What’s the best way to fight corruption: harsh laws and fear of punishment, or rituals and moral transformation? In this episode we discuss a deep disagreement that takes its inspiration from the political philosophies of the Confucian philosopher Xunzi and the Legalist philosopher Han Feizi. We are also happily joined by Professor Daniel Bell of the University of Hong Kong, one of the world’s leading experts in Chinese political thought. Bell reimagines the views of Xunzi and Han Feizi in his book Why Ancient Chinese Political Thought Matters: Four Dialogues on Chinese Past, Present, and Future. There he stages he stages the debate as a dialogue between a modern-day Professor Xun and his student Han Fei, set against the backdrop of the recent anti-corruption campaign in the People’s Republic of China. The conversation ranges from the psychology of rewards and punishments to meritocracy, institutional design, the question of whether good governance can ever be decoupled from good character, and whether Confucians might be the true realists after all.

Key passages

     First passage: Han Fei’s argument for prioritizing law (fa 法) over ritual

Han Fei: We need good laws, not good people. “When a sage governs a state, he does not wait for people to be good in deference to him. Instead, he creates a situation in which people find it impossible to do wrong. If you wait for people to be good in deference to you, you will find that there are no more than ten good people within the borders of your state. But if you create a situation in which people find it impossible to do wrong, the entire state can be brought into compliance. In governing, one must use what is numerous and abandon what is scarce. Therefore, the sage does not work on his virtue, he works on his laws.”

(Daniel A. Bell, Why Ancient Chinese Political Thought Matters, chapter two, 75; quoting from Joel Sahleen’s translation of the Han Feizi, 357)

     Second passage: Xun’s argument for prioritizing ritual (li 禮) over law

Xun: …If we care about long-term effectiveness, the only way to combat corruption is to make people more public-spirited and sensitive to the suffering of others. If our government officials are more public-spirited, they will be more willing to serve the public and less likely to misuse public resources for their own selfish purposes. How to change the motivation of public officials so they care more about the public interest? Again, the best mechanism is to change them via social rituals that have proven to be effective for that purpose. That’s why I emphasize rituals involving proper treatment of the dead. The dead, for obvious reasons, are the least capable of protecting their interests. They are, quite literally, the worst off of the worst off. Hence, those with power—the living—need to be trained by means of certain rituals to treat them with love and respect. It is important to adorn the corpse because, “if the corpse is not adorned, it becomes hideous, and if it is hideous, no grief will be felt.” The corpse must be gradually moved further away each time it adorned because “if it kept close at hand, one begins to scorn it; when having it close at hand makes it the object of scorn, one begins to weary of it; when one wearies of it, one forgets one’s duty to it; and if one forgets one’s duties, then one no longer shows proper respect.” The ritual should be gradually phased out so that it allows for a smooth transition to everyday life, “whereby he cares for the needs of the living.” The moral effect is clear: if the ritual is done properly, it cultivates an altruistic outlook—the living care for the dead, and the dead cannot reciprocate; it’s a pure form of caring for others. Then altruism can be extended to those who need care in the world of the living. We can be sure that public officials who undergo such rituals will care for the people and not be corrupt!

(Daniel A. Bell, Why Ancient Chinese Political Thought Matters, chapter two, 105-106; quoting from John Knoblock’s translation of the Xunzi, volume II, 623-25)

Sources and phrases mentioned

• Daniel A. Bell’s professional page
• Daniel A. Bell, Why Ancient Chinese Political Thought Matters: Four Dialogues on China’s Past, Present, and Future
• Xunzi 荀子 (third century BCE)
• Han Feizi 韓非子 (c. 280-233 BCE)
• Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), the Italian theorist of punishment that Justin mentioned
• Martin Hoffman, psychologist who writes on empathy
• Legalism (Fajia 法家,the School of Institutional Standards or Rules)
• jiuliang 酒量, alcohol tolerance, drinking capacity
• baijiu 白酒, a very strong liquor
• Shang Yang 商鞅, a.k.a. Lord Shang 商君 (c. 390-338 BCE), an early Legalist philosopher
• Peter Singer, present-day moral philosopher
• Olivia Milburn, a great translator and scholar of Chinese literature
• Tao JIANG, Origins of Moral-political Philosophy in Early China (in the conclusion to this book, Jiang suggests that Legalism could be combined with Daoism to justify institutional protections of basic liberties)
• hegemon (ba 霸), a non-ideal ruler that Xunzi talks about and thinks is sometimes justified
• Philippa Foot, Natural Goodness (talks about the anthropologist who honored his agreement not to photograph the indigenous people that he studied, p. 32)
• liyue 禮樂, ritual and music
• The Mencius, also known as the Mengzi (Chinese, English), attributed to Mencius (Mengzi 孟子, 372-289 BCE)
• Bai Tongdong 白彤东, present-day philosopher who offers more charitable readings of Han Feizi and Legalism
• Qin dynasty (221-206 BCE), short-lived dynasty that was quite Legalist in character
• Qin Shi Huang 秦始皇 (259-210 BCE), the founder of the Qin dynasty and the first emperor of China
• Shen Dao  慎到  (c. 350-275 BCE), discussed in episode 29
• xian 賢 (worthiness, virtuous character) vs. cai 才 (talent)
• Elliot Turiel, The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention (describes studies showing that young children naturally distinguish between conventional rules and [non-conventional] moral rules. Justin wrongly attributed these studies to Paul Bloom)
• Peter F. Strawson, “Freedom and Resentment” (discusses the “reactive attitudes” that Richard mentioned)
• Yuri Pines, a leading scholar of classical Chinese political thought (and translator of Legalists texts)