Mencius said to King Xuan of Qi:
“If a ruler treats his ministers as his own hands and feet, they will treat him as their heart and mind.
If he treats them like dogs or horses, they will regard him as a mere stranger.
If he treats them like dust or weeds – worthless and disposable – they will see him as an enemy.”
The king asked,
“But the Rites say that ministers should mourn for their former ruler. Under what conditions would a ruler deserve such mourning?”
Mencius replied:
“When the minister was in office, his advice was followed, his words heeded, and blessings thus flowed down to the people.
When he had to leave for legitimate reasons, the ruler sent escorts to see him safely beyond the borders and even made arrangements ahead of time at his destination.
Only after three years of absence would the ruler reclaim his fields and home.
These are the ‘Three Acts of Ritual Propriety.’ Only then would a minister mourn for him.But today’s reality is this:
The minister’s counsel is ignored, his voice unheard, and the people receive no benefit.
When he departs for valid reasons, the ruler has him seized and even sends agents to harass him at his new location.
On the very day he leaves, his property is confiscated.
This is how one treats an enemy.
How can you expect mourning from someone you’ve made your foe?”
孟子告齊宣王曰：「君之視臣如手足，則臣視君如腹心；君之視臣如犬馬，則臣視君如國人；君之視臣如土芥，則臣視君如寇讎。」
王曰：「禮，為舊君有服，何如斯可為服矣？」
曰：「諫行言聽，膏澤下於民；有故而去，則君使人導之出疆，又先於其所往；去三年不反，然後收其田里。此之謂三有禮焉。如此，則為之服矣。今也為臣。諫則不行，言則不聽；膏澤不下於民；有故而去，則君搏執之，又極之於其所往；去之日，遂收其田里。此之謂寇讎。寇讎何服之有？」
Note
This dialogue from Mencius: Li Lou II presents one of the most radical political ideas in early Confucianism: rulership is conditional, loyalty is reciprocal, and moral principle. Dao transcends political power.
A reciprocal, Not hierarchical, bond
The ruler-minister bond is reciprocal. Loyalty is earned through respect and justice – not demanded by rank alone.
Contrary to later stereotypes of blind obedience, Mencius frames the ruler-minister relationship as interdependent – like limbs and heart. This implies a moral contract: loyalty requires just treatment.
“Three Ritual Proprieties” as institutional safeguards
Mencius specifies concrete standards: political trust (listening to advice), personal security (safe passage), and property rights (delayed reclamation). These form an early vision of professional dignity and legal protection for officials.
Legitimizing resistance to tyranny
Calling a tyrant a “bandit-enemy” echoes the Book of Documents (Book of History):
“We executed the solitary man Zhou” – not “assassinated a king.”
For Mencius, a ruler who abandons benevolence forfeits legitimacy.
The Warring States talent market
In the Warring States era when scholars freely moved between states, notably the strategists like Su Qin and Zhang Yi, Mencius criticized rulers who wanted talent without offering trust – a critique still relevant to leadership today.
Contrast with Legalism and Mohism
While Legalists saw ruler-minister relations as purely adversarial, and Mohists demanded absolute conformity, Mencius insisted on mutual commitment to righteousness.
Suppression and Legacy
Later emperors, including Zhu Yuanzhang of the Ming dynasty, tried to censor this passage. Yet thinkers like Huang Zongxi revived its spirit, declaring,
“The world belongs to the people; the ruler is merely a guest.”
Modern readers find here seeds of political accountability, checks on power, and intellectual independence.
In essence: A throne does not command loyalty; only virtue does. When a ruler becomes a tyrant, he ceases to be a sovereign – and becomes a target of righteous opposition.
Leave a Reply