Proto-Social Contract Theory in Ancient China | Philosophy of Mencius The Classical Liberal (儒家)

The regeneration of the inferior or degenerate races by the superior races is part of the providential order of things for humanity. Countries which, like China, are crying aloud for foreign conquest. Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor, govern them with justice, levying from them in return for the blessing of such a government, and ample allowance for the conquering race, and they will be satisfied. Joseph Ernest Renan is a 19th century French orientalist, philosopher, and an expert on civilizations, and his comment upon the race relations and the necessity for the white Europeans to invade and conquer the indigenous population to bring true knowledge and civilization may seem like an outdated expression that reflects the sentiment of the people in the colonial era. However, this is not the case, since even the modern philosophers, especially those in the university departments, overwhelmingly undervalue the philosophy of other indigenous populations and view them as not true philosophy, a sentiment which seems to be shared by the majority of the population. Their attitude, however, is understandable since this anti-eastern bias stemmed from the idea of oriental gospodism that dates back to the times of ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who believed that Asians were not capable of any form of government besides tyranny and used it to justify Alexander the Great's conquest of the middle east. Later thinkers such as Charles II, Baron de Montesquieu, a leading legal and social philosopher of the French alignment, who is best known for his theory of separation of powers, also shared the same view that Asians lack a desire for liberty. They instead believe that Asian governments are simply arbitrary, lawless, and without any concerns for property rights. Karl Marx, on the other hand, claimed that Asian economies relies too much on relations of production, which stem from their ownership of properties, and so came to the same conclusion as the other two. To quote Marx, Asia fell asleep in history. Subsequently, the western powers must artificially enforce progressive reforms, presumably through conquest and colonization. However, these colonial attitudes that reflect the white man's burden perception, which has been further bolstered during the age of European colonization, and subsequent chauvinistic claims can easily be debunked by further examining the contents of Mencius' work. In the previous lecture, we analyzed the proto-anarcho-communist philosophy of ancient China and their economic theories, so in this lecture, it is fitting that we further investigate the philosophy of Mencius, which stood in opposition to the agriculturalist positions. We will explore many principles that Mencius shared with classical liberal philosophers such as John Locke and Adam Smith, despite the colossal gaps between them culturally and chronologically. However, since classical liberalism has two main branches, one on economic philosophy and another one on political philosophy, Confucianism has many more contextual evidence than agriculturalism has, and has been developed by many scholars for more than 2,000 years. We will have to dissect this comparative philosophy lecture into two lectures, one on political philosophy and another one on economic philosophy. In this video, we will first define what is classical liberalism and its core tenets, and analyze how Mencius' core political ideas fit in this broad category. For these two comparative philosophy lectures, we must keep in mind that Mencius espoused his ideas nearly 2,000 years ago, before the Age of Enlightenment, so his ideas will not neatly fit in the category of classical liberalism. And yet, his Confucian political and economic philosophy shares many similarities to the ones that are championed by the likes of Adam Smith and John Locke, that it is worth taking a look at. According to Stanford Encyclopedia, classical liberals believed that liberty and private property are intimately related. They insist that an economic system based on private property is consistent with the individual liberty, allowing each to live his life in what he sees fit with his labor and his capital. They mostly agree that we will suffer deliberate constraint and restraint at each other's hands if there is no system of law limiting their powers over each other. Accordingly, they regard laws that prohibit these constraints as being conducive to, rather than destructive of, liberty. It is apparent then that, on any close examination, classical liberalism seems to even sometimes into competing visions between thinkers to thinkers. So despite what many may claim, we will see that Mancius' approach to government and the economy bear many similarities with the Western thinkers. Like Confucius, Mancius also believed that the role of government is to cultivate a virtuous citizenry. However, whereas Confucius discussed the theoretical frameworks of a just government and a just society, Mancius focused on providing practical guidance on government. Although his ultimate goal for society may not be freedom like what some classical liberals envisioned, for him, freedom is still such an integral component of being a virtuous person that, when he advised the rulers, he stressed a lot on giving more freedom to their citizens. Therefore, the process of cultivating virtue is by having a consistent policy of non-intervention in both people's economic and private affairs. For people to be virtuous, a degree of prosperity was required and so argued for a form of free trade, private property, ownership, and division of labor as we will see in the next lecture. Most people have already mistaken Mancius' advocacy in this step with an authoritarian regime of paternalism that the legalists touted. And yet, his beliefs do not remotely resemble those of a totalitarian. Instead, he advised the king as, Do not allow nets with too fine a mesh to be used in large ponds, so that there will be enough fish and pork rice for people to eat. Do not allow hatches and axes to enter the forest at all time, so that there will be enough timber for people to use. Mancius did not accept authoritarian approaches that the government frequently employed during the Warring States era. His sentiment on this is depicted in the story of a farmer in which a farmer, who was impatient for his crops not harvesting early, pulled out the sprouts, thinking it will help them grow faster. However, when his son went to the field to check on the crops, he witnessed shriveled up plants. Accordingly, just like how you cannot force a plant to grow, you also cannot force people to simply do better. Instead, you must provide the correct environment in which the people may flourish. He did not believe that any particular class of people possessed a certain virtue and it is instead accessible to all given that the environment is without commands or threats of punishment, which will hinder moral development. He emphasized this need for an ideal environment for everyone by commenting, Likewise, the state's first and foremost duty is to guarantee that the people will not get to live in a state of nature in which food and security are scarce. For Mancius, a person can only become virtuous when a person has their basic needs met, can grow in a fostering environment where people can learn manners and etiquette such as the Li, and be able to self-reflect. He remarked that it is hard to become wise and virtuous sages without possessing basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter or living in an environment where moral inculcation is difficult to achieve. Hence, in order for people to live in an environment where they can self-reflect and be social with others to produce prosperity, he believes the best way is by following the principle of non-interference laid down by Confucius. The government must instead practice human governance by reducing punishment and lessen taxation. During the Warring States period, many rulers were heavily taxing their subjects to the point of destitution to wage wars and profit from it. However, as this lecture will be focused on Mancius' political philosophy, we will analyze deeper into Mancius' economic philosophy in a later lecture. During the Warring States period, Mancius witnessed the governments of seven states attempt to bolster their power by waging wars against neighboring states and found this as morally repulsive. Men were forced to answer the call for service, and for an agrarian society like ancient China, if there was no one to tend the fields, this would be the fastest way to starve the mass to death. Without certainty for tomorrow, people constantly lived in an unjust environment and in consequence were unable to engage in moral cultivation. He aggressively condemned war, explaining, Thus, for those that wage wars for their profit at the expense of others, Mancius suggested that death is too light a punishment for such men. For Mancius, there is nothing that can definitively He claimed that if the government emphasizes too much on warfare, the citizens are bound to suffer. Hence, he proclaimed that to make a prosperous state for moral cultivation through warfare was like climbing a tree in search of a fish, meaning it is a futile act that rests upon the contradiction between the ideals and the actions. Therefore, like Manuel Kant who called for world peace and international collaboration in his 1795 essay on Perpetual Peace, Mancius urged the government to collaborate to better its citizens and be more like a parent who would not want to see their children suffer rather than like abusive parents who abuse their children. However, Mancius maintained that some war still must be fought, but it must be one that fulfills just ad bellum. Mancius categorizes just war in such that it lies not on how the war would benefit the king or his people, but on whether it will benefit the people of an enemy country. If a country is one in which people are exploited by the tyrannical government, and they are not in a situation where moral cultivation cannot happen, then Mancius reasons that people will welcome the siege by a foreign nation and will flock to states that cultivated prosperity and peace. To illustrate this point, imagine observing a family in which the children appears to be starving and are always coming to school wearing long-sleeved shirts to cover their bruises. We would probably do whatever we can by either taking care of these children in whatever ways we can, or by contacting an authority to step in to investigate the issues. Likewise, he believed that whoever wins the heart of the people will ultimately be the one who stands on the side of justice, or as Mancius says, a human and king has no match. Thus, unlike Machiavelli's teachings, he emphasized parental love more than discipline and regulations, and would rather believe that it is far better to be loved than feared if the ruler cannot be both. Like John Locke, Mancius did not believe the right of a government and the legitimacy of the officials is not self-evident and cannot be justified by its existence. To be in the position of authority, he or she must attain the mandate of heaven. In the Zhou dynasty, where Mancius has come from, the ruling class justified their jurisdiction by arguing that heaven, a higher power, gave them the right to rule, thereby making a theological argument for their tyranny. Mancius, however, found that this method of justification on government is problematic, because how are we supposed to determine what is and is not the will of heaven? Back in ancient China, many saw natural phenomena such as storms or a good harvest as evidence that decided whether the leaders were meant to rule or not. However, Mancius, like a modern day reader, saw that this is just simply the most unreliable and inconsistent way to decide on the right of the government. So then what is this mandate of heaven that Mancius endorsed, and how is it different from a theological claim? Mancius answered this question by stating that we must use the citizens as a measurement to indicate the mandate of heaven. If the government can make people content with their livelihood, then the will of heaven is appeased. However, if the government has failed to fulfill its obligation to its people, then the people have the right to remove it by overthrowing the government and replacing it with another one that will better serve its people. This proto-contractarian idea is something that Mancius introduced into Chinese political philosophy, and it is something that will be utilized by every revolutionary for the rest of Chinese history. Some people found this argument to be contradicting Confucius' argument on the need for social hierarchy. Confucius taught that in socio-political hierarchy, the ruler is respected as the ruler, while the subjects are treated as subjects. As a consequence, revolutions are seen as mere usurpation of power. However, Mancius disagreed with his teacher and instead contended that when the government abuses its power, it fails to be the government because it is hated by everyone. The official who abuses its power is simply a lone man who is resented by everyone. Therefore, if the people overthrow the government, they are now usurping the power of the state. Like Mancius, Locke believed that when public officials abuse their positions to further their aims, they forfeit their right to the position of power. In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke claimed a similar justification for overthrowing the tyrants by penning. When a person in power quits this representation, this public will, and acts by his own private will, he degrades himself, and is but a single private person without power and without will that has any right to obedience, the members owing no obedience but to the public will of the society. His position on the removal of an office is further elaborated in his conversations with King Xuan of Qi. When talking to Xuan, Mancius asked, if among your majesty's ministers, there was one who entrusted his wife and children to his friends and traveled to this distant state of Qiu, and when he returned, his friend had let his The king replied that he would abandon this minister. Mancius persisted and asked, if the chief warden is not able to keep order among the nobles, how shall one handle this? The king replied similarly to the last question, discharge him. Mancius then asks, if the region within the four borders is now ruled, then how shall one handle this? The king quickly changes this topic and did not answer the question, the implication being that the ruler should be discharged, kin to the minister and warden. After talking a little longer, Xuan asked if it is acceptable for the subjects to assassinate the ruler. Mancius replied, one who mutilates righteousness should be called a crippler. A crippler and a mutilator is called a mere fellow. I have indeed heard of the execution of this one fellow Qiu, but I have not heard of it as the assassination of one's ruler. While the idea of democracy is not explicitly presented in the book of Mancius, Mancius nevertheless still was largely concerned with the right of the governed, even if he did not go so far as to require their formal consent. More importantly, this mandate of heaven that the government possesses cannot be passed down to the next generation. Although he did not address any particular issues with hereditary succession, he still implicated that new administrators must earn their right to rule, meaning whatever that their forefathers did had nothing to do with the actions of the current administrations, and they get to not claim the credit for it. We will finish off today's lecture on the political philosophy of Mancius with his conversation with Wenqiang that illuminates his view on hereditary succession and the right to govern, both of which rely upon the contentment of the people. Wenqiang asked Mancius, is it true that Yao gave the empire to Xuan? Mancius answered, no, the emperor cannot give the empire to others. Instead, heaven gives it to him, and so the people give it to him. That is why I said the emperor cannot give the empire to others.