Song Keng was on his way to the state of Chu when Mencius met him at Shiqiu. Mencius asked, “Where is the Master heading?”
Song Keng replied, “I have heard that Qin and Chu are at war. I intend to see the King of Chu and persuade him to cease hostilities. If the King of Chu is not pleased with my words, I will go to see the King of Qin and persuade him. I believe I will find a favorable reception from one of the two kings.”
Mencius said, “I will not ask for the details for now, but I would like to hear your core intention. What approach will you take to persuade them?”
Song Keng replied, “I will explain to them that the war is disadvantageous to both sides.”
Mencius said, “The Master’s ambition is indeed great, but the terminology you use is unacceptable. If you persuade the kings of Qin and Chu with ‘profit,’ and they cease their armies because they are pleased with profit, then the soldiers of the three armies will also be pleased to cease because of profit. Consequently, ministers will serve their sovereigns with a mindset of profit; sons will serve their fathers with a mindset of profit; and younger brothers will serve their elder brothers with a mindset of profit. This means that the relationships between sovereign and minister, father and son, and elder and younger brother will ultimately abandon benevolence and righteousness, interacting with one another solely with a mindset of profit. Yet, a state that operates this way and does not perish has never existed.
On the other hand, if you persuade the kings of Qin and Chu with ‘benevolence and righteousness,’ and they cease their armies because they are pleased with benevolence and righteousness, then the soldiers will also be pleased to cease because of benevolence and righteousness. Ministers will serve their sovereigns with benevolence and righteousness; sons will serve their fathers with benevolence and righteousness; and younger brothers will serve their elder brothers with benevolence and righteousness. This means that the relationships between sovereign and minister, father and son, and elder and younger brother will abandon profit and interact with one another solely with benevolence and righteousness. Yet, a ruler who operates this way and does not achieve the True Kingly Way has never existed. Why must you speak of profit?”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius is the most classic and concentrated manifestation of Mencius’ “debate between righteousness and profit.” Facing the brutal reality of continuous warfare during the Warring States period, Mencius and the traveling persuader Song Keng demonstrated entirely different political philosophies regarding “how to stop a war.” Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- The Bottom Line of the Righteousness-Profit Distinction: Guarding Against the Disintegration of Social Ethics by “Utilitarianism”
Song Keng represents the typical utilitarian persuasion style of the Warring States period, believing that using “profit and loss” is the most direct and effective way to persuade kings. However, Mencius astutely pointed out that once “profit” is established as the highest criterion for state behavior, it will trigger a disastrous chain reaction. When relationships between sovereign and minister, father and son, and elder and younger brother are all tied by “profit,” moral ethics will be completely commodified, and human interactions will be reduced to naked profit calculations. Mencius believed that a society built on pure utilitarianism is extremely fragile and will inevitably collapse (“a state that operates this way and does not perish has never existed”). - The Political Utility of “Righteousness”: Morality as the Fundamental Bond of Society
Mencius is not unaware of the practical role of “profit,” but he firmly opposes using it as the starting point of politics. He advocates stopping wars with “benevolence and righteousness” because they represent the universal moral consensus of human society. When kings govern with righteousness and people treat each other with righteousness, social relationships are elevated from “profit exchange” to “moral identification.” This cohesion, based on intrinsic moral identification, is far more solid and enduring than external profit bindings. - The Ultimate in Motivation Theory: The Purity of Kingly Way Politics
Here, Mencius demonstrates an extreme “motivation theory” tendency. He does not care about the result of “ceasing troops” itself, but rather the “motivation” behind achieving it. In Mencius’ view, even if “speaking of profit” happens to bring peace, such peace is false and unsustainable because it does not touch the root of the human heart. Only by establishing “benevolence and righteousness” as an unshakeable political belief can the “Kingly Way” of universal submission be truly achieved. This reflects Mencius’ great character of steadfastly adhering to moral idealism in chaotic times and absolutely refusing to compromise with worldly utilitarianism.
宋牼将之楚，孟子遇于石丘。曰：“先生将何之？”
曰：“吾闻秦楚构兵，我将见楚王说而罢之。楚王不悦，我将见秦王说而罢之，二王我将有所遇焉。”
曰：“轲也请无问其详，愿闻其指。说之将何如？”
曰：“我将言其不利也。”
曰：“先生之志则大矣，先生之号则不可。先生以利说秦楚之王，秦楚之王悦于利，以罢三军之师，是三军之士乐罢而悦于利也。为人臣者怀利以事其君，为人子者怀利以事其父，为人弟者怀利以事其兄。是君臣、父子、兄弟终去仁义，怀利以相接，然而不亡者，未之有也。先生以仁义说秦楚之王，秦楚之王悦于仁义，而罢三军之师，是三军之士乐罢而悦于仁义也。为人臣者怀仁义以事其君，为人子者怀仁义以事其父，为人弟者怀仁义以事其兄，是君臣、父子、兄弟去利，怀仁义以相接也。然而不王者，未之有也。何必曰利？”
Leave a Reply