A Han Feizian Worry with Confucian Meritocracy – and a Non-Moral Alternative

The political philosophies of Kongzi, Mengzi, and Xunzi can fruitfully be understood as focusing substantially on politically relevant merit – and as having conceptions of politically relevant merit intertwined with their conceptions of morality and virtue. In short, on their account, politically relevant merit finds its necessary foundation in morally relevant merit. In critiquing this position, Han Fei questions four positions that must be true in order for the early Confucian position to succeed: 1) Politically relevant merit is necessarily tied to moral merit; 2) Virtuous individuals who possess the relevant moral merits can reliably be identified even by those who are not themselves virtuous; 3) Moral cultivation is actually possible; and 4) Those qualities that make someone virtuous can reliably be ascertained. This paper examines the worries that Han Fei has with these positions and offers up an account of Han Fei’s own account of politically relevant merit – a non-moral alternative tied to task specific competencies.

Han Fei and The Rule By Law of Legalism

One of the major philosophical schools that advocates for rule of law, is the combination of "laws", "his position of power" and " certain techniques" in Spring Autumn and Warring States period, that is the Legalism. In which "law" is the content of policies and ordinances governing; "certain techniques" is the strategic basis for carrying out the rule of law, including methods and tricks of appointment, dismissal, supervision, examination, penalty, "his position of power" is the guarantee and enhancement of the position and power of the feudal rule of law. Legalism was the voice representing the newly emerging landlord’saristocracy, fighting to eradicate the remnants of the old regime, establishing the central feudalism in China in 221BC.

The vital centre: understanding the concept of Yao 要 in the Han Feizi 韓非子

The eighth chapter of the Han Feizi is dedicated to the ways of “wielding power” (揚權). As the entire book attributed to Master Han Fei is arguably dedicated to the problem of power – establishing, exerting and protecting it from external and internal enemies, this section of the book is crucial for the entire text. The present article starts from the term “yao 要” and applies the method of conceptual history to this pre-imperial text. It intends to shed light on the conceptual associations between the survival of the State, the ruler’s position, the importance of a political centre, and the use of objective ruling techniques, within a newly conceived “political sphere” with its own laws and necessities. The paper then addresses the heritage of the Han Feizi to conceptualizations of politics during the imperial period, eventually considering the function of the ruler in Han Fei’s thought.

Han Feizi

This chapter examines Han Feizi. This text was named after Han Fei, a prolific philosopher who was executed on trumped-up charges in 233 BC. Although Han Fei is probably responsible for the lion's share of the extant Han Feizi, this does not permit readers to identify the philosophy of Han Fei himself with the philosophy (or philosophies) advanced in the Han Feizi, as though these were necessarily the same thing. The case of Han Fei and the Han Feizi is more complex because Han Fei was slippery. What Han Fei said varied with his expected audience, a point that scholarship has not always accounted for. Most of his chapters are addressed to kings; at least one, “The Difficulties of Persuasion” (“Shuinan”), is addressed to ministers; and for many chapters one can only guess at the intended audience.