3/24 Chinese philosophy debate - LEGALISTS UNITE!!!
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 2, 2009 at 5:43 am #4994
Rob_Hugo@PortNW
KeymasterLEGALISM team members, feel free to strategize here by replying to this post.
1. Josef Davidman
2. Ana de Castro
3. Sharron Gregg
4. Karen Ringewald
5. William Salinas
6. Martha Seeger
7. Cheryl WatsonMarch 21, 2009 at 8:21 am #28869Anonymous
GuestHas anyone started to think about this? I'm lining my arguments to defend, but could use some input. I'm not the most aggressive person, but I do believe that laws are necessary. It is unfortunate that many of us don't seem to be able to display the compassion it would take to live without them. Witness the devotion to religion that so many people feel necessary to live life correctly.
The fear of poverty the Legalists keep bringing up must have been overwhelming during those times. It is true that when a group cannot provide for itself that compassion for others takes a back seat. After all, we are animals, so it's survival first, then compassion. One can understand that when all around is nothing but groups trying to get what you have and enslave you, you become focused on defense. Legalism came to be during such a time.
The bureaucracy that developed was efficient if impersonal. Still, it gave an overview of the entire situation which could encompass many individual needs. Perhaps this is its underlying beauty.
Any thoughts?
March 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm #28870GuestI like the Legalist philosophy of education and I think it is as pertinent in our present era as it was in the Warring States period. As I understand it, Legalists believe a person must be well educated, although great care must be taken in deciding what standards should be prescribed. If students study too much rhetoric, they will become contentious and occupy themselves with debates and pretentious words. This would create a society in which lawyers are more influential than teachers, which would lead to chaos! Citizens will argue their own philosophies and become estranged from the ruler. They will become disloyal and will not focus on agriculture or other necessary industries or occupations. Ultimately, our states will grow weak (Shang Yang, p. 41, section 5).
On the other hand, Legalists would likely support Obama’s proposition for merit pay because it rewards favorable teacher actions (and student test results) with a reward. This will result in educational prosperity for teachers who maintain appropriate performance levels. Less prosperous teachers may transition into other fields, which will benefit all parties.
March 23, 2009 at 8:38 am #28871GuestIf you read EWP on page 47, it appears as though the stability of the Han dyasty
caused China to unite and increase its population. I believe that these gains
in the Han dynasty were directly due to the legalistic nature of the government.If you read pages 270-271, Ming Taizu "wanted a world in which everyone obeyed their
superiors and those who committed evil acts were promptly punished.
In order to alleviate the weight of government exactions on the poor, he ordered a
full-scale registration of cultivated land and population so that labor service
and tax obligations could be assessed more fairly. Taizu called for the drafting
of a new law code and took it through five revisions. He had legal experts compare every
statute in it to the Tang code in his presence, but he made the final decisions."To answer the first question, "Are people fundamentally good?"
I would respond by saying that legalists felt that they would be good if they have
laws that govern their behavior.To answer the second question, "How Should Children be Raised and Educated?
What should They be Taught?"
I would respond to this by saying that legalists felt that children should be schooled
in the classics and poetry of Chinese (Mandarin) literature. The Civil service exam would
determine who worked in government positions.To answer the third question, "How should society be governed? Who Should Rule? What goals should the
government seek to achieve?"
I would respond to this by saying that Emporers should rule.To answer the fourth question, "Desribe the Perfect Society."
Legalists would probably respond by saying their would be a preference for
all things Chinese and limited influence from the West since it might "corrupt"
Chinese society morals and ideals.I wrote additional notes on this but this is the beginning of what I will opine during
our debate.Cheryl Watson
March 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm #28872GuestThe country will be strong if it’s citizens are strong and wise, therefore the government must carefully train each citizen. To do this, we must set up a clear system of rewards and punishments, thus we “will make the people first do what they hate, in order, thereafter, to reach what they desire…(Shang Yang)”
In this quote, Yang seems to have unwittingly tapped into a primary tenet of the American dream; the notion that anyone, rich or poor, can transform themselves into a self-made (successful) individual. America stands true to the republican addendum, "You earn what you learn." Shang Yang and other Legalist philosophers seem to have planted the seeds for this idea in the third century B.C.E. Since people are naturally lazy, they must be moved to better themselves by a sense of reward.
LOYALTY:
Loyalty must be taught to the ministers and populace through a series of punishments and favors (the “two handles”). People should pay the utmost loyalty to the ruler alone. They cannot serve more than one master: “When one house has two venerables, its affairs will never prosper. When husband and wife both give orders, the children are at a loss to know which one to obey (Han Fei Zi, 43, section 8).”SOCIETY/GOVERNMENT:
A Legalist governing body does not consider humankind to be innately good.
When a sage rules the state, he does not depend on people’s doing good of themselves; he sees to it that they are not allowed to do what is bad…(p. 45, section 9). To inflict mutilation and death on men is called punishment; to bestow honor and reward is called favor (p. 43, section 4)[Edit by="jdavidman on Mar 24, 12:15:41 AM"][/Edit]
March 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm #28873GuestIt is noteworthy that the Mohists, although preceding Legalists chronologically, seem to have operated under some of the fundamental Legalist beliefs. In the section entitled "Information and Order," Mo Tzu says:
When the ruler is well-informed... he knows who is good and who is evil. With this knowledge, he will be able to reward the good and punish the evil. When the good are rewarded and the evil punished, the state is in order (34). Text
Although Mo Tzu lived from 470-391 B.C.E., his sentiments are echoed by the words of the famous Legalist, Han Fei Zi who lived from 280-233 B.C.E. and said:
When a sage rules the state, he does not depend on people's doing good of themselves; he sees to it that they are not allowed to do what is bad...(45)Text
This Legalist statement is clearly stronger than that of its Mohist predecessor because it points out that the government must take responsibility for making laws that will enforce what is right and punish what is bad. Legalist philosophy doesn't rely on a ruler to seek out the good and the bad of every individual. It would be nice if that were possible, but if a ruler must constantly seek out all good citizens and punish all wrongdoers, the empire will never be in order.
The Legalists realize that all people have the capacity for evil and laziness. All citizens must therefore be restricted from their bad tendencies.
March 24, 2009 at 7:05 am #28874GuestHi Everyone,
I have two quick thoughts-
First, Cheryl mentioned that the Han dynasty was stable, and she said this stability may have stemmed in part from the legalist form of government they used. I'm not sure this is the strongest argument to use since a major reason the Qin empire only lasted about 13 years was because his Legalist policies were so harsh. According to Ebrey the Han dynasty publicly repudiated the Qin dynasty, but kept some of its legalist "heritage of unified control." But, Ebrey goes on to say that Confucianism underwent a "revival" during the Han dynasty, so I'm not sure we should push the argument too far that the Han dynasty's success may be attributed in part of Legalism.
Also, one more suggestion about what a Legalist education might look like-- Legalists are very concerned about control and power, so I would imagine they would have a strong army corps-- Legalists are also very untrusting, so they might make the army a small, select group they could trust...
See you soon!
-Karen[Edit by="kringewald on Mar 24, 2:24:04 PM"][/Edit] -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.