Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2019, Vol. 14 Issue (3) : 363-383    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-008-019-0022-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Tricking or Benefitting the People? Guanzi on Objective Government and Subjective Preferences
Henrique Schneider()
Nordakademie, K?llner Chausee 11, Elmshorn 25335, Germany
 Download: PDF(292 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper discusses Guanzi’s philosophy regarding how the state should levy taxes. As Guanzi writes, people react individually to what they perceive as taxes, whereas government wants people not to react at all and simply pay the levies. Based on a philosophical analysis of human action, Guanzi suggests introducing a consumption tax on salt and iron. First, people have no way of evading them; second, because of the implicit character of the tax, people will not notice it. Therefore, these taxes will not influence behavior. This paper uses this discussion as a case study in order to show how Guanzi’s philosophy differs from other forms of Legalism. It will be shown that Guanzi is foremost a pragmatic thinker willing to use Confucian and Legalist elements, amalgamating them into policy-advice. The paper, however, does not discuss issues of Sinology as they relate to the text of the Guanzi, taking the text instead as a philosophical body.

Keywords Guanzi      Legalism      Confucianism      social philosophy      political philosophy     
Issue Date: 14 October 2019
 Cite this article:   
Henrique Schneider. Tricking or Benefitting the People? Guanzi on Objective Government and Subjective Preferences[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 363-383.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-008-019-0022-7
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2019/V14/I3/363
[1] Yoshimi Orii. The Limits of a Confrontational Approach: Fabian Fukansai’s Critiques of Neo-Confucianism and Christianity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 181-200.
[2] Michele Ferrero. Motivation to Act in Confucianism and Christianity: In Matteo Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義)[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 226-247.
[3] XU Keqian. A Contemporary Re-Examination of Confucian Li 禮 and Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 449-464.
[4] NI Peimin. Toward a Gongfu Reconstruction of Confucianism —Responses to Comments by Huang Yong, Fan Ruiping, and Wang Qingjie[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 240-253.
[5] Ady Van Den Stock. The Semantics of Wisdom in the Philosophy of Tang Junyi: Between Transformative Knowledge and Transcendental Reflexivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 39-54.
[6] PENG Guoxiang. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy in the Chinese-Speaking World: An Overview[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 91-119.
[7] Christopher C. Chrappa. The Incomprehensible Art of Thomas Hobbes[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 680-697.
[8] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[9] TAN Mingran. The Problem of Confucian Moral Cultivation and Its Solution: Using Ritual Propriety to Support Rule by Law[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 88-103.
[10] Ralph Weber. Confucian Political Philosophy for Non-Confucians[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 547-567.
[11] ZANG Fengyu. How to Construct Marxian Thoughts as a Political Philosophy?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 601-614.
[12] LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
[13] Richard Shusterman. Somaesthetics and Chinese Philosophy: Between Unity and Pragmatist Pluralism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 201-211.
[14] Leah Kalmanson,Sarah Mattice. The De of Levinas: Cultivating the Heart-Mind of Radical Passivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(1): 113-129.
[15] YAO Xinzhong. An Eco-Ethical Interpretation of Confucian Tianren Heyi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 570-585.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed