Law and morals are closely related. We tend to overlook its practical role in consolidating states and controlling people. Confucius concentrated on ‘li,’ and its connection with’ren.’ The Legalist School focused more on the opposite end of the spectrum. It was the practical governing mechanisms law provides rulers. Legalist School of Thought can be divided into two main categories: the Legalist School as it relates to history, and the Philosophical Legalist functions of Law.
A major difference in the Chinese philosophy of Legalists is their view on history. Confucius and other Chinese philosophers gave great weight to the past. The “ancient ancestors”, who were regarded as the epitome of Chinese philosophy, gave legitimacy and authority. Confucius cites Bo Yi, Shu Qi, and other ancient men as examples of “ren”, while he refers to the Zhou early civilization as an example of “li”. Legalists, on the other hand, were hesitant to glorify or emulate the past. Han Fei expressed his frustration at the limitations we have in learning from the history. He lists “lacks of sufficient understanding” of the actions and reasoning of the wise kings (Harris, 160) in addition to different situations. This led to the Legalists’ emphasis on current context. Han Fei believed as the globe changed so must the guiding ideologies and perceptions. These will give way to newer philosophies that are more appropriate for the present. Even the Legalist School of Thought is a reactionary school to the circumstances at that time. The philosophy was developed during the Warring States Era in which multiple states competed to secure resources and maintain security. There is a natural desire to consolidate the domestic power of a state, because “nothing guarantees you will be able to control foreigners or nature” (Moody). Han Fei, the most famous Legalist of all time, was a Han that “reluctantly remained within the Qin sphere” (Moody). His state, at the time, was always playing between the Wei, Qin and other kingdoms. It is only natural to want strong control and sovereignty at home. “The circumstances…generated a desire for more order” (Moody 18). Legalist thought was based on this. Today, leaders in democracies are generally expected to have political agendas. The legalist view expects leaders to do the opposite. Legalists believe that leaders’ individual traits and qualities are not required to be a good leader. They maintain that authority and laws alone can sustain effective leadership, and do not depend on a ruler’s personal virtues or abilities. Han Fei explains the concept of ‘Way,’ a cosmic order which “provides the pattern of and rules for the universe” according to Harris (157). Han Fei asserts that the ruler should become the governing ‘Way.’ The ruler is to “take into account regular patterns found in nature” (Harris 157) and the basic selfishness of the human spirit. The ruler also needs to be distant, cryptic and mysterious. This is similar to the ‘Way.’ It is important that a ruler has an aura of mystery, so his rules can be seen as unalterable and inevitable. In general, the emphasis is placed on elevating authority. To achieve this, the authority of a throne is built independent of an individual. The throne has a Godlike aura.
Han Fei goes into more detail about how to also rule. The three main components of shi,shu andfa are examined. Shih refers authority, positional power and handling the public. Fa is law. Han Fei, a Legalist, stressed the importance of all three elements in a strong and efficient government. It is necessary to have authority in order to use shu. The fa is only effective if both shi (authority) and shu (law enforcement and social weight) are present. The ‘Way’ (or dao) must also be understood in order to justify law. Fa that does not comply with the ‘way’ or natural order of the universe, and whose constituents can’t naturally conform to it, is unjustified. This accumulated into an ‘infallible legalist’ method of government. Law, or Fa, should be founded on the lowest denominator. Rulers cannot rely on people’s virtue because they do not have a natural virtuous nature. Instead, people are self-oriented and ignorant about higher morals. To ensure no constituents can do anything wrong, rulers need to use fa. They should also support a law code that punishes and discourages socially harmful behaviour to reinforce state control. When conducting fa legalists became obsessed with promulgating the law, which often included harsh and explicit punishments. The legalists’ main goal was to “change the way in which people act on their own desires”, rather than changing human values and nature. In addition, shu taught that leaders should also adopt passive positions with regard to the law. They would then, through shu and shu alone, direct appropriate men into needed posts. Legalists insist on the need to specify the duties of officials. They say that the job title should reflect what the official is trying achieve. The ruler does not care about bureaucratic procedures of his subordinates, but only the results. It is enough to motivate officials by using a simple and strong system of punishment and rewards. Legalists believe that the system should be designed to punish incompetent people more than it rewards them. In this case, the role of the ruler was simple: hire and evaluate. The ruler was only interested in the consistency of the results and the intended goal.
The Legalist School aims to consolidate power and be practical. The Legalist School was created to satisfy a popular desire during the Warring States period, which is reflected in their belief that government should be based on the situational circumstances. A Legalist government prefers an authority-like ruler who is distant. Legalist leaders should rely on bureaucratic systems to maintain impartial interest in the majority. The shi system is strengthened by a punishment-based fa-shu system that reduces the ruler’s lability while enhancing the “Godlike” aura around the position.
