Shen Tong (minister of Qi) asked Mencius privately:
“Can the state of Yan be attacked?”
Mencius replied:
“Yes.
King Kuai of Yan (Zikuai) had no right to grant Yan to another, nor did Zi Zhi (Zizhi, Zikuai’s prime minister) had the right to accept Yan from King Kuai.
Suppose you have a worthy officer whom you admire, and you privately bestow your own official rank and salary on him without informing the king; and he, in turn, accepts it without the king’s authorization – would that be acceptable? How is the Yan case any different?”
Later, Qi launched a military campaign against Yan.
Someone asked Mencius:
“Is it true you urged Qi to attack Yan?”
Mencius said:
“No.
When Shen Tong asked me whether Yan might be attacked with a punitive force, I answered, ‘Yes.’
He then took that as justification to go to war.
But if he had followed up by asking, ‘Who has the right to attack it?’
I would have replied: ‘Only a “Minister of Heaven” – a ruler who embodies justice and acts on behalf of Heaven – may do so.’
Consider this analogy: if someone commits murder, and someone asks, ‘Can this person be killed?’
I’d say, ‘Yes.’
But if they ask, ‘Who may kill him?’
I’d answer: ‘Only the Chief Criminal Judge may carry out the execution.’
Now, Qi is no better than Yan – it is ‘Yan attacking Yan.’
How could I possibly have encouraged such an action?”
沈同以其私問曰：「燕可伐與？」
孟子曰：「可。子噲不得與人燕，子之不得受燕於子噲。有仕於此，而子悅之，不告於王而私與之吾子之祿爵；夫士也，亦無王命而私受之於子，則可乎？何以異於是？」
齊人伐燕。或問曰：「勸齊伐燕，有諸？」
曰：「未也。沈同問『燕可伐與』？吾應之曰『可』，彼然而伐之也。彼如曰『孰可以伐之』？則將應之曰：『為天吏，則可以伐之。』今有殺人者，或問之曰『人可殺與』？則將應之曰『可』。彼如曰『孰可以殺之』？則將應之曰：『為士師，則可以殺之。』今以燕伐燕，何為勸之哉？」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou II presents a sophisticated theory of just war and legitimate intervention, reflecting Mencius’ rigorous ethical reasoning.
Distinguishing moral judgment from legitimate agency
Mencius separates two questions:
- Is the target blameworthy? (Yes – Yan’s unlawful transfer of sovereignty caused chaos.)
- Who has the moral authority to punish? Only a “Minister of Heaven” – a ruler who practices benevolent governance and acts for the people’s welfare.
Qi, driven by ambition, lacked this legitimacy.
“Yan Attacking Yan”: Exposing hypocritical power politics
The phrase “Yan attacking Yan” underscores that Qi was morally no better than Yan. Mencius thus condemns wars disguised as righteous interventions but motivated by conquest – a timeless critique of imperial hypocrisy.
The analogy of lawful execution
Just as only an authorized judge may execute a murderer, only a truly virtuous ruler may wage punitive war. This establishes a Confucian principle: even justified ends require legitimate means and actors.
Historical Context: The Qi Invasion of Yan (314 BCE)
King Kuai of Yan abdicated in favor of his minister Zi Zhi, triggering civil war. Qi invaded under the pretense of restoring order but ruled oppressively, sparking rebellion. Mencius, then in Qi, had urged humane governance – but not conquest. His denial of “advising war” defends the integrity of moral judgment against political co-optation.
Confucian “Righteous War” vs. Realpolitik
Mencius accepts that tyrants may be overthrown (“We have heard of punishing the tyrant Zhou, but not of regicide” – Mencius 1B.8). Yet he insists: war must aim to rescue the people, not seize territory, and must be led by the virtuous. This shaped China’s classical “punitive expedition” doctrine and remains a powerful check on militarism.
Leave a Reply