Meng Xianzi said:
“A family that keeps a team of four horses for chariots should not concern itself with raising chickens and pigs for profit;
a household entitled to cut ice for ancestral rites should not raise cattle and sheep for gain;
a state possessing a hundred war chariots should not employ ministers who amass wealth through exploitation.
Better to have a minister who steals from the treasury than one who plunders the people.”
This means: A state should not regard private profit as its true benefit, but righteousness as its true interest.
When those who govern a state are preoccupied with financial gain, it is surely due to the influence of petty men.
Though such men may appear to act in the state’s interest, placing petty men in charge brings disasters – natural and human – upon the realm.
By then, even the most virtuous individuals will be powerless to remedy the situation!
Thus it is said again: A state should not take profit as its benefit, but righteousness as its benefit.
孟獻子曰：「畜馬乘，不察於雞豚；伐冰之家，不畜牛羊；百乘之家，不畜聚斂之臣。與其有聚斂之臣，寧有盜臣。」
此謂國不以利為利，以義為利也。
長國家而務財用者，必自小人矣。
彼為善之，小人之使為國家，災害并至。
雖有善者，亦無如之何矣！
此謂國不以利為利，以義為利也。
Note
This passage from The Great Learning, through Meng Xianzi’s remarks, delivers a sharp critique of utilitarian governance that prioritizes wealth accumulation, and clearly articulates the Confucian principle: “A state should not take profit as its benefit, but righteousness as its benefit.”
First, Meng Xianzi uses three social ranks as metaphors: the higher one’s status, the more one must transcend petty gains. A high-ranking official or ruler has responsibilities that transcend small-scale economic pursuits like poultry or livestock farming – doing so would violate the ethical decorum assigned by ritual propriety. Especially for a “state with a hundred chariots” (symbolizing sovereign authority), employing “ministers of exploitation” – officials who enrich the treasury by oppressing the people – is utterly unacceptable.
Notably, the statement “better to have a thief than an exploiter” does not condone theft. Rather, it underscores a crucial distinction: a thief steals from the state treasury (limited harm); an exploiter steals from the people’s livelihood (systemic harm). The former damages public funds; the latter destroys the foundation of society – making the latter far more dangerous.
The text then identifies the root cause: when rulers obsess over “financial resources,” it signals the dominance of petty men. These individuals cloak exploitation in the language of “fiscal management” or “enriching the state,” while actually abandoning benevolence and righteousness, thereby eroding social cohesion. Once the people are exhausted and alienated, even the most capable virtuous ministers cannot reverse the collapse – highlighting the irreversible consequences of moral decay in governance.
As Zhu Xi emphasizes in his Collected Commentaries on The Great Learning, this passage deepens the earlier teaching that “virtue is the root; wealth is the branch.” Prioritizing profit over righteousness inverts this order and inevitably leads to chaos. Only by taking righteousness as true benefit can a ruler win the people’s hearts, preserve the state, and achieve lasting peace. Thus, “taking righteousness as benefit” is not mere moral idealism – it is practical political wisdom essential for regime survival.
Leave a Reply