A man from the state of Ren asked Wulu Zi (a disciple of Mencius), “Which is more important: ritual propriety or food?”
Wulu Zi replied, “Ritual propriety.”
The man asked again, “Which is more important: physical beauty or ritual propriety?” Wulu Zi replied, “Ritual propriety.”
The man then asked, “If one must follow ritual propriety to eat, and will starve to death as a result; but can obtain food by ignoring ritual propriety, must one still insist on ritual propriety? If one must follow the ritual of personally fetching the bride, and will fail to get a wife as a result; but can get a wife by ignoring this ritual, must one still insist on personally fetching the bride?”
Wulu Zi could not answer. The next day, he went to the state of Zou and told Mencius about this.
Mencius said, “What is so difficult about answering this? If you do not measure the foundation but only compare the extremities, a piece of wood merely an inch thick can be made to appear higher than a tall building by placing it on a high spot. We say gold is heavier than feathers, but do we mean that a small belt hook of gold is heavier than a cartload of feathers?
If you take the critical matter of food for survival and compare it with a trivial aspect of ritual, why wouldn’t food seem more important? If you take the critical matter of marriage and compare it with a trivial aspect of ritual, why wouldn’t marriage seem more important?
Go and answer him like this: ‘If twisting your elder brother’s arm and snatching his food will get you fed, but not twisting it means you won’t get fed, will you twist it? If climbing over the eastern neighbor’s wall and forcefully embracing his unmarried daughter will get you a wife, but not embracing her means you won’t get a wife, will you embrace her?’”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius presents a brilliant philosophical debate regarding “Jing” (fundamental principles) and “Quan” (expedient flexibility). Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- Exposing Logical Fallacies: “Failing to Measure the Foundation but Comparing the Extremities”
Mencius immediately hits the nail on the head regarding the logical trap in the man from Ren’s question – “failing to measure the foundation but comparing the extremities.” The questioner deliberately compared an extreme situation concerning life and death (the critical need for food) with a trivial, insignificant ritual detail, thereby drawing the absurd conclusion that “food is more important than ritual.” Using the metaphors of “an inch of wood versus a tall building” and “a belt hook of gold versus a cartload of feathers,” Mencius vividly illustrates the absurdity of making unequal comparisons without establishing a common baseline. - Bottom-Line Moral Thinking: Countering “Utilitarianism” with “Unrighteousness”
Faced with the extreme hypothetical scenarios of “starving to death” and “having no descendants,” Mencius did not get bogged down in the quagmire of debating “whether one should eat or marry.” Instead, he directly provided two even more extreme counter-examples: “twisting a brother’s arm to snatch food” and “climbing a wall to forcefully embrace a maiden.” Mencius used this to point out that if one abandons the moral bottom line (ritual) just to achieve a goal (eating or marrying), humans will degenerate into beasts. By using extreme acts of “unrighteousness,” he completely shattered the opponent’s utilitarian sophistry. - The Comprehensive Wisdom of Confucian “Principles and Flexibility”
This debate profoundly reflects the flexibility of Confucianism when adhering to principles. Confucianism advocates for “ritual,” but it is by no means rigid dogma. Mencius points out that in normal social life, “ritual” is a bottom line that must be upheld; however, in extreme, life-or-death emergencies (such as when “men and women should not touch hands in giving and receiving” conflicts with “a sister-in-law drowning”), Confucianism allows for “Quan” (expedient flexibility). However, this flexibility is meant to “preserve life” or “rescue from disaster,” never to satisfy selfish desires through evil acts like “snatching a brother’s food” or “embracing a maiden.” Here, Mencius established the absolute boundaries of morality.
任人有问屋庐子曰：“礼与食孰重？”曰：“礼重。”
“色与礼孰重？”曰：“礼重。”
曰：“以礼食，则饥而死；不以礼食，则得食，必以礼乎？亲迎，则不得妻；不亲迎，则得妻，必亲迎乎！”屋庐子不能对，明日之邹以告孟子。
孟子曰：“于答是也何有？不揣其本而齐其末，方寸之木可使高于岑楼。金重于羽者，岂谓一钩金与一舆羽之谓哉？取食之重者，与礼之轻者而比之，奚翅食重？取色之重者，与礼之轻者而比之，奚翅色重？往应之曰：‘紾兄之臂而夺之食，则得食；不紾，则不得食，则将紾之乎？逾东家墙而搂其处子，则得妻；不搂，则不得妻，则将搂之乎？’”
Leave a Reply