Legalism is one of the six classical schools of thought in Chinese philosophy. It is a compilation of pre-existing ideas and systematically formulated by Han Fei, arguably the most famous Legalist. This school of thought is not concerned with morality or questions on how an ideal society should be. Rather, it is a pragmatic political philosophy that stipulates the use of law as a method for governing.
At the core of this school of thought is the belief that only a strong state can protect its people. And to achieve the state of strength, laws regulating the people and administrative techniques governing those in office are necessary. The ruler should also possess sufficient positional power to ensure strict adherence. It is totalitarian in
To the legalists, the human person is always self-interested, motivated by greed and short-sighted. (Chung-Ying) They will always see profit and avoid harm. Given this human nature, social harmony can never be obtained should the state follow an idealistic program to do good. Only strong state control and absolute obedience to authority can ensure social order and subsequent flourishing of the state. Thus, Legalists do not aim to change human nature for they believe it is unalterable. Instead, they want to effectively control the people’s behavior through a set of strict laws and regulations as well as a system of rigidly prescribed rewards and punishments for different behaviors so as to manipulate and employ them for the greater good – social
Hence, in the desperate attempt to attain social order in hope that this discipline and strength would prevent itself from being attacked by other states, pundits of the time advocated for rigid law as a method of governing. The product was a political foundation that bears semblance to what we know as totalitarianism in modern political theory. This school of thought is based on the pessimistic perception of human nature and then unavoidable circumstances.
A major loophole of the legalist school of thought is that the conditions might change in the future, and power, law and absolute obedience might not always work. The fall of Qin dynasty epitomises this Achilles’ heel. Nonetheless, the legalists’ response to this objection is that the golden age of humanity lies in the past and this was due to material circumstances rather than inherent goodness. In fact, there is simply no way of returning to it. What we can do is to learn from history and
Ideally, all through Occidental account, lawless types of administration, for instance totalitarianism, have been deemed as tainted by description. Therefore, in case the government essence is described as justice, and in case it is appreciated that regulations are the calming energies in the public matters of men (as certainly it at all times has been from the time of Plato called upon Zeus, the boundaries god), at that moment, the trouble of the body politic movement along with the acts of its residents occurs (Arendt 366-7). Actually, this dehumanizes them to some degree. This is for the fact that as a consequence of constitutional government ‘Lawfulness’ remains a unconstructive decisive factor in to the extent that it sets the boundaries to other than not capable of explaining the human’s actions’ intention force: the enormity, except as well the confound of rules in sovereign communities is that they merely notify what one is not supposed to, other than by no means what one is supposed to do (Arendt 367). For that reason, Arendt puts downs an immense store by Montesquieu breakthrough of the code of act ruling the deeds of both administration and the individuals under it: in a democracy-virtue, in monarchy-honor, and in totalitarian government-fear (Arendt
human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people—a state—satisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can specialize in their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society. States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Laws have an important role in maintaining order within society. Understandably, society comprises of different individuals with differing aspirations, beliefs, personalities, and merits – just to name a few. Allowing individuals to push their personal desires using resources available to them would not only lead to a disordered society, but also one that embraces injustice and prejudice. Laws are the common principles that guide the conduct of individuals in society while ensuring that society upholds the rights of everyone who is part of it. Such laws accrue as a resemblance of morality for entities in society to which all members are held accountable irrespective of their race, social class, or popularity. However,
Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today. In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. However, there is no guarantee of safety and protection from that same power which is granted to every other member of society.... ...
From man's natural condition to the state of society, there is hence a progression; but no innovation is involved. The sovereign who fails in his obligation to defend the rights of his subjects is no longer justified in his sovereignty and may be dismissed by his subjects.
...a provisional set of morals when the natural ones are absent. If no government was around to make laws, then these people would be free to do everything they´d like. Therefore, governmental influence in morals are not enough to create a sort of impact in people, but its minimal influence is enough for society not to become a source of chaos or evil.
With regard to the Han Dynasty, movement and religion seems all relate with the “naturalistic” and anti-authoritarian ethos. At that time, Taoism is a natural characterization of the ideology ‘behind any non-Confucian or anti-conformist strains of thought, which its inherent focus on ways’ (Wang & Chanzit, 2004). It results in that it has become a deeply malleable concept which defers to scholars of religion, in ancient Chinese society, to sort out ‘the conceptual limits of Taoist religion and baldly focus on what philosophical content can be extracted from the classical exemplars: Laozi and Zhuangzi’ (Wang, 2011, pp.107). For instance, ‘The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name’
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
At this point one can distinguish Black?s tendency to unite the opposites, especially evident in his concluding paragraph stating that if all the trends continue, humans are in the advent of a new society, which will be ?at once close and distant, homogenous and diverse, organized and autonomous, where reputations and other statuses fluctuate from one day to the next? (Black 133). The author predicts the future of law, its quantity and style as the meteorologist predicts the weather, observing the environment and making conclusions.
There simply is no alternate system of laws that can maintain the calm and peaceful environment for people of the world besides “law”. One can easily see the need for each and every nation to enforce its own set of rules. While all of the countries of the world have their own individuality – they all have one considerable feature which is a system of law. It has no significance what type of government is the command, the rules are all appropriate to the people in their community.
Law is the foundation of central structures of social life on which society’s integrity depends, which is why Petrazycki, Ehrlich and Habermas perceive it to be a key steering mechanism in society,
However, it is based on the natural human values which we all, Americans, Kabulistanis, British, Russian…etc, share. As Locke and Hobbes famously shared, every single human being is selfish to a certain degree. The reason we have been forming societies around the world and living right next to each other is not that we have lost our senses of selfishness. Rather, we have grown to learn that we cannot achieve a harmony and a peace individually, so we have agreed to put down our natural selfishness and to cooperate with each other to achieve those two necessities. If we are able to live and defend ourselves perfectly from any unwanted external influences individually, no man would be living within a fenced and limited society. Selfishness is a virtue we cannot fix. Therefore we need to construct a system of government that will limit harms resulted from our innate feature. A government plays a crucial role of carrying out necessary duties and judging who is right and who is wrong as most objectively as possible. Furthermore, Locke mentions another flaw with the human natures: bias. Not all cases in our world can be clearly determined as right or wrong by the laws alone. Each situation almost always does need an interpretation, and someone has to determine how the law will be applied, if necessary. Humans are not immune against subjective feelings: a single or