6.26
Zai Yu asked saying, “I take it a benevolent man, even if he were told that another benevolent man were at the bottom of a well, would go to join him?”
The Master said, “Why should you think so? A gentleman can be broken, but cannot be dented; may be deceived, but cannot be led astray.”
宰我問曰：「仁者，雖告之曰：『井有仁焉。』其從之也？」子曰：「何為其然也？君子可逝也，不可陷也；可欺也，不可罔也。」
Notes
This passage from the Analects records the dialogue between Zai Wo and Confucius concerning ‘whether benevolence requires blind action.’ Zai Wo posed an extreme hypothetical scenario, to which Confucius clarified the dialectical relationship between benevolence and wisdom — true benevolence is never unquestioning obedience but a rational choice combining responsibility and discernment.
Zai Wo (also known as Zai Yu), a disciple of Confucius known for his eloquence and skepticism, asked:
“If a benevolent person were told someone fallen into a well needs rescue, would they jump in after them?”
Confucius replied:
“Why should it be so? The noble person would go to rescue, but not entrap themselves; they may be deceived at times, but never fooled by absurd falsehoods.”
Zai Wo’s seemingly tricky question actually touches the core issue of the boundaries of benevolence — does virtue require sacrificing rationality or even life? Confucius’ response clearly defines the principle of practicing benevolence: benevolence must be supported by wisdom, and responsibility doesn’t mean blind compliance.
This dialogue essentially illuminates that benevolent practice cannot be separated from wisdom — the truly benevolent must both courageously assume responsibility and avoid unnecessary sacrifice; both trust others and discern truth from falsehood. This conversation breaks the myth of ‘morality versus rationality’ and reveals the Confucian ideal of ‘integrating benevolence and wisdom’ in character cultivation.
Leave a Reply