Have you read any of Confucius writings? Rulers actually have higher expectations for them than common folk. If a ruler doesn’t act properly and conduct the proper rituals, then their people can’t be expected either. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Confucian thought, I’m struggling to understand what you are basing that statement on.
“The Master said, "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
I have no real context other than what is here, and maybe Frogfucius, and I’m not great at reading between the lines so bear with me, because that doesn’t seem so awful for medieval philosophy. Lead by virtue rather than punishment? Sounds almost enlightened.
I mean with the part about rules and propriety, it sound a bit like the Broken Window Theorem which has been shown to be a cover for racist policing, but it also came out in the 80s.
Not medieval, Confucius was writing in 500 BCE. I’m not staning Confucius, but he was far harsher on rulers than he was peasants. Rulers are supposed to act like rulers, if they want their people to follow. There are more restrictions on them - a bad ruler (not just bad as in ineffective or cruel, but sexual deviance or drunkeness) can cause droughts or other disasters.
and the joke is, who sets these traditions and rules? go a bit farther, and you learn the justification of these rules is “there wasn’t a natural disaster recently”
like sure there are stringent rules the leader must follow, but whatever the leader decides the rules should be is what even these rules are
Have you read any of Confucius writings? Rulers actually have higher expectations for them than common folk. If a ruler doesn’t act properly and conduct the proper rituals, then their people can’t be expected either. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Confucian thought, I’m struggling to understand what you are basing that statement on.
“The Master said, "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
I have no real context other than what is here, and maybe Frogfucius, and I’m not great at reading between the lines so bear with me, because that doesn’t seem so awful for medieval philosophy. Lead by virtue rather than punishment? Sounds almost enlightened.
I mean with the part about rules and propriety, it sound a bit like the Broken Window Theorem which has been shown to be a cover for racist policing, but it also came out in the 80s.
Anyway, I’m not Staning Confucius
Not medieval, Confucius was writing in 500 BCE. I’m not staning Confucius, but he was far harsher on rulers than he was peasants. Rulers are supposed to act like rulers, if they want their people to follow. There are more restrictions on them - a bad ruler (not just bad as in ineffective or cruel, but sexual deviance or drunkeness) can cause droughts or other disasters.
deleted by creator
and the joke is, who sets these traditions and rules? go a bit farther, and you learn the justification of these rules is “there wasn’t a natural disaster recently”
like sure there are stringent rules the leader must follow, but whatever the leader decides the rules should be is what even these rules are