Tao of Heaven Liberalism Discussion Series
Heaven Tea Talk Five: Born Equal
Liu Jun Ning
Translated By: Selene Cong
Confucius: As you know, I am the biggest supporter for charitable governments and I have always used benevolence and virtue as the basic conditions that kings must rule by. Yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was an rebel scholar called Zhou Shu Ren, who published a popular notebook called The Diary of an Arrogant Man, which claims that oppression lurks behind my support for benevolence and virtue. It was a great injustice! You also said “heaven and earth are not charitable,” and “the sages are not charitable.” Was I wrong to promote charitable governments? I believe that you’re different from that idiot Zhou. You’re not saying so to spite me. But why the coincidence? Why do you both sneer at my “charitable government?”
Lao Tzu: I’ve heard of that scholar, Zhou. I heard that he was quite bright. But since there was clear evidence of him being the culprit of the Ham Gate Scandal, I haven’t paid much attention to his work. I admit that your support for benevolence was out of kind-heartedness. Nevertheless, in the real world, there is no causal relationship between kind-heartedness and good karma, or between intentions and results. A charitable government won’t happen just because you say you want it. Besides, the charitable government that you sought was only a result; you did not look deeply into the necessary conditions for that government. I talked about “heaven and earth not being charitable” before you started propagating charitable governance; it definitely was not directed at you.
Confucius: I am honestly confused about you proposing non-benevolence/charity. Some people criticize your teaching as a way to rule without virtue. I find that hard to believe. You are more liberated than I am. You left the system when you had power. There is no way you would be a counselor to the rulers, helping them strategizing ways to consolidate power. There must be another explanation for your distaste for charitable governance.
Lao Tzu: I appreciate your understanding and sympathy. Your idea of a charitable government sounds good but I cannot accept the conditions necessary for it to exist. You postulate men are born unequal, with those at the top wise and those at the bottom ignorant. Only when there is true inequality between people, can there be the need for charitable ruling. The nature of charitable ruling is showing favor to certain people, regardless of whether these people are weak or strong. If all men are seen as equal, then there can be no such thing as charitable governance. It’s not wrong to support a charitable government but it is wrong believing that men are born unequal.
Confucius: Yes, I do believe that men are born unequal. Some are born with knowledge while others must acquire knowledge through learning. Do you believe that all fingers are born of the equal length? Besides, even if charitable governing cannot work, what’s wrong with talking about it?
Lao Tzu: I do believe heaven and earth are not charitable, and the sages are not charitable. Let me clarify here. The sages I’m referring to are not what you call kings. They are personified and idealized political system or institution that are in harmony with the Tao of Heaven. Back then political science was not quite developed. There weren’t many technical terms, so I had to use “sages” to refer to them. I also disagree with your three-relationships. Your orthodox proposal of the relationship between kings and subjects, fathers and sons, and husbands and wives, is founded on the belief that men are not equal. Therefore, I refuse to use these concepts. You can look in my book and you won’t find the word “subject” in there. I said sages are not charitable and all are seen the same. The meaning is that all men are born equal. An ideal political system does not need to show extra kindness toward a portion of the people. Otherwise, the different degrees of love will result in an institutionalized inequality among people. Therefore, an ideal government should treat its people the same way heaven treats all things, i.e., equally, with no regard to their wealth, profession, gender, or age. If a group of people needs to be treated with preference, then the government is in trouble, and the self-regulating system of societal balance has been corrupted by power. Only when the system is corrupt, is there the need for phony benevolence. This is analogous to shearing a lamb of all its wool and then dressing it with a portion of the wool, after keeping most of it. The real way to solve the problem is to fix the rules that do not agree with the Tao of Heaven. It’s not to impose inequality among men. Furthermore, you misunderstood me. What I mean by men are all born equal is not that they are all born the same, with the same length for fingers, same height, equally beautiful, and of the same sex. Would I say something that absurd? I want to say that all men are born equal but at the same time different. Being born equal means all men have the same integrity, value, rights, and freedom. Being different means men are of different heights and talents. What I mean by all men being equal is not that all men should have the same salary. That’s your idea of equal entitlement. They must not be confused with each other. The idea of equal entitlement is what destroyed equality between men because it requires men of different contribution to be compensated the same. That is the most inhumane because it denies individual integrity and value, and it disrespect individual ingenuity.
Confucius: Your principles sound similar to what some call Western liberal ideas. Thankfully did you not only leave the system but also the world. Now in your age, there is nothing for you to fear.
Lao Tzu: Don’t try to label me. We didn’t have these terms in our age. I know it doesn’t sound pleasant to say that heaven and earth are not charitable. But think about it. If heaven and earth believe sheep to be weak and take extra care of it, letting it eat all the grass it wishes, while forbidding the wolves to touch them, the result will be that all the grass are eaten, the wolves will starve to death, the sheep will lose their self-balancing mechanism, and it will be a great tragedy for the sheep. Therefore, like the stages of social development, your proposal sounds touching but its result is catastrophic. Heaven and earth not being charitable is the most benevolent they can be. Because of non-charity, all things are seen the same. That’s true equality, true benevolence. This is the meaning of the great Tao not being boastful, the great teachings not being wordy, and the great benevolence not being charitable. Using kindness, love, sympathy, and pity to describe heaven is men personifying heaven. The government should not see the people differently. Your charitable governance seems to support the theory of class struggle, dividing people into different classes, and then showing them affection according to their status. It is “not torturing the great men and not honoring the common men.” Putting people into classes is creating inequality among men. Perhaps my accusation is too strong. Don’t take it too seriously.
Confucius: Your criticisms of me are correct but your philosophy sounds like Social Darwinism, encouraging the strong to feed on the weak.
Lao Tzu: Let me continue. Now there are six billion people in the world. Within one hundred and fifty years, all these men will die. There is no need for you to call heaven and earth cruel, f heaven and earth let all lives die. If heaven and earth nourishes all lives, there is no need for you to praise their benevolence, either. There is a place in my political philosophy. However, unlike you, the place of benevolence is not in politics but in the everyday lives of the people. The etymology of benevolence (ren) is two persons together; it is a private affair. You cannot transfer the feelings between two people in private to men and the Tao of Heaven. The duty of the government is to maintain justice according to the Tao of Heaven. This justice may sometimes be under the suspicion of being cold. However, if we mix emotions with laws, there can be no justice. If we judge cases based on emotions and let the most pitiful party win each time, what justice could be left? We face the emotionless Tao of Heaven and the government, while maintaining emotions among each other. Because of the kindness among men, we should strive to eliminate the cases of the strong taking advantage of the weak. A government that follows the Tao of Heaven should encourage benevolence among the people. Then we could have justice and benevolence. You know, benevolence is one of in my three treasures. I support benevolence, too, only on a different level as you.
Confucius: If you believe so, wouldn’t it be more effective if the government directly promote benevolence?
Lao Tzu: That sounds reasonable on the surface but is wrong fundamentally. If what you say is true, then all countries of all time should establish a department of charity. I have never heard of an agency like that. Have you heard of any famous politician who’s a philanthropist at the same time? I haven’t. The job of the government is to maintain justice, not kindness. The people may be kind but cannot enforce justice. If you catch a thief and in the name of justice, you personally sentence him to five years in prison, that’s taking justice into your own hands. Therefore, the function of the government and the function of the people must not be confused. If you look into history, whenever the government prohibits the people from being kind, these are the times when there is the greatest shortage for justice. Did you hear of a group of active philanthropist during the time of the Anti-Right Movement or the Cultural Revolution? Besides, for the government to fulfill the role of the philanthropist, it must use the taxpayers’ money. This becomes an additional burden on the taxpayer. If the bureaucrats are corrupt, philanthropy becomes an excuse for extorting the wealth of the people. The result is horrible. If the people wish to contribute to charity, the money would come from the philanthropists themselves, the burden would not fall on the common taxpayers and there would be no opportunity for the bureaucrats to profit. Isn’t that much better? The more philanthropists there are in a society, the more justice there will be. The more restriction on philanthropy among the people, the less justice there will be. When a society needs the government to be charitable, justice will have disappeared.
Confucius: That’s reasonable. My students and I have always called for sage rulers and charitable treatment of the people. But millennia have passed, there still isn’t a charitable government in sight. I was baffled by this. Now you have clearly analyzed this issue. But why didn’t you say that men are equal directly in the Tao Te Ching?
Lao Tzu: That’s a good question. Let me begin with the least important reason. One, I was in a hurry to go west and I didn’t wish to be wordy. We didn’t have computers back then. It wasn’t as easy as typing. Two, my thoughts weren’t as clear back then as they are today. We are after all men of our own time. Three, the political and intellectual environment was not as free as heaven here. I had to be vague. I worried that some might misunderstand me and give me a bad reputation. But I also believed that someone will understand. Luckily, many have understood the instances where I was being ironic. Besides, when Yang Zhu spoke the truth in defense of his rights, your student Mencius called him a subhuman who had no respect for the authority, and subsequently all his works were destroyed. Collective political philosophy has since become the dominant force in China. Had I been forthcoming in my writing, there wouldn’t be a Tao Te Ching. It wouldn’t even have a chance to be a counterexample for good literature. Think carefully, what is the disagreement between Yang Zhu and Mencius? Yang Zhu believed that all people, including the kings, are equal while Mencius believed that it’s natural for there to be inequality between kings and subjects, and fathers and sons. It is the difference between your charitable governance philosophy and my Tao of Heaven.
Confucius: I cannot refute what you have said from the point of reason. From the point of emotions, I still find it hard to accept. I reexamine my beliefs three times each day. Today, I might have to add a few more sessions. In order to have Tao, I am not ashamed to inquire and meditate. Please instruct me further in the future. Please know that I’m not being polite. These are my sincere requests.
Lao Tzu: Self-analysis is a virtue. Let’s continue to talk to each other as equals. It’s a great opportunity for me to re-organize my thoughts as well. Let’s continue next time.
Tao of Heaven Chapter Five
Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be
charitable; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt
with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) charitable; they
deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.
May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a
bellows?
'Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power;
'Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.
The Tao of Heaven and Earth is just, fair and centered
The ideal government carries the Tao of Heaven; it maintains justice and treats all human beings equally because men, as they have been created, are born equal.
Heaven and Earth are like a bellower. Although it is empty, it has unlimited power. Because of its emptiness, all have the space to grow and create freely. The more one respect the seemingly empty Tao of Heaven, the more one will receive in return. Men in power, you spend too much time making speeches while you could instead understand and protect the seemingly empty Tao of Heaven.
