Meet Lord Shang, the pantomime villain of moral philosophy

Existential Comics has a nice exploration of different perspectives on charity, culminating with Ayn Rand's somewhat... special opinions. Pretty awful stuff, to be sure, but if there was a philosopher's contest for Most Likely To Be Booed In a Pantomime, it would hardly be a one-horse race. I'm not qualified to make a list of candidates, though do by all all means offer suggestions.

But I feel pretty confident in declaring that any such list has to include Lord Shang, Chinese politician of the 4th century B.C. I may have made a mistake in reading the Book of Lord Shang before reading Machiavelli's more famous The Prince, but put it this way : had they ever met, Lord Shang would have laughed in Machiavelli's big effeminate liberal girly face.

The thing to realise about extreme societies is that they usually do have some benefits to someone. If they didn't, they'd never get started. And so it is with Lord Shang. He actually had a number of principles that most modern people, except for the most extreme conservatives and liberals, would agree with enthusiastically. Before we look at what made him a heartless evil despot, let's see why he was a a nice guy who just wanted everyone to get along.


Lord Shang's liberal values : the lighter side of Herod

Prudence before precedent

While Lord Shang offers somewhat contradictory advice on this point, the basic gist of how a ruler should make decisions is one of practical necessity. Tradition should play little or no role in deciding which laws are suitable. Who could argue with the need to reform outdated laws ? No-one.

There is more than one way to govern the world and there is no necessity to imitate antiquity in order to take appropriate measures for the sate. Those who act counter to antiquity do not necessarily deserve blame, nor those who follow establish rites merit much praise.

Moreover, a ruler should in all things account not for their beliefs but for measurements. Though Lord Shang has some seriously off-the-wall crazy ideas of government, at least he wanted to respect the facts :

If the ruler controls the handle of fame and profit, so as to be able to acquire success and fame, it is due to the statistical method... Statistics is the true method of ministers and rulers and the essential of a state. For never yet has it happened but that a state of a thousand chariots that neglected statistics has come into a perilous position, and ministers and rulers that neglected method have experienced disorder.

More on the need to control fame and profit later. For now, in like vein, the social policies Shang describes are invariably meritocratic. All reward should be based on proven ability, as should all punishments be based on crimes and nothing else. Class and nobility would be effectively abolished.

The superior man... makes his appointments taking people's exertions into account and according to their merit, so that the balance between high and low is even. 

The way in which an intelligent ruler uses his ministers is by always giving them employment for merits which they have acquired, and by always fully recognising their exertions by rewards.

Now, a meritocratic system is far from perfect - there are a lot of subtitles to it. But at the basic level, it's undeniably better for rewards to be based on proven ability rather than creed or class. Taken only slightly further, such a philosophy demands something else it's hard to argue with :


Equality before the law

If society is to be meritocratic, it follows that even the highest officials should be subject to the law - the punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal. That's exactly what Lord Shang proposed.

If prince and ministers neglect the law and act according to their own self-interest, disorder is the inevitable result. 

Merit acquired in the past should not cause a decrease in the punishment for demerit later; nor should good behaviour in the past cause any derogation of the law for wrong done later. If loyal ministers and filial sons do wrong, they should be judged according to the full measure of their guilt.

Both the ministers and even the ruler himself must be subject to the law, and the law must actually be applied, not simply stated.

Only an intelligent ruler will not harm the law for the sake of self-interest. For if he speaks many liberal words, but cuts down his rewards, then his subjects will not be of service; and if he issues one severe order after another, but does not apply the penalties, people will despise [or rather they will not fear] the death-penalty. 

If a state is in disorder, it is not because the law is disorderly, but because its law is not applied.

It's pretty hard to object to the principle that no-one gets special treatment, especially the rulers (though there are many countries which make limited exceptions for this). A small caveat is that some people find the same punishments easier to bear than others, but the purpose of the text isn't to examine such nuances. The point is that there can't be one law for one group and another for another, nor can exemptions be made on the basis of favouritism. Again, there are many subtitles to this - absolute law is no better than tyranny - but the basic principle is clearly sound.


Against corruption

If everyone is equal before the law, it follows that corrupt officials need to be dealt with harshly - otherwise the whole common system is threatened. Well, Lord Shang was certainly no fan of bribery :

If it is not permitted to petition officials on behalf of wrongdoers, nor to provide them with food, then criminal people will have no patrons.

Selling power to inferiors is not proper for a loyal minister, but those who thus act do so for the sake of insignificant presents.

Likewise the ruler must be honest, lead by example, and cannot be exempt from the laws.

If the ruler has system, he will be a man of his word, and being a man of his word, the officials will not dare to commit any depravity.

An intelligent ruler is cautious with regard to laws and regulations; he does not hearken to words which are not in accordance with the law; he does not exalt actions which are not in accordance with the law; he does not perform deeds which are not in accordance with the law. 

If people are indeed sheep-like and easily led, the flip side of this is that honest rulers beget honest citizens : they can be led in the right directions as well as the wrong ones :

I have heard that the gate through which the people are guided depends on where their superiors lead. For people's attitude towards profit is just like the tendency of water to flow downwards, without preference for any of the four sides. The people are only interested in obtaining profit, and what they will do depends on what their superiors encourage.

Lord Shang was clearly of the opinion that people themselves don't matter as individuals, it's all about creating an orderly system. What's interesting about this is that this even applies to the ruler, who need not be anything special, and certainly doesn't need any kind of divine authority : it's strict obedience to the law that's important, not who's in charge.

Generally a ruler of men does not, in virtuous conduct, exceed other men, nor does he do so in knowledge, nor does he surpass others in courage or strength, yet the people, though they may have sages and wise men, they dare not plot against him; though they may have courage, dare not kill him; though they are numerous, they dare not over-rule their lord. The reason is that there is law....  If there is order, it is the families who make judgements; if there is disorder, it is the prince who makes judgements.

Although it's important that the ruler sets a good example, this isn't because he has to be a man of exceptionally good character. Instead, the system works provided that everyone, without exception, obeys the law and is punished for transgressions. The prince runs the country, but so as long as he obeys the laws, he doesn't matter very much. The system runs itself; the prince doesn't have to actually do anything but can leave everything to his subordinates.


Laws must be clear, uniform, and enforced

As is now obvious, Lord Shang as pretty damn emphatic about the importance of the laws. As we'll see next time, the proposed system of Legalism was to be ludicrously strict (hence his views on respecting the facts are somewhat contradictory). Nevertheless, some of what he says regarding the laws makes good sense :

Generally speaking, in administering a country, the trouble is when the people are scattered and when it is impossible to consolidate them. This is why a sage tries to bring about uniformity and consolidation. An ordinary prince cultivates the system of rewards and penalties in order to support his teaching of uniformity of purpose, and in this way his teaching has permanency and his administration is successfully established.

Again saying that laws must be the same everywhere, aiming at a homogeneous society. At least as far as everyone should be subject to the same laws, this makes sense. It necessarily follows that if you want everyone to obey the laws, they must know what they are. So first the laws themselves have to be clear, otherwise there's a risk of misinterpretation :

If there is a clear law, people will agree with one another, if there is an obscure law, people will differ from one another. If the former case there is order, the latter, disorder. 

When one has to observe ten rules, there is confusion : when one has only one to observe, there is order.

Now of course, in practise the law must be subject to interpretation and re-evaluation, otherwise laws are not in accordance with the necessities of the age, which Lord Shang himself would not approve of. Nevertheless, it's at least a laudable goal that the law should explain itself as much as possible, so as it can be properly understood and blatant misinterpretations are not possible. This is also necessary if everyone is to learn the laws :

There shall be no-one among the government officials and people of the empire who does not know the law, and as the officials are clearly aware that the people know the laws and mandates, they dare not treat people contrary to the law, nor dare the people transgress the law, as they would come into conflict with the law officers. All this originates from the fact that the law is clear, easy to know, and strictly applied. 

One should not make laws so that only the intelligent can understand them, for the people are not all intelligent. Therefore did the sages, in creating laws, make them clear and easy to understand, and the terminology correct, so that stupid and wise without exception could understand them.

Which is again very reasonable. Though of course in practise there may well be a need for complex laws, there's nothing wrong with striving for simplicity. And of course laws must actually be applied, otherwise no-one takes the penalties and rewards seriously. All this will create a harmonious, orderly society. While Lord Shang took the necessity of order wwwaaaaaaaayyy too far, he did offer an interesting insight into the purpose of laws :

If people control each other by law and recommend each other by following systematic rules, they they cannot benefit each other with praise nor harm each other with slander. They will become used to loving each other without flattery, and to hating each other without injuring each other... both love and hatred will be pure, which is the highest form of order.

So the law creates harmony not by crushing dissent, but by allowing everyone to live with their mutual disagreements. That echoes some very modern ideas of democratic societies (the weird comment about pure hatred notwithstanding).


That all sees okay so far... doesn't it ?

To summarise, Lord Shang appears to be proposing a firmly meritocratic system where social standing is no defence against criminal charges, where bribery is eliminated, facts are respected, the laws are simple and clear, the rulers honest and lead by example, and all the subjects of the empire live harmoniously by respecting the law. Sounds great ! There seem to be a number even of modern liberal democracies that don't respect these principles, that put politics before practise - if not all the time, then at least too often.

That's all fine as far as it goes. The thing is, and I can't stress this enough, Lord Shang was a massive dick. We'll see why in part two.