This week in class we learned about the Chinese philosophies of Legalism and Confucianism. Both were interesting by themselves and in the way that they contrast each other. Legalism and Confucianism don’t seem to have a lot in common about their views of the world and humanity. Although they are different, I noticed that they both have a fundamental belief. Society is built around that belief to direct people how to live.

Legalism has the fundamental notion that “the nature of man is evil.” The whole system of legalism seems to be set up around this belief. The laws are strict and harsh, and the people have no control or say in the political agenda of the society. This makes the government oppressive, and the emperor’s power is not limited by any other entity in the government. Everything is based on the law, and the only way to move up in society or government is to follow the law. Also, reputation is not valued in Legalist societies, and the reading implied that Legalists think forming friendships to gain power will only lead to corruption in the society. I disagree with this way of thinking. Legalism assumes the worst of humanity as a whole from the very start. The Legalists think that laws are the only way to turn humans good and “make crooked wood straight.” Legalism doesn’t even address the possibility that there is natural goodness in people. Even if people are born neutral, I don’t believe that all humans automatically default to evil rather than good when given the choice.

Confucianism is more in line with how I view the world. Confucianism implies the fundamental notion that there is inherent good in people, and the society just needs to be set up to bring that out of people. Confucianism has a lot to do with morals and shame to motivate people to do the right thing. From the reading, here are some of my favorite quotes from Confucius:

Excerpt from 44: “The humane man, desiring to be established himself, seeks to establish others.”

83: “You may be able to carry off from a whole army its commander-in-chief, but you cannot deprive the humblest individual of his will.”

23: “By nature men are pretty much alike; it is learning and practice that set them apart.”

With that said about Confucianism, there are still some things that I disagree with. One example is the use of the five relationships from the video we watched in class. They are “ruler to ruled,” “father to son,” “husband to wife,” “older brother to younger brother,” and “friend to friend.” All of the relationships except “friend to friend” seem to have a person of higher authority and/or social status and a person with lower authority and/or social status. It makes sense for there to be someone who is in a position that deserves a higher level of respect such as ruler, father, or older brother. Even still, these relationships seem to also carry a slight “know your place” kind of tone. Husband to wife bothers me especially because I don’t think a husband deserves more respect than his wife just for being a husband. I think husbands and wives deserve the same amount of respect, and wives probably deserve more respect than what they often get since they do so much that is not recognized by men in power.

One last point is that Confucianism reminds me of the Quaker belief that everyone has the Light Within. Confucianism does not seem to have Meeting for Worship or as much of a spiritual aspect, and Quakerism doesn’t come from the teachings of one particular person. Confucianism and Quakerism seem to operate in similar ways. The five virtues that Confucianism has (Courtesy, magnanimity, good faith, diligence, and kindness) and the Quaker Testimonies (Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, and Stewardship) are similar as well. They both rely on a person’s inner self to decide to do what is right.