Mencius visited Pinglu in the state of Qi and said to its local magistrate, Kong Juxin:
“If one of your soldiers who stands guard with a halberd deserts his post three times in a single day, would you dismiss him?”
Kong replied,
“I wouldn’t wait for three times – I’d dismiss him after the first.”
Mencius then said,
“Yet you yourself have failed in your duty many times over.
In years of famine, the elderly and weak among your people have died in ditches, and thousands of able-bodied men have scattered in all directions seeking survival.”
Kong defended himself:
“This is not something within my power to change.”
Mencius countered:
“Suppose someone entrusts you with their cattle and sheep to herd. Wouldn’t you be obligated to find them pasture and fodder?
If you tried but couldn’t find any, would you return the animals to their owner – or just stand by and watch them starve to death?”
Kong, ashamed, admitted:
“That would indeed be my fault.”
Some days later, Mencius met with the King of Qi and said:
“Among the local governors you’ve appointed, I know five of them – but only Kong Juxin recognizes his own fault. Let me tell you what happened.”
The king listened and sighed,
“This is actually my fault.”
孟子之平陸。謂其大夫曰：「子之持戟之士，一日而三失伍，則去之否乎？」
曰：「不待三。」
「然則子之失伍也亦多矣。凶年饑歲，子之民，老羸轉於溝壑，壯者散而之四方者，幾千人矣。」
曰：「此非距心之所得為也。」
曰：「今有受人之牛羊而為之牧之者，則必為之求牧與芻矣。求牧與芻而不得，則反諸其人乎？抑亦立而視其死與？」
曰：「此則距心之罪也。」
他日，見於王曰：「王之為都者，臣知五人焉。知其罪者，惟孔距心。為王誦之。」王曰：「此則寡人之罪也。」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou II articulates a cornerstone of Confucian political ethics: rulers and officials bear unconditional moral responsibility for the welfare of the people.
“Shepherding the People”: The Official as Steward
Mencius likens governance to herding livestock entrusted by an owner – emphasizing that officials are not masters but stewards accountable to both the ruler and, ultimately, the people. This echoes the Book of Documents: “The people are the root of the state,” and culminates in Mencius’s famous hierarchy:
“The people are most important; the state comes next; the ruler is least.”
No excuses for inaction
Kong Juxin’s plea – “It’s beyond my control” – mirrors bureaucratic evasion across ages. Mencius rejects this: even under constraints, officials must act (e.g., petition for relief, organize aid) or resign. Passive complicity in suffering is itself a crime.
Moral accountability and Leadership
Kong’s confession reflects the Confucian virtue of self-reflection (“When things go wrong, seek the cause in oneself”). Even more striking is the king’s response: taking ultimate responsibility. This models Mencius’s ideal – a virtuous ruler who leads by moral ownership, not blame-shifting.
Historical critique of Warring States governance
In an era focused on tax extraction and military conscription, notably the Shang Yang’s reform in Qin state, Mencius demands that governance be judged by human outcomes (like the modern concepts of public accountability), not administrative compliance.
Though brief, this episode outlines a complete chain of ethical governance – from local stewardship to royal responsibility – all centered on one principle: the life and welfare of the people is the supreme measure of political legitimacy.
Leave a Reply