It was said that, “the basic unit of society, for Confucius, is the family, not the individual, as modern Western philosophers basically extol” (Rex Rola, Dec. 10, 2012, Etiquette to Ethics). Basically, it is the family, which a person must first accomodate and be concerned of. It is where the practice of the virtues starts. In other words, Confucius tells us that, it must be the main priority of an individual for that is his/her foreground, not his/her self, nor the state he/she belongs.
Yes, the family, according to Confucius must be given what is due to it which is to be put first before anything else, even before one’s self in terms of preferences. One’s desires must come after that of the family’s; if you are to like something, as for Confucius, you must succumb such and wait if it is also what your family likes. And if it just so happens that your family is not in favor to that of what you like, allow their way to prevail for they ought to be given precedence to. Yes, the family must also be highlighted over that of the society or the state. Although this one somehow sounds superficial, the thing is, even in the face of the law of the state, one must still adhere and stand by the family. Typically, it would appear to be some sort of unjust favoritism that even if, for example, your father has been immoral for killing a man, you must still pay adherence to him, but it doesn’t mean that you must look at him as if he didn’t do anything bad at all. Yes, there is still the recognition of that of the wrongdoing of one’s family, but it must not, as Confucius suggested, to be done in public; as much as possible it must be concealed within the realms of the family, and somehow the judgement must be done by the family, not by the State. With that, we can show that the family is elsewhere our primary priority which comes first before our allegiance to ourselves and to that of our society.
Speaking that of the society, Confucius defined it as “a family written-large” (12:5). The State here then is considered to be a big family which consists of leaders and fellow people which is analogous to that of the parents and the siblings of the family. The leaders, like the familial parents, must take charge of the people and their concerns; sustenance, security, morality, rights and so on. As how Confucius would put it: “He likes what the people like and dislikes what the dislike” (T G L, chap. 10). In other words, the ruler must not see his title as a an opportunity (to take up power), but rather as a responsibility to that of the people; he must sympathized others than his self. The people of the state then, in return must adhere to that of the ruler; they must pay respect for his service to them. They must not abuse such kind act of the ruler and must abide to his leadership like the children (or siblings) of the family would do to their parents. Here, we can see that, in dealing with the society, just like that of the family, one must prioritize others than his/her self. He/she must not be selfish and therefore, must prefer the good of the others; the many instead of his/her own one self. But nevertheless, this one must not be misinterpreted as selflessness, because the latter somehow describes a total deterioration of one’ self, and how can one serve others if he/she will not secure his/her self? The key here about prioritizing others then is to make others as the ‘ends’, not the ‘means’; they must be the receiving end, not us. If one is to think first for his/her self, he/she must do this because it is for the others, and not for his/her own good. With that, it is the others; the family’s and the state’s way must prevail, and not of one’s own, selfish preference.
Now, since the state is a family, it must then be molded or formed by the virtues and not by the law or coercion (or simply force). The task then of the ruler here, as the ‘parent’ of the State, is to become firm in some way that he makes an example to that of the people, and as an example, he is to guide them to that of what the virtues suggest; and not to that of the law. In other words, he must be still with the virtues, as the ruler, for the people who tend to lost their way will find reference in him. Although ‘still’ here means not that of doing nothing; being nothing. ‘Still’ here means to stay consistent to that of promoting and valuing the virtues as suggested to that of the characteristics of a superior man. As what Confucius said: “Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety (li), and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right.” (Analects 2:3). Why would the people then lost there sense of honor and shame in the case of the law? Well, perhaps, because the law only motivates their outside being through the use of punishments and reinforcements. It is like their bodies are just the only ones which were regulated and not their internal essence as a person. Unlike that of the virtues which regulate an individual, not only from the hand to the foot, but also the heart, the mind, and the soul. Such can then be regulated by the ruler in his being a role model. The people will pay adherence to him, not because of any punishments, but because he sets as their primary example on how to become a true human person. Thus, it is then the virtue which should primarily be adhered to, not the law. As what the popular statement goes: “If it is legal, it doesn’t mean it is therefore moral”.
Such kind of ruling that is fabricated in accordance to the virtues then identifies that the ideal ruler must be a sage-emperor; a philosopher-king. Philosopher in a sense that he instills the moral virtues in his headship to that of the people and of course, of himself. A king, in the sense that he creates, not necessarily a prestige image, but an influential character to that of the people that encourages them to follow his virtuous example. As what Confucius said: “In your government what is the need of killing? If you desire what is good, the people will be good. The character of a ruler is like a wind and that of the people is like grass. In whatever direction the wind blows, the grass always bends.” [Analects 12:19]
The philosophy here then of Confucius in specifying the solution is the notion of seeking out what is good for others; from the family to the people of the state, in such a way that it is appropriate and righteous. It is not to be selfish in such a way that one forgets his primary responsibilty is for the people’s sake. The Master here tries to instill to us the values of seeing others, families or even non-families, as our primary concern here in living out this life of ours. But then again, it must be abided from the true human propriety and righteousness. Even if it is for the good of the people, if it is not morally appropriate and righteous, it must not be tolerated. Therefore, such valuing then must still stick to that of the moral values as given in the character of an ideal man.
(REFERENCES ARE TO BE UPDATED)
No comments:
Post a Comment