Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
Legalism | ||
---|---|---|
Hanyu Pinyin Fǎjiā | | |
Bopomofo | ㄈㄚˇ ㄐㄧㄚ | |
Wade–Giles | Fa3-chia1 | |
Tongyong Pinyin | Fǎ-jia | |
IPA | [fà.tɕjá] |
Fajia (
Though the origins of the Chinese administrative system cannot be traced to any one person, prime minister Shen Buhai may have had more influence than any other for the construction of the
Concerned largely with administrative and sociopolitical innovation, Shang Yang's reforms transformed the peripheral Qin state into a militarily powerful and strongly centralized kingdom, mobilizing the Qin to ultimate conquest of the other states of China in 221 BCE. With an administrative influence for the Qin dynasty, he had a formative influence for Chinese law. Succeeding emperors and reformers often followed the templates set by Han Fei, Shen Buhai and Shang Yang.
Early daoistic realism
The Warring States period knew of no Legalists or Daoists as such. Prior
Placing Han Fei and Shen Buhai alongside
An interpretation of the
Said to have been a
With a potential influence for Daoism, the Outer
Han Fei's late
Yet, their work's early commentators likely could not tell the difference between their current and the Daoists.
Changing with the times
Generalized as a commonality, what the
In what
Graham compares Han Fei in particular with the
You glorify Nature and meditate on her: Why not domesticate and regulate her? You follow Nature and sing her praise: Why not control her course and use it? ... Therefore, I say: To neglect man's effort and speculate about Nature, is to misunderstand the facts of the universe.
In contrast to Xun Kuang as the classically purported teacher of Han Fei and Li Si, Han Fei does not believe that a tendency to disorder demonstrates that people are evil or unruly.[35]
As a counterpoint, Han Fei and Shen Dao do still employ argumentative reference to 'sage kings'; Han Fei claims the distinction between the ruler's interests and private interests are said to date back to Cangjie, while government by Fa (standards) is said to date back to time immemorial. Han Fei considers the demarcation between public and private a "key element" in the "enlightened governance" of the purported former kings.[36]
Administrative focus
Containing the first direct reference to the writings of the
According to Han Fei, Shen Buhai had disorganized law;[41] in contrast to Shang Yang, no text discussing him by himself identifies him with penal law, but only with control of the bureaucracy. He is glossed under penal law in the Han dynasty when he is paired with Shang Yang.[12] While the term Legalism has still seen some conventional usage in recent years, such as in Adventures in Chinese Realism, academia has otherwise avoided it for reasons which date back to Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel's early work on the subject. As Han Fei presents, while Shang Yang most commonly has fa (standards) as law, Shen Buhai uses fa (standards) in the administration, which Creel translated as method.[42][43]
More broadly, together with Shen Buhai and Shen Dao, Han Fei was still primarily administrative. Han Fei and Shen Dao make some use of fa akin to law, and some use of reward and punishment, but generally use fa similarly to Shen Buhai: as an administrative technique.[42] Shen Buhai compares official's duties and performances, and Han Fei often uses fa in this sense, with a particular quotation from the Han Feizi as example:[44]
An enlightened ruler employs fa to pick his men; he does not select them himself. He employs fa to weigh their merit; he does not fathom it himself. Thus ability cannot be obscured nor failure prettified. If those who are [falsely] glorified cannot advance, and likewise those who are maligned cannot be set back, then there will be clear distinctions between lord and subject, and order will be easily [attained]. Thus the ruler can only use fa.
Blaming Shang Yang for too much reliance on law, Han Fei critiques him in much the same way as the Confucians, who held that laws cannot practice themselves. Han Fei says: "Although the laws were rigorously implemented by the officials, the ruler at the apex lacked methods." Han Fei's solution for unifying the various teachings of his forebears, including Confucianism and Mohism, is almost totally administrative, based in the ruler's power and methods.[45][46]
Han Fei's choice to include law is not accidental, and is at least indirectly intended to benefit the people, insomuch as the state is benefited by way of order. It can mainly be compared to a rule of law insomuch as it serves purposes beyond simply that of the ruler, operating separately from him. Han Fei says: "The enlightened ruler governs his officials; he does not govern the people." The ruler cannot jointly govern the people in a large state. Nor can his direct subordinates themselves do it. The ruler wields methods to control officials.[47]
Shen Dao similarly uses fa (objective standards) as an administrative technique for determining reward and punishment in accordance with merit,[48] and Shang Yang himself addressed many administrative questions, including an agricultural mobilization, collective responsibility, and statist meritocracy. But Shang Yang himself addresses statutes mainly from an administrative standpoint.[49]
Eradicating punishments
Yuri Pines takes the work's final chapter 26 as reflecting administrative realities of the 'late preimperial and Imperial Qin', essentially congruous with knowledge of the Qin. Although seeking governance more broadly, protecting the people from abuse by ministers becomes more important than punishing the people. Taken as universally beneficial, in an attempt to deliver the "blessed eradication of punishments through punishments", clear laws are promulgated and taught that the people can also use against the ministers. Han Fei advocates the same, but is more focused on accomplishing it through the administrative power of the ruler.[50]
If it's portion of the Han Feizi is dated to it's period, the Shangjunshu could have circulated on the eve of unification. Recalling it's earlier Chapter 4, as the work's first reference, Han Fei says:[51]
Gongsun Yang said: "When [the state] implements punishments, inflicts heavy [punishments] on light [offenses]: then light [offenses] will not come, and heavy [crimes] will not arrive. This is called: 'eradicating punishments with punishments'.
The Shangjunshu's Chapter 25's so-called "Attention to law" advocates "strict reliance on law" (fa) mainly as "norms of promotion and demotion" to judge officials and thwart ministerial cliques, but falls back on agriculture and war as the standard for promotion.[52] For Han Fei, the power structure is unable to bare an autonomous ministerial practice of reward and punishment. Han Fei mainly targets ministerial infringements. His main argument for punishment by law, Chapter 7's The Two Handles, is that delegating reward and punishment to ministers has led to an erosion of power and collapse of states in his era, and should be monopolized, using severe punishment in an attempt to abolish ministerial infringements, and therefore punishment. Han Fei's ruler abandons personal preferences in reward and punishment in favor of fa standards out of self-preservation.[53]
However, while Han Fei believes that a benevolent government that does not punish will harm the law, and create confusion, he also believes that a violent and tyrannical ruler will create an irrational government, with conflict and rebellion.
Even if the Shangjunshu only passingly suggests that the need for punishment would pass away, and a more moral driven order evolve, the Qin nonetheless abandoned Shang Yang's heavy punishments before the founding of the Qin dynasty.[58] As a component of general colonization, the most common heavy punishment was expulsion to the new colonies, with exile considered a heavy punishment in ancient China. The Han engage in the same practice, transferring criminals to the frontiers for military service, with Emperor Wu and later emperors recruiting men sentenced to death for an expeditionary army. The Qin have mutilating punishments like nose cutting, but with tattooing as most common, with shame is its own heavy punishment in ancient China. They are not harsher for their time, and form a continuity with the early Han dynasty,[59] abolishing mutilations in 167 BC.[60][61]
Punishments in the Qin and early Han were commonly pardoned or redeemed in exchange for fines, labor or one to several aristocratic ranks, even up to the death penalty. Not the most common punishments, the Qin's mutilating punishment likely exist in part to create labor in agriculture, husbandry, workshops, and wall building.[62] Replacing mutilation, labor from one to five years becomes the common heavy punishment in early Imperial China, generally in building roads and canals.[63]
Persecution in the Qin dynasty
Although seeming to support totalitarianism, Han Fei and Shang Yang do not supply alternate totalitarian ideologies or thought control. Han Fei opposes the "discourses of the former kings", but does not reject that they may be of benefit. He demands it's proponents enter into state service as 'law teachers'.
With Qin essentially deriving from a military government, neither Qin nor Han Fei have concern for doctrinal unity, and Qin's control, censure and imposition on intellectual life lacks intellectual content.[21][58] In pursuit of Shang Yang's old goals of a "rich state and powerful army", as with other high ministers of his period, Han Fei is more concerned with recruiting and managing ministers than anything else, advising more administratively advanced means of recruitment. Provided they are of benefit, Han Fei only cares that the proponents of various teachings join the perennially teetering Warring States government, suggest programs, teach laws, and mobilize men for war. Few specific legal rules are found in any writings later taken as Legalist; Han Fei cares that laws are more reliable, transparent and understandable than the morality of ministers and rulers.[58][66][67]
The Qin took a congratulatory attitude towards laws and measures on their success, and the stele of the First Emperor promote his own consolidated model of governance as a permanent establishment for the ages. But the Han Feizi has a 'changing with the times' paradigm, only considering it a matter of necessity that rule by virtue could no longer be relied upon. Abstractly advocating laws, measures and punishments, although the Han Feizi does not much suppose that the need for punishments will disappear, it's main argument for them are that they are the government for the time, mainly concerned with putting an end to the chaos of the Warring States period.
Their texts were not entirely successful, in their own time, in advocating for laws, bureaucracy, and punishment. The
Qin law includes such advanced concepts as intent, judicial procedure, defendant rights, retrial requests and distinctions between different kinds of law (
Justice
Emphasizing a dichotomy between the people and state, the
Sima Qian argues the Qin dynasty, relying on rigorous laws, as nonetheless still insufficiently rigorous for a completely consistent practice, suggesting them as not having always delivered justice as others understood it.[73] Still, from a modern perspective, it is "impossible" to deny at least the "'basic' justice of Qin laws". Rejecting the whims of individual ministers in favor of clear protocols, and insisting on forensic examinations, for an ancient society they are ultimately more definable by fairness than cruelty. With
contradicting evidences, as a last resort, officials could rely on beatings, but had to be reported and compared with evidence, and cannot actually punish without confession. With administration and judiciary not separated in ancient societies, the Qin develop the idea of the judge magistrate as a detective, emerging in the culture of early Han dynasty theater with judges as detectives aspiring to truth of justice.[74][75]
Inasmuch as Han Fei has modernly been related to the idea of justice, he opposes the early Confucian idea that ministers should be immune to penal law. With an at least incidental concern for the people, the Han Feizi is "adamant that blatant manipulation and subversion of law to the detriment of the state and ruler should never be tolerated":[76]
Those men who violated the laws, committed treason, and carried out major acts of evil always worked through some eminent and highly placed minister. And yet the laws and regulations are customarily designed to prevent evil among the humble and lowly people, and it is upon them alone that penalties and punishments fall. Hence the common people lose hope and are left with no place to air their grievances. Meanwhile the high ministers band together and work as one man to cloud the vision of the ruler.
Names and realities
Sima Qian divided the schools (or categories) along elemental lines, as including Ming ("names" categories in the administration including contracts) for the Mingjia School of Names, and fa (standards in the administration including law and method) for the Fajia ("Legalists").[77] The practices and doctrines of Shen Buhai, Han Fei and the school of names are all termed Mingshi (name and reality) and Xingming (form and name).Both posthumous groupings have both elements, and share the same concerns, evaluating bureaucratic performance and examining the structural relationship between ministers and supervisors.[78]
The school of names mingjia could also be translated as Legalists if either category had existed in the Warring States period, and would be more or less equally accurate and inaccurate.
The term Fajia is applied to administrators discredited by later Han dynasty Confucians, in posthumous association with the
Words and names are essential to administration, and discussion of names and realities were common to all schools in the classical period (500bce-150bce), as including the Mohists and posthumous categories of Daoists and Legalists. It's earlier thinking was actually most developed by the Confucians, while later thinking was characterized by paradoxes and, in Daoism, an even higher degree of
Xingming
Shang Yang can be considered pioneering in the advancement of fa (standards) as law and governmental program more generally,[85] but his early administrative method more simply connects names with benefits like profit and fame, to try to convince people to pursue benefits in the interest of the state.[86] Its more advanced discussions date to the later Warring States period, after Shang Yang, Shen Buhai, and Mencius.[87]
Han Fei's his late tradition develops its own unique names and realities (mingshi) method, under the term Xing-Ming. Naming individuals to their roles as ministers (e.g. "Steward of Cloaks"), in contrast to the earlier Confucians, Han Fei's Xing-Ming holds ministers accountable for their proposals, actions and performance. Their direct connection as an administrative function cannot be seen before Han Fei;[88] the late Warring States theories of Xun Kuang and the Mohists were still far more generalized.[89] Sima Tan proclaims the Daojia or "dao school" as adopting "the essentials of ming and fa".[77]
The term Xingming likely originates in
An early bureaucratic pioneer, Shen Buhai was not so much more advanced as he was more focused on bureaucracy. Nonetheless, he can be taken as of the originator of the "Legalist doctrine of names" as understood by the later Han dynasty, which Han Fei terms Method or Technique (Shu). Han Fei says: "Method is to confer office in accordance with a candidate's capabilities; to hold achievement accountable to claim; and to examine the ability of the assembled ministers. This is controlled by the ruler."
Shen Buhai uses the earlier school of names method-term, mingshi, name and reality. Although Xing-Ming is Han Fei's, Shen Buhai's doctrine becomes known as Xing-Ming. In the Han Dynasty, secretaries of government who had charge of the records of decisions in criminal matters would be termed Xing-Ming, which Sima Qian and Liu Xiang attribute back to the doctrine of Shen Buhai, described as holding holding outcome accountable to claim.[90]
Categorization as Legalist
The early reforms of
The fa school's various thinkers and statesmen had influences for the Warring States, Qin, Han and later dynasties. But no one ever called himself a Fajia Legalist,
Combinations of Shen Buhai, Shang Yang and Han Fei became common starting in early Han dynasty literature, including the Huang-Lao Huainanzi.[58][110] Its author would be suppressed together with the Huang-Lao faction by other likely Han Feizi students, the Shang-Yangian Emperor Wu of Han, Gongsun Hong and Zhang Tang as opposed by Sima Qian. Under Confucian factional pressure, Emperor Wu discriminated against students of Shang Yang, Shen Buhai and Han Fei in favor of the Confucians. When older, those officials who praised Shang Yang and Li Si and denounced Confucius were upheld. The ministerial examination system would be instituted through the likely influence of Shen Buhai and Han Fei.[111] With Han Confucianism ultimately opposing a Shang Yangian Legalism, the ministerial regulations of Shen Buhai, as well as a contrasting Daoism, a confused revulsion against the Qin dynasty and old harsh laws of Shang Yang, abandoned before its founding, develops over the course of the Han dynasty.[112]
Saying that "if the family was rich they sent them out as separate households"
References
- ^ Pines 2023; Goldin 2011; Creel 1970, p. 93,119–120.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 131,142-144; Schwartz 1985, p. 164,329.
- ^ Makeham 1994, pp. 67–68, 81, 82.
- ^ Cua 2003, pp. 492.
- ^ Loewe 1999, p. 587-591; Schwartz 1985, p. 328-335,342-343; Pines 2023.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 132-134; Hansen 1992; Pines 2023.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 1; Loewe 1999, p. 591.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 1; Creel 1970, p. 93,94; Graham 1989, p. 268.
- ^ Loewe 1999, p. 1008; Lewis 1999, p. 38-40,145; Schneider 2013, p. 267.
- ^ Makeham 1994, pp. 74.
- ^ Smith 2003, pp. 1.
- ^ a b Creel 1970, pp. 101.
- ^ Slingerland 2007, p. 6,95,279; Cook 2012.
- ^ Loewe 1999, p. 1008; Creel 1970, p. 63-64,81,96-98; Goldin 2005, p. 63.
- ^ Lewis 1999, pp. 27–28, 40.
- ^ Goldin 2005, p. 59-64; Goldin 2012, p. 15-16; Makeham 1994, p. 73,74; Lewis 1999; Hansen 1992, p. 371.
- ^ Hansen 1992; Hansen 2020; Kejian 2016, p. 95.
- ^ Yang 2011.
- ^ Watson 2003, p. 9.
- ^ Graham 1989, p. 268; Goldin 2011, p. 96(8).
- ^ a b Smith 2003, p. 141-142.
- ^ Jiang 2021, p. 267; Rubin 1974, p. [page needed].
- ^ Creel 1970, p. 95.
- ^ a b Hansen 1992, p. 360.
- ^ Goldin 2005, p. 59-60,64; Hansen 1992, p. 373; Goldin 2012, p. 12.
- ^ Schwartz 1985, p. 246.
- ^ Makeham 1994, pp. 81.
- ^ Goldin 2012, pp. 257.
- ^ Kejian 2016, p. 22,184.
- ^ Lewis 1999, p. 488; Smith 2003, p. 146.
- ^ Goldin 2012, p. 15-17; Loewe 1999, p. 87.
- ^ Pines 2023; Youlan 1948, p. 30,33.
- ^ Graham 1989, p. 270-272.
- ^ Shih 2013, p. 89.
- ^ Fraser 2023, p. 65.
- ^ Goldin 2005, p. 59; Leung 2019, p. 1; Jiang 2021, p. 237,452.
- ^ Creel 1970, p. 93; Goldin 2011, p. 94(6); Pines 2023; Pines 2017, p. 26.
- ^ Goldin 2011, pp. 104(16).
- ^ Creel 1970, p. 93,; Goldin 2011, p. 104,105(16-17); Hansen 1992, p. 347,349; Graham 1989, p. 268,282-283.
- ^ Fraiser 2011, pp. 59.
- ^ Winston 2005, pp. 338.
- ^ a b Goldin 2011, pp. 96–98(8, 10).
- ^ Hansen 1992, pp. 347, 349.
- ^ Goldin 2011, pp. 98(10).
- ^ Smith 2003, pp. 103.
- ^ Hsiao 1979, pp. 410–412.
- ^ Winston 2005, p. 1; Hsiao 1979, p. 409,411; Schneider 2013, p. 1.
- ^ Goldin 2011, pp. 8(98).
- ^ Goldin 2011, pp. 104-105(16-17).
- ^ Hansen 1992, p. 347,357-359,369; Pines 2017, p. 231-232.
- ^ Pines 2017, pp. 26.
- ^ Pines 2017, pp. 228.
- ^ Leung 2019, p. 118-119,129; Goldin 2012, p. 5; Hansen 1992, p. 347,369.
- ^ Hsiao 1979, p. 404-405,417; Pines 2023.
- ^ Hansen 1992, p. 347,369; Goldin 2012, p. 5-6.
- ^ Lewis 1999, pp. 32, 33.
- ^ Hsiao 1979, pp. 404–406.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Pines 2023.
- ^ Loewe 1986, p. 526,534,535; Lewis 2010, p. 42,72,248.
- ^ a b Loewe 1986, pp. 539–540.
- ^ Lewis 1999, pp. 19.
- ^ Loewe 1986, p. 526,534,535; Pines 2023, p. 27.
- ^ Loewe 1986, pp. 533–543.
- ^ Hansen 1992, pp. 223.
- ^ Goldin 2011.
- ^ a b Loewe 1986, pp. 526.
- ^ Loewe 1999, pp. 587, 589.
- ^ Leung 2019, pp. 116, 123–124.
- ^ Hsiao 1979, pp. 466–467.
- ^ Leung 2019, pp. 116–118.
- ^ Goldin 2005, pp. 5–6.
- ^ Mou 2008, pp. 208.
- ^ Lewis 2010, pp. 240.
- ^ Goldin 2005, pp. 6.
- ^ Lewis 2010, pp. 72, 246–248.
- ^ Jiang 2021, pp. 35, 420.
- ^ a b c Smith 2003, pp. 144.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 143-144; Makeham 1990, p. 67.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 142,144; Goldin 2011, p. 88(1).
- ^ Fraser 2020.
- ^ Loewe 1986, p. 492; Goldin 2005, p. 5,6.
- ^ Creel 1970, pp. 72.
- ^ Creel 1970, pp. 101, 106, 114, 113, 120.
- ^ Makeham 1994, pp. xiv, xv, 67.
- ^ Hansen 1992, p. 359.
- ^ Pines 2017, p. 50; Jiang 2021, p. 254.
- ^ Yu-Lan 1983, pp. 81.
- ^ Pines 2023; Makeham 1994.
- ^ Makeham 1994, pp. 81–82.
- ^ a b Makeham 1990, pp. 91–92.
- ^ Lewis 1999, pp. 33.
- ^ Kejian 2016, 166.
- ^ Loewe 1986, pp. 36.
- ^ Pines 2014, p. 16.
- ^ Creel 1970, p. 149.
- ^ Yuan 2018, pp. 211.
- ^ Pines 2022, pp. 351.
- ^ Shaughnessy 2023, pp. 203.
- ^ Fraiser 2011, pp. 64.
- ^ Graham 1989, p. 268; Hansen 1992, p. 345,346.
- ^ Goldin 2011, p. 93(5).
- ^ Schwartz 1985, p. 174,244; Hansen 1992, p. 345-346; Loewe 1999, p. 591,589.
- ^ Smith 2003, pp. 131, 142–144.
- ^ Schwartz 1985, pp. 174, 244.
- ^ Goldin 2011, p. 89,92; Smith 2003, p. 142; Fraiser 2011, p. 59; Creel 1970, p. 93.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 142.
- ^ Goldin 2011; Smith 2003.
- ^ Creel 1970, p. 51; Kejian 2016, p. 22.
- ^ Smith 2003; Jiang 2021; Creel 1974, p. 21.
- ^ Hansen 2020.
- ^ Vankeerberghen 2001, p. 24,96; Creel 1960, p. 239,241; Creel 1970, p. 110-111,115-120; Lewis 1999, p. 491.
- ^ Loewe 1999, p. 1008; Creel 1970, p. 113,91; Pines 2023.
- ^ Lewis 2010, p. 42,72; Pines 2009, p. 110; Pines 2014, p. 116-117.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 131,141; Youlan 1948, p. 32–34.
- ^ Smith 2003, p. 141; Pines 2023; Goldin 2011, p. 91,92(4,5).
- ^ Smith 2003, pp. 131.
- ^ Leung 2019, pp. 103.
Sources
- ISBN 9780226120478.
- ISBN 978-0226120270.
- ISBN 978-1436715911.
- Smith, Kidder (2003). "Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, "Legalism," et cetera". JSTOR 3096138.
- ISBN 9780691612898.
- ISBN 978-0674961913.
- ISBN 9780674043329.
- ISBN 978-0521243278.
- ISBN 978-0521470308.
- Makeham, John (1994). Name and Actuality in Early Chinese Thought. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1438411743.
- Makeham, John (1990). "The Legalist Concept of Hsing-ming: An Example of the Contribution of Archaeological Evidence to the Re-Interpretation of Transmitted Texts". Monumenta Serica. 39: 87–114. .
- ISBN 9780791441145.
- ISBN 9780674057340.
- ISBN 978-1135367558.
- Goldin, Paul R. (2005). After Confucius: Studies In Early Chinese Philosophy. University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0824828424.
- Goldin, Paul R. (2011). "Persistent Misconceptions about Chinese "Legalism"". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 38 (1): 88–104.
- Goldin, Paul R. (2012). Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei. University of Pennsylvania: Springer. ISBN 9780197603475.
- ISBN 9780195138993.
- Pines, Yuri (2009). Envisioning Eternal Empire. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0824832759.
- Pines, Yuri (2014). Birth of an Empire. University of California Press. ISBN 978-1938169-07-6.
- S2CID 229017346.
- Pines, Yuri (2017). The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China. Abridged Edition. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231550383.
- Pines, Yuri (2022). "Han Feizi and the Earliest Exegesis of Zuozhuan". Monumenta Serica. 70 (2): 341–365.
- Pines, Yuri (2023). "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 ed.). Retrieved 2 March 2024.
- Leung, Vincent S. (2019). The Politics of the Past in Early China. Cambridge: ISBN 9781108425728.
- Peerenboom, RP (1997). "Totalitarian Law - Zhengyuan Fu: China's Legalists: The Earliest Totalitarians and Their Art of Ruling. (Armonk and London: M. E. Sharpe, 1996. pp. x, 177. $59.95, $21.95 paper.)". S2CID 143320924.1
- Yang, Soon-Ja (2011). "Shen Dao's Own Voice in the Shenzi Fragments". Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy. 10 (2): 187–207.
- Schneider, Henrique (2013). "Han Fei, De, Welfare". Asian Philosophy. 23 (3): 260–274. .
- ISBN 978-0-684-83634-8.
- Winston, Kenneth (2005). "The Internal Morality of Chinese Legalism". Singapore Journal of Legal Studies: 313–347.
- Hansen, Chad (1992). A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. Oxford: ISBN 9780195350760.
- ISBN 9780812699425.
- Shih, Hu (2013). English Writings of Hu Shih. Volume 2. Princeton University: ISBN 978-3642311802.
- ISBN 978-0674057340.
- Vankeerberghen, Griet (2001). The Huainanzi and Liu An's Claim to Moral Authority. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780791451472.
- ISBN 9780226120478.
- Yuan, Hong (2018). The Sinitic Civilization Book Ii. iUniverse. ISBN 9781532058301.
- He, Peng (2014). Chinese Lawmaking. Springer. ISBN 978-3662524299.
- Kejian, Huang (2016). From Destiny to Dao. Davies Pacific Center: Enrich Professional Publishing. ISBN 978-1623200237.
- Jiang, Tao (2021). Origins of Moral-political Philosophy in Early China. Oxford: ISBN 9780197603475.
- Fraiser, Chris (2011). Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Oup USA. ISBN 978-0195328998.
- Waley, Arthur (1939). Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804711692.
- Rubin, Vitali (1974). "Shen Tao and Fa-Chia". JSTOR 600068.
- Yu-Lan, Fung (1983). A History of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691020211.
- ISBN 978-1134249374.
- Hansen, Chad (2020). "Daoism". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- Fraser, Chris (2023). "Mohism". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2023 ed.). Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- Fraser, Chris (2020). "School of Names". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2020 ed.). Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- ISBN 9780231521314.
- Goldin, Paul R. (2018). "Xunzi". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.). Retrieved 20 March 2024.
- ISBN 9781933947648.
- ISBN 9783643908988.
- ISBN 9783643908988.
- ISBN 9781438440132.