The Analects by Confucius is not what I was expecting. It didn't have a narrative or argumentative arch, but a loose collection of saying. It makes sense why Mao's Little Red Book, which I will be reading later, is in this same style. There wasn't much meat for me to sink my teeth into. There's no argument to refute, and I don't understand a lot of it because it's so vague, and I'm not familiar with the ancient Chinese classics. Confucius has a lot of similarities with Jesus, who spoke in parables. An education in the canon of his time is required to understand what both are alluding to. Like Jesus, others came after him who interpreted and expounded on his teachings. But I am concentrating only on The Analects, so I am limited in my understanding. I plan on revisiting Confucius in the future when I study world religions. Then I will read more of the supporting texts.
I was surprised by how religious Confucius was, I was under the impression that he was a secular person. He talks about having special knowledge of the perfect moral code of heaven. That if everyone practiced self-control and discipline to conform to that moral code then the world would be in perfect harmony with peace and prosperity. This very much reminds me of Jesus and the Kingdom of God.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12
"Chung-kung asked about perfect virtue. The Master said, “It is … not to do to others as you would not wish done to yourself." - The Analects of Confucius
"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” - The Analects of Confucius
While Confucius taught the inverse of the Golden Rule, what not to do instead of what to do, they are strikingly similar.
There are two concepts in The Analects that I want to point out:
1: The people will be virtuous if the leaders are.
2. A well-governed country will have a happy, prosperous, and growing population.
"Chi K’ang asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, 'To govern means to rectify. If you lead on the people with correctness, who will dare not to be correct?' Chi K’ang, distressed about the number of thieves in the state, inquired of Confucius how to do away with them. Confucius said, 'If you, sir, were not covetous, although you should reward them to do it, they would not steal.' Chi K’ang asked Confucius about government, saying, 'What do you say to killing the unprincipled for the good of the principled?' Confucius replied, 'Sir, in carrying on your government, why should you use killing at all? Let your evinced desires be for what is good, and the people will be good. The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it.'" - The Analects of Confucius
“The determined scholar and the man of virtue will not seek to live at the expense of injuring their virtue. They will even sacrifice their lives to preserve their virtue complete.” - The Analects of Confucius
I don’t know if it’s precisely true that the people will be moral if the leaders are, but it couldn’t hurt. The audience of this work is the ruling class, so it makes sense to emphasize the morality of the leaders. The saying “Do as I say, not as I do.” Isn’t going to fly. (Though they didn't have that saying in China then, the attitude would have been familiar to royal advisors.)
I may be in danger of imposing my own beliefs onto Confucius, but I think he would have agreed with my ideas about the importance of culture and social norms. While laws that are enforced with violence (execution or prison) do serve as an incentive against crime, social norms are much more powerful. Culture imposes upon the individual a potent mix of shame and guilt when they internalize the rules. As Confucius said, if a society has internalized the rule that stealing is wrong, even if you rewarded theft, the people would not do it. And no matter how much force you use, you cannot stop people from participating in socially sanctioned activities. (Think of alcohol and weed prohibition).
When the leaders do not adhere to the values of society, people notice the hypocrisy. You can’t share in a society-wide project of upholding universal moral principles when leaders put themselves above those principles. What you’re left with are people making cost-benefit analyses, balancing the rewards of crime on one side and the risk of getting caught on the other. If the country is poorly governed, leading to poverty, the desperation of the people will lead to more crime, which causes more poverty. More and more violence will have to be used to maintain order, causing a vicious cycle of poverty, crime, and punishment.
“The Master said, ‘Good government obtains when those who are near are made happy, and those who are far off are attracted.’
If a ruler comported himself in a good manner, he would bring about social stability, population growth (not only as a result of intra-population births and longevity, but also because he would attract people from other states to his realm), and he would be able to create the conditions necessary to foster the public welfare." - History, Hourly. Confucius: A Life From Beginning to End (History of China)
I love that Confucius noticed this so many years ago. I use the fact that massive numbers of immigrants want to move to the United States as evidence for the comparatively good governance of America. (Comparatively is an important word in that sentence because while our country is not run perfectly by any stretch of the imagination, it is much better than others.) Our low birth rates are cause for alarm, however.
This is how cultural evolution works. Those societies that work well gain members, either by birth or immigration/conversion, while those that lose members will ultimately go extinct. This concept is so important for anyone thinking about the human systems that are societies. You can’t just ignore real-world effects and insist that your policies are correct because of a convincing argument. You have to look at actual results, and how those good-sounding policies could have devastating, unintended consequences.
Under a monarchy, all negative results should lay squarely on the shoulders of the King. It’s not hard to see why holding leaders accountable made Confucius an unpopular advisor, leading him to wander from place to place, unable to find a permanent position. Like Jesus, he was rejected in life but glorified in death.
This book review is part of a series: Political Philosophy Reading List
>This is how cultural evolution works. Those societies that work well gain members, either by birth or immigration/conversion, while those that don’t lose members will ultimately go extinct. This concept is so important for anyone thinking about the human systems that are societies. You can’t just ignore real-world effects and insist that your policies are correct because of a convincing argument. You have to look at actual results, and how those good-sounding policies could have devastating, unintended consequences.
I broadly agree with this take on cultural evolution, but I will say I've heard some convincing arguments from the folks who take short AGI timelines really seriously. If we crack the code of creating machines that can do the equivalent to human labor, why is fertility rate an issue anymore?
When you start asking that question, I think it helps get to more fundamental value differences. For me personally I just think that the human biological family is something that should be kept and catered to, and we throw it out at our peril. But if the main justification is just cultural survival, I don't know if that argument holds up in the face of a truly general artificial intelligence.