Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How are legalism and confucianism similar
Comparing legalism, confucianism and daoism
Legalism vs. confucianism two similarities
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How are legalism and confucianism similar
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization …show more content…
As an independent school of thoughts in order to distinguish itself among all Hundreds of Schools and set aside all past ideals and standards, the Legalists, first of all, believed in the inevitability of a constant change in society. As noted by Han Fei (d. 233 B.C.E.), “past and present have different customs”(101); at a “critical age” of the chaotic Warring States, “to try to use the ways of a generous and lenient government to rule the people,” is like trying to “drive a runaway horse without using reins or whip” (101). As a public defiance of the past, this fundamental believe in a changing world clearly draw the boarder between the Legalists and other schools headed by Confucianism, which was confirmed by Han Fei: “it is obvious that humaneness cannot be used to achieve order in the state” (102). It is not clear at this point whether it is rational for the Legalists to conclude that Confucianism is of no use to be applied in the current society. However, we should be able to say, as has been proven throughout the history, that Legalists were correct on their firm believe in change-to-fit. More importantly, those ideas had opened up the space for the Legalists to apply further …show more content…
Holding such a point and in their general rejection to the Confucianism, the Legalists are in another way implying that Confucianism thoughts could make people stronger intellectually. The reason why the Legalists would rather prefer weaker people is that they believe the sophistry of philosophers would bring confusion, idleness to the people. This is however never well proved in the text. Han Fei also pointed out that: “the way of enlightened ruler is to unify the laws instead of seeking for wise men, to lay down firm policies instead of longing for men of good faith”
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
During the Ming and Qing Dynasty, under the circumstance of which the absolute monarchy reached its peak progressively, two trends of thoughts appeared in China:
In the book Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, J. Budziszewski, approaches the question of government through nature and its limits. This book informs the reader on how natural law plays a role in answering political and ethical questions. This is done by review of four major philosophers and their works. In the following few pages we will focus on his review of Thomas Aquinas, and how his catholic faith affected his understanding of natural law as he understood the works of Aristotle.
In the first solution to the disorder of the civilization, the legalist answer was thought of. The philosophers behind this idea thought that “the solution, to China’s problems lay in the rules or laws, clearly spelled out and strictly enforced through a system of rewards and punishments” (Strayer 150). The underlying “sole purpose of the Legalism was to make the rule of the ruler longer for the Legalism [and] to regulate the behavior of each individual so as to establish a social order” (Ma 55). The legalist answer was a good idea because they felt a harsher government
There are three notable texts that depict societal law and order from three different points of view. These three texts include, Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, The Declaration of Independence, and A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While reading each of these, I noticed many similarities and differences among how these societies look alike and how the differ compared to one another. I think it is very important that we take a close look at the structure, purpose, and overall message of each of the texts to understand the deeper meaning behind what the author is trying to portray.
One type of analytical perspective is the conflict perspective which is the belief that conflict is fundamental and social life and cannot ever be resolved completely. Where laws are tools used by the powerful to keep others and check and keep themselves in power. Law enforcements of social control simply keep those who are not powerful in check with the laws established by those in power. The pluralist perspective believes that within a complex society every different social group will have their own set beliefs, values, and interests. Despite these differences most groups will agree that laws are beneficial. For this perspective laws are a peacekeeping tool for officials to settle disputes amongst society. It is assumed that all parties will agree with the settlement as it agrees with society’s views that law is a fundamental part of settling disputes. Another perspective is the consensus perspective, in which most of society agrees on what is wrong and right and various elements of society work...
In days of old, kings created laws in order to keep peace. Most of the laws were set for selfish reasons. As history progressed people felt that they were being ruled unfairly. So should laws even exist if there will always be someone who is receiving the “short end of the stick”? Is it not the purpose, of laws and rights, to help people live in a safe environment? This is the main purpose of laws; to keep order. The governments that we have today have so many laws because they keep trying to solve problems by creating more and more laws. There are even laws for creating laws. However, although they are supposed to be in the best interest of the people, laws limit their free will. Laws tell a person what they can or cannot do. Unfortunately, they are still essential because they keep most citizens safe. So therefore, set laws, although essential, limit the free will of people no matter how sophisticated or organized they are. To support this, the theories and opinions of John Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, and Plato will be presented. The first three of these philosophers lived at approximately the same time period and all support the essentiality of laws, although they limit free will. Plato lived much earlier but still has his own views on government and how it should be run. This paper will use their theories o...
The principle of rule of law is traditionally associated with liberal democratic ideals. It implies a particular relationship between individuals and the state, the essence of which is protection of individual rights by limitations on arbitrary state power. Such limitations are enshrined in the law and in legal institutions. This notion makes no sense in traditional communist ideology: law is a weapon of the state to use in exercising dictatorship. In 1978, however, Chinese leaders began to revive and develop important ideas and institutions of legality that had flourished for a brief period in the 1950s. The new Chinese legality acknowledges rule by law. Briefly this means, there
Throughout this paper I will identify and discuss five philosophers as well as their theories on the concept of the nature of law. The five philosophers that I will be discussing are as follows; John Austin, H.L.A. Hart, Lon Fuller, Joseph Raz and Thomas Aquinas. I will also be answering three key questions about each philosopher and their philosophy.
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
The central aim of this essay will be to support the legal-positivist that law and morality are strictly separable. In its simplest form many understand legal positivism to be the existence and content of law, which depends on social facts, and not on its merits. I will engage closely with the work of John Austin and his concept of law, which offered a developed and progressive piece of work from Bentham, focusing on Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) in order to demonstrate one of the earlier accounts of legal positivism. By exploring Austin’s theory of sovereignty, in which he outlines that in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizens show compliance, I will address the consideration that
Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli have spent their lives in assertion of which form of government is good and who should be ruler, what type of ...
The history and the evolution of what we know as law, has developed out of many different viewpoints and philosophies. It has been the result of the operational and manipulative aspects of public affairs, and also seems to be the creation of different philosophical systems. There have been many that have been innovators in this area of thought from political leaders and dictators, to others who were simple political idealists and philosophers. Through the wisdom and teachings of Plato, law has evolved into many different systems, and through this paper we will discuss the impact this particular philosopher had had on our modern system of democracy. We will also try to recognize that law will continue to evolve, as does man throughout history.
We see that the Monistic theory highly concentrates on the law in defining a sovereign. The law is considered as a set of commands which flow from a superior to an inferior.
Man has recognized the importance of justice in his society since the earliest of times. In order to serve justice, there has to be a law to settle differences among the people of the state. The history of law in relation to society reveals that humanity’s earliest efforts at lawmaking were prompted by the basic desire of self-preservation. Although engulfed by a society that necessitated such combinations as clans and tribes for protection, as well as for social and economic advancement, the nature of the individual led to the development of certain expressed general rights with regard to person and property1. Generally, these unwritten rules governing social and economic interaction recognized the right to defend oneself from injury as well as to enjoy property without outside interference. While sufficient for primitive societies, unwritten rules of social control were ineffective in a rapidly developing society. So, an effort was made to clarify them so that all the people would know their definitions, limits, and applications.