Everyone in the world says that the ways of filial piety, fraternal duty, loyalty, and obedience are right, yet no one truly examines them and puts them into practice with care. That is why the world falls into disorder. Everyone says that the ways of Yao and Shun are right and takes them as models, and this is precisely why there have been ministers who kill their rulers and sons who betray their fathers. Yao, Shun, Tang, and Wu sometimes violated the proper duties between ruler and minister and confused the teachings of later ages.
Yao was a ruler, yet he treated his minister as if he were his equal. Shun was a minister, yet he made his ruler submit to him. Tang and Wu were ministers, yet they killed their sovereigns and punished their bodies, and the world praised them. This is why the world has remained disordered to this day.
A truly enlightened ruler is one who can keep his ministers under control. A truly worthy minister is one who clarifies laws, performs official duties well, and supports his ruler. Yet Yao considered himself enlightened but could not control Shun; Shun considered himself worthy but could not support Yao; Tang and Wu considered themselves righteous yet killed their rulers. Thus, so-called enlightened rulers often yielded their positions, and so-called worthy ministers often seized power. That is why even today there are sons who take their fathers’ households and ministers who take their rulers’ states. For a father to yield to his son, or a ruler to yield to his minister, is not the way to fix ranks and unify moral instruction.
What I have heard is this: “A minister serves his ruler, a son serves his father, and a wife serves her husband. When these three relations are orderly, the world is governed; when they are reversed, the world falls into chaos. This is the constant way of the world.” Enlightened rulers and worthy ministers do not change this principle. If it is not changed, then even if a ruler is unworthy, his ministers will not dare to encroach upon him.
But today the world honors worthies, employs the clever, and abandons fixed principles. This goes against the constant way, yet people commonly regard it as good government. That is why the Tian clan seized power from the Lü clan in Qi, and the Dai clan seized power from the Zi clan in Song. These men were talented and intelligent; they were not stupid or unworthy. Hence, to discard the constant way and exalt worthies brings disorder; to abandon law and rely on cleverness brings danger. Therefore it is said: “Exalt law, not worthies.”
An old record says: “When Shun saw his father Gu Sou, his manner became uneasy. Confucius said, ‘At that time, how dangerous it was! The world stood on the brink. For a man of the Way, a father cannot truly treat him as a son, nor can a ruler truly treat him as a minister.’”
I say that Confucius did not truly understand the way of filial piety, fraternal duty, loyalty, and obedience. If that were so, would a man of the Way, when serving at court, cease to be a minister, and when at home, cease to be a son?
A father desires a worthy son because, when the family is poor, the son can enrich it, and when the father suffers, the son can bring him joy. A ruler desires a worthy minister because, when the state is disordered, the minister can bring it order, and when the ruler is humbled, the minister can restore his honor. If a worthy son does not serve his father, the father’s life at home becomes painful. If a worthy minister does not serve his ruler, the ruler’s position becomes dangerous. In that case, having a worthy son or a worthy minister would only bring harm. How could it bring benefit?
A loyal minister does not endanger his ruler. A filial son does not speak against his parents. Yet Shun used his worthiness to take his ruler’s state, and Tang and Wu used their righteousness to exile and kill their rulers. All of them endangered their sovereigns through their supposed worthiness, yet the world called them worthy.
The “resolute men” of antiquity would not serve as ministers to their rulers and would not care for their families. Thus, at court they rejected their rulers, and at home they rejected their parents. This is the way to disorder and to cut off one’s lineage. To praise Yao, Shun, Tang, and Wu, and to approve such resolute men, is to follow a path that brings disorder to the world.
Gu Sou was Shun’s father, yet Shun exiled him. Xiang was Shun’s younger brother, yet Shun killed him. To exile one’s father and kill one’s brother cannot be called benevolence. To marry the two daughters of the emperor and thereby gain the world cannot be called righteousness. If one lacks benevolence and righteousness, one cannot be called enlightened.
The Book of Poetry says: “Under the whole heaven, every spot is the sovereign’s ground; to the borders of the land, every individual is the sovereign’s minister.” If this were truly so, then when Shun went out to court he treated his ruler as a minister, and when he returned home he treated his father as a minister, his mother as a servant, and the ruler’s daughters as his wives.
Thus the so-called resolute men, within the family, do not care for their households; in society, they bring disorder and cut off their lines. Externally, they defy their rulers. They do not shrink from having their bones and flesh rot in the fields or flow into rivers and valleys, nor do they fear fire and water. If the world imitates them, people everywhere will rush toward premature death. These are men who abandon the world rather than seek to govern it well.
The men whom the world calls resolute stand apart from the crowd, seek to be different, pursue teachings of detachment, and deal in vague and elusive words. I believe that detachment is a useless teaching, and that elusive words are teachings without law. Yet the world regards such lawless speech and useless teachings as profound insight.
In life, a person must serve his ruler and support his parents. Serving one’s ruler and supporting one’s parents cannot be done through detachment. When guiding the people, one must speak of loyalty, trustworthiness, and the methods of law. Such matters cannot be discussed in vague and elusive terms. Elusive speech and detached teachings are only ways of confusing the world.
A filial son serves his father not to seize his father’s household. A loyal minister serves his ruler not to seize his ruler’s state. If a son constantly praises another’s father, saying, “That man’s father rises early and sleeps late, strives hard to produce wealth, and thereby supports his descendants and servants,” he is in effect slandering his own father. If a minister constantly praises the virtue of former kings and longs for their age, he is slandering his present ruler. Everyone knows that to criticize one’s parents is unfilial, yet those who criticize their rulers are praised by the world as worthy. This is the source of disorder.
Therefore, a minister should not praise the worthiness of Yao and Shun, should not glorify the campaigns of Tang and Wu, and should not admire the lofty conduct of resolute men. He should exert himself to uphold the law and devote himself wholeheartedly to serving his ruler. This is a loyal minister.
In ancient times, the common people were simple and dull, so they could be won by empty reputations. Today, the people are clever and intelligent; they wish to act on their own judgment and will not obey their superiors. A ruler must encourage them with rewards before they will advance, and deter them with punishments before they will dare to retreat.
Yet the world says: “Xu You declined the rule of the world, so rewards cannot encourage men. Robber Zhi violated laws and rushed into danger, so punishments cannot restrain men.”
I reply: Xu You was a man who did not possess the world and therefore did not care about it. Yao and Shun were men who already possessed the world yet did not treat it as a private possession. Robber Zhi was a man who destroyed integrity to seek wealth, broke laws to pursue profit, and forgot his own life in the face of death. These two kinds of people are extreme cases. The way to govern the state and employ the people should not take them as its measure.
To govern is to govern ordinary people. To provide guidance is to guide ordinary people. Extreme cases and subtle, elusive words are harmful to government. One cannot design rewards for the extraordinarily good, nor punishments for the extraordinarily bad, and then claim to have a workable system of governance. If rewards are not set for ordinary people and punishments are not applied to ordinary people, the proper way to govern the state and employ the people is lost.
Thus, many people today do not speak of state law but discuss Vertical and Horizontal alliances. Advocates of the Vertical Alliance say, “If the Vertical Alliance succeeds, hegemony will follow.” Advocates of the Horizontal Alliance say, “If the Horizontal Alliance succeeds, true kingship will follow.” The states east of the mountains never cease discussing these alliances, yet they achieve no lasting merit, no true hegemony, and no true kingship. Empty words cannot produce good government.
A true king stands firm in his own right. The Three Dynastic Kings did not seek alliances to rectify the world. The Five Hegemons did not wait for Vertical or Horizontal alliances to achieve clarity. They first governed their own states well, and thereby controlled affairs beyond their borders.
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 51 (Loyalty and Filial Piety) challenges traditional sage‑king narratives. It stresses unchanging hierarchical order, prioritizing law over reputed worth, and dismisses empty diplomatic vertical‑horizontal alliance theories.
A prince of the State of Han and the most systematic representative of Legalism in the late Warring States period. He argued that stable government depends on clear laws, rewards, punishments, and administrative methods, not on moral reputation alone.
Legalism:
A Chinese political tradition emphasizing law, state power, and practical administration. It is often contrasted with Confucianism’s emphasis on moral cultivation and ritual.
Founder of Confucianism. Han Fei criticizes him here for supposedly allowing moral ideals to blur the duties between father and son, ruler and minister.
Yao and Shun:
Yao and Shun were legendary sage-kings praised by Confucians as models of virtue and abdication. Han Fei treats their story as dangerous, because it seems to justify a minister rising above his ruler.
Tang and Wu:
Founders of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. Confucian tradition often praises their overthrow of tyrants, but Han Fei calls it regicide that threatens political order.
Gu Sou and Xiang:
Shun’s father and younger brother. In traditional stories, Shun remains filial despite severe mistreatment. Han Fei uses the story differently, arguing that Shun’s rise still disrupted proper hierarchy.
Tian clan replacing the Lü clan in Qi; Dai clan replacing the Zi clan in Song:
Historical examples of ministers or powerful families seizing power. Han Fei uses them to show that “worthiness” and “cleverness” can become excuses for usurpation.
Xu You:
Xu You was a legendary recluse who supposedly refused rulership. Han Fei says he is too extreme to serve as a model for governing ordinary people.
A notorious figure in early Chinese texts, used here as an extreme example of someone beyond the reach of punishment.
Vertical and Horizontal Alliances:
Warring States diplomatic strategies. The Vertical Alliance usually means weaker states uniting against Qin; the Horizontal Alliance means cooperating with Qin. Han Fei dismisses such debates as empty talk compared with internal legal reform.
Filial piety and loyalty:
Core Confucian virtues. Han Fei redefines them politically: a filial son does not seize his father’s household; a loyal minister does not seize his ruler’s state.
An early Chinese classic. Han Fei quotes it to argue that if all land and people belong to the ruler, then Shun’s story creates contradictions in family and political hierarchy.
忠孝第五十一
天下皆以孝悌忠顺之道为是也，而莫知察孝悌忠顺之道而审行之，是以天下乱。皆以尧舜之道为是而法之，是以有弑君，有曲于父。尧、舜、汤、武或反群臣之义，乱后世之教者也。尧为人君而君其臣，舜为人臣而臣其君，汤、武为人臣而弑其主、刑其尸，而天下誉之，此天下所以至今不治者也。夫所谓明君者，能畜其臣者也；所谓贤臣者，能明法辟、治官职以戴其君者也。今尧自以为明而不能以畜舜，舜自以为贤而不能以戴尧；汤、武自以为义而弑其君长，此明君且常与而贤臣且常取也。故至今为人子者有取其父之家，为人臣者有取其君之国者矣。父而让子，君而让臣，此非所以定位一教之道也。臣之所闻曰：“臣事君，子事父，妻事夫。三者顺则天下治，三者逆则天下乱，此天下之常道也。”明王贤臣而弗易也，则人主虽不肖，臣不敢侵也。今夫上贤任智无常，逆道也，而天下常以为治。是故田氏夺吕氏于齐，戴氏夺子氏于宋。此皆贤且智也，岂愚且不肖乎？是废常上贤则乱，舍法任智则危。故曰：上法而不上贤。
记曰：“舜见瞽瞍，其容造焉。孔子曰：当是时也，危哉，天下岌岌！有道者，父固不得而子，君固不得而臣也。’”臣曰：孔子本未知教悌忠顺之道也。然则有道者，进不为臣主，退不为父子耶？父之所以欲有贤子者，家贫则富之，父苦则乐之；君之所以欲有贤臣者，国乱则治之，主卑则尊之。今有贤子而不为父，则父之处家也苦；有贤臣而不为君，则君之处位也危。然则父有贤子，君有贤臣，适足以为害耳，岂得利焉哉？所谓忠臣，不危其君；孝子，不非其亲。今舜以贤取君之国，而汤、武以义放弑其君，此皆以贤而危主者也，而天下贤之。古之烈士，进不臣君，退不为家，是进则非其君，退则非其亲者也。且夫进不臣君，退不为家，乱世绝嗣之道也。是故贤尧、舜、汤、武而是烈士，天下之乱术也。瞽瞍为舜父而舜放之，象为舜弟而杀之。放父杀弟，不可谓仁；妻帝二女而取天下，不可谓义。仁义无有，不可谓明。《诗》云：“普天之下，莫非王土；率土之滨，莫非王臣。”信若《诗》之言也，是舜出则臣其君，入则臣其父，妾其母，妻其主女也。故烈士内不为家，乱世绝嗣；而外矫于君，朽骨烂肉，施于土地，流于川谷，不避蹈水火。使天下从而效之，是天下遍死而愿夭也。此皆释世而不治是也。世之所为烈士者，虽众独行，取异于人，为恬淡之学而理恍惚之言。臣以为恬淡，无用之教也；恍惚，无法之言也。言出于无法，数出于无用者，天下谓之察。臣以为人生必事君养亲，事君养亲不可以恬淡；之人必以言论忠信法术，言论忠信法术不可以恍惚。恍惚之言，恬淡之学，天下之惑术也。孝子之事父也，非竞取父之家也；忠臣之事君也，非竞取君之国也。夫为人子而常誉他人之亲曰：“某子之亲，夜寝早起，强力生财以养子孙臣妾。”是诽谤其亲者也。为人臣常誉先王之德厚而愿之，诽谤其君者也。非其亲者知谓不孝，而非其君者天下此贤之，此所以乱也。故人臣毋称尧舜之贤，毋誉汤、武之伐，毋言烈士之高，尽力守法，专心于事主者为忠臣。
古者黔首悗密惷愚，故可以虚名取也。今民儇诇智慧，欲自用，不听上。上必且劝之以赏，然后可进；又且畏之以罚，然后不敢退。而世皆曰：“许由让天下，赏不足以劝；盗跖犯刑赴难，罚不足以禁。”臣曰：未有天下而无以天下为者，许由是也；已有天下而无以天下为者，尧、舜是也。毁廉求财，犯刑趋利，忘身之死者，盗跖是也。此二者，殆物也。治国用民之道也，不以此二者为量。治也者，治常者也；道也者，道常者也。殆物妙言，治之害也。天下太平之士，不可以赏劝也；天下太下之士，不可以刑禁也。然为太上士不设赏，为太下士不设刑，则治国用民之道失矣。
故世人多不言国法而言从横。诸侯言从者曰：“从成必霸”；而言横者曰：“横成必王”。山东之言从横未尝一日而止也，然而功名不成，霸王不立者，虚言非所以成治也。王者独行谓之王，是以三王不务离合而正，五霸不待从横而察，治内以裁外而已矣。
Leave a Reply