consider whether his compassion for animals ought to have consequences for their treatment and the use we make of them.
Many politicians in office speak highly of human rights, but meanwhile condone secret prisons and torture, but they themselves stay away from those kitchens and talk light-heartedly about ‘harsh interrogations’. It would be good if they occasionally visited (unannounced) these sites to test their sprout of compassion.
King Xuan of Qi also should visit the kitchen, see how his people suffer from taxes et cetera.
If politicians don’t do this, they run the risk of becoming Marie Antoinette (1774-1792) who during a famine said: ‘If they don’t have bread, why don’t they eat cake?’ In the end, she lost her head – and that is the risk that King Xuan takes.
(By the way there is no conclusive evidence that Marie Antoinette actually said this).
Hi Carlo,
I think those are good points that most of us would accept. I wonder though if for Mengzi the ritual practices that involve killing animals for sacrifice are so fundamentally important that Mengzi thinks greater compassion for the animals might endanger what is actually an even more important value: that of living according to the rites. Now that might seem strange and maybe immoral given our modern sensibilities, and perhaps reveals just how different the Confucian worldview is, although I think many today are still quite sympathetic to the idea that certain ceremonies or practices carry a form of sacredness that cannot be outweighed by other concerns. But your point might stand anyways since perhaps there is a way to carry out the ritual slaughter more compassionately, while still preserving the rites. Perhaps the true junzi would have been able to carry this out.
To Richard’s point, I believe that is why “the gentleman stays out of the kitchen.”
How about this: Mencius is simply assuming that one eats animals (e.g. in ritual), and asking how a highly moral person can bear this. The answer is, by sufficient distance from the squealing. If we say this is to preserve the love of animals, that would be the love of beef and mutton.
There’s a tension with his idea that anyone can be highly moral if we take that to mean that society can afford to have everyone highly moral.
Maybe Mencius was half joking about the kitchen.
(I think this is the correct reading)