By Lyndon Storey (Note: An earlier version of this article appeared in “Toward Democratic World Federation” the Journal of the Democratic World Federalists)

INTRODUCTION:
When we hear about plans for world unity or international co-operation they are usually presented from a western perspective. By this I do not mean that such ideas are presented as part of the development of the west (although they sometimes are) but that the “universal” ideas and theories behind them are usually western. Thinkers such as Immanuel Kant or Hugo Grotius are often cited as founders of a universal tradition of thought calling for global political equality. The implication is that the store of ideas and practices that come from the western heritage are all we need to turn to inspire us towards a civilised global political community.

Yet if we look at the actual political history of the west we can see that it pioneered the ideologies of racism, imperialism and exclusivist nationalism all of which have presented the main barriers to international co-operation in the past. For every Immanuel Kant arguing for a league of perpetual peace the west has produced thousands of nationalists who have declared that the national interest is more important than anything else and that they would rather die, or kill, than see their nation’s sovereignty limited.

Is it just the case then that the west produces every idea, good and bad and there is no need to look at other cultures?  The answer to this is no. When it comes to international co-operation and respect for our fellow human beings there are many great thinkers in other cultures who have lessons for us. They are worth looking at not because they have developed ideas which are similar to western ideas but because they have avoided many of the pitfalls that western thought has fallen into. For that very reason we can learn from them. This article looks at the ideas of a great non-western thinker Mencius (Meng Zi in pin yin romanisation, c 371-289 BCE) and compares his thought with some of his western near contemporaries, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

WHO IS MENCIUS?
Mencius described himself as an interpreter of Confucius. He lived nearly 200 years after the time of Confucius. Mencius lived during the “Warring States” period when seven powerful states competed for power in the area today known as China. Mencius refused to support any one state and instead advocated social justice and peace for all of humanity. He travelled to many of the countries of his day arguing that as we all share a human heart the goal of government should be to protect and promote our humanity rather than dominate or control it. He said the first goal of government should be the “welfare of the people” and advocated reforms designed to give each family access to land and education. He argued that the goal of politics should be to build a community of all humanity since our humanity was what made civilisation possible and to deny the humanity of others was to deny civilisation.

Mencius is still a famous philosopher in the Chinese world today. In recent times Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae Jung of South Korea has argued that Mencius emphasis on putting the people’s interests before those of the sovereign is an example of an Asian political philosopher developing foundation principles consistent with democracy. Kim has described Mencius as one of his inspirations in his attempts to bring democracy to South Korea and peace to the Korean peninsula(i).  In the west however Mencius is largely unknown.

MENCIUS IDEAS IN A NUTSHELL:
Mencius’ intellectual system is both too vast and too subtle to reproduce in its entirety. I will instead introduce some key themes.

1 We all share a common humanity and a “heart of compassion”:
Mencius believed our common humanity was more important than religious or national differences. The core of this was our sense of compassion towards others. Mencius viewed this sense of compassion as being innate and the source of both human solidarity and ethics.

In a famous passage he argued:

My reason for saying no man is devoid of a heart sensitive to the suffering of others is this. Suppose a man were, all of a sudden, to see a young child on the verge of falling into a well. He would certainly be moved to compassion, not because he wanted to get in the good graces of the parents, not because he wished to win the praise of his fellow villagers and friends, nor yet because he disliked the cry of the child. From this it can be seen that whoever is devoid of the heart of compassion is not human…(ii)

His point in this passage is that in that first instance of seeing the child in peril anyone would feel a pang of concern. This is the “heart of compassion”. He does not claim we are all saints but that in the first instant our “heart of compassion” is aroused and only later, depending on how we have developed, do more calculating and cynical motives take over. The moral potential is already there within each of us.

2 Government, to be legitimate, must be for the welfare of the people:
Mencius argued that government had to treat people as moral beings who possessed a “heart of compassion”. People could not be forced to be moral of course, but they had to be given the opportunity to develop their moral potential rather than be treated like slaves or mere objects. If a government did not reflect and enhance the “heart of compassion” it was inhuman and unjust.

Therefore government had to take account of the needs of the people. “The people are of supreme importance…, last comes the ruler” (7 B 14). A government that did not respect the people was not a legitimate one. On one occasion a tyrant was overthrown and Mencius was criticised for not opposing the rebellion. Mencius replied that what had occurred was not the overthrow of a legitimate ruler, but an illegitimate one, as the deposed ruler had relied on force and cruelty. If the people lost their faith in the ruler he had lost Heaven’s mandate to rule.  “Heaven hears with the ears of its people, Heaven sees with the eyes of its people” (5A 5).

3 “The people” means all of humanity:
As Mencius had based his argument on a human potential for moral behavior he was logically compelled to conclude that the only legitimate government was one which governed for all humans. The goal he recommended for political leaders was to unite the world and treat everyone fairly rather than advance their own nation’s interest. .

“There is a way to win the world win the people and you will win the world. There is a way to win the people; win their hearts and you will win the people” (iii).

4 A war not justified by human benefit will only lead to more conflict:
Mencius was well aware that there would be rulers who claimed to be fighting for global justice when in fact they were only concerned for themselves. For Mencius security could only come from bringing justice to humanity, not by applying force.

Qi was one of the great powers of Mencius’ day. After it annexed Yan it faced rebellion within Yan and attack by a coalition of forces from other states. In a famous passage Mencius explained to the King of Qi why things had gone wrong.

Now when you went to punish Yan which practiced tyranny over its people, the people thought you were going to rescue them from water and fire, and they came to meet your army, …Now you double your territory without practicing benevolent government. This is to provoke the armies of the whole empire (i.e. the other states now united against Qi) If you… take your army out after setting up a ruler in consultation with the men of Yan it is still not too late… (1 B 11)

 Mencius felt that any war other than one genuinely supporting the human community would be unjust and only lead to further conflict. That is why Qi was welcomed when it was simply opposing tyranny but attacked when it behaved like just another great power.

5 Civilised people should be loyal to human civilisation, not just their country:
Mencius used the word Jun Zi (usually translated as exemplary person or gentlemen) to describe someone who was trying to live up to his ideals and develop his or her heart of compassion. Mencius hoped the Jun Zi would develop into a transnational intellectual class whose prime loyalty was to benevolence rather than to a particular state. The best gentleman of a village is in a position to make friends with the best gentlemen in other villages; the best gentlemen in a state with the best gentlemen in other states…” (5 B 8).
Mencius urged people to put their conscience as humans before their loyalty as national citizens. Our humanity is more important than our patriotism.

I could write much more about Mencius but let us now turn to a comparison of his basic ideas with those of some of the great western thinkers who lived at around the same time as him.

COMPARISON WITH WESTERN THINKERS:
Socrates (c 470-399BCE):
At his trial Socrates argued in his defence (according to Plato) that the “unexamined life is not worth living”. He argued that the best thing he could do for Athens was to examine assumptions and try to move closer to truth. He also offered the defence that he had been a loyal Athenian and engaged in military service on Athens behalf. Even after being found guilty one of the reasons he rejected the idea of escaping was that it would be a form of disloyalty to Athens. In other words his fearless examination of all assumptions did not include the assumption of loyalty to the state. Far from examining this assumption he expected praise for upholding it. Putting national loyalty ahead of human loyalty was the one assumption Socrates failed to challenge. In this respect Socrates was pioneering the western tradition of putting the small group (the state) ahead of humanity. Socrates fought for his country and expected credit for that while Mencius repeatedly left his country to campaign against war and for a community of humanity. Socrates died in 399 BCE, less than 30 years before Mencius was born.

Plato (c 427-347 BCE):
Socrates student Plato wrote the first major work of western political philosophy, the “Republic”. In this famous work Plato dedicated much space to detailing how the ideal society should be organised, setting out a range of rules for education, child rearing, the treatment of different classes of society and so forth. However, when it came to foreign policy Plato’s main hope seemed to be that the Republic would be difficult to defeat in warfare “our trained soldiers should easily be a match for two or three times their number”.(iv) He also proposed that children be taken to witness warfare so as to develop a good fighting mentality(v). This is all good advice to ensure the Republic will survive in a hostile world but it means Plato has only considered political legitimacy as possible within the small group, the Republic, those outside are to be met with force. There is no suggestion that a political society could be organised on the basis of principles consistent with bringing justice to humanity as Mencius advocated. For Plato “the people” still meant only the people of his own country.

Aristotle (c 384-322 BCE):
Aristotle’s ideal government was also not a human community, but an ideal city-state, ready to wage war upon its enemies. In fact Aristotle was convinced that the differences between different peoples and states were innate and so a human political system was out of the question. He declared “It is proper that Greeks should rule non-Greeks, the implication being that non-Greek and slave are by nature identical” (vi).  For Aristotle this was not due to a contingent fact of the world of his times but due to the very nature of people, “ It is clear then that by nature some are free, others slaves…” (vii).

Mencius, argued that, due to the potential contained in our heart of compassion, even the crudest barbarian could become part of the moral community of humanity. He illustrated this point by pointing to two worthies of the past;   “Shun was an eastern barbarian;… Wen was a western barbarian;…The standards of the two sages, one earlier and one later were identical.”  (4B 1) Thus while Aristotle was pioneering the western traditions of racism and political nationalism, Mencius was putting the case for our common humanity.

The great early thinkers of western civilization pioneered the western tradition of putting our nation before our common humanity and treated a world of warring states as the norm rather than a crisis of humanity. Mencius helps us appreciate that human divisions are contingent rather than innate and that politics should focus on the human interest rather than the national interest.

 In reality, western thinkers were amongst the last rather than the first to realize that our common humanity should not stop at national borders. As we attempt to correct the flaws of the western tradition, we should do so in a manner that acknowledges contributions from other cultures. Let us learn from the human tradition rather than just the western tradition and study great human thinkers such as Mencius rather than confine ourselves to such parochial figures as Plato and Aristotle.

About The Author:
Lyndon Storey is an activist and scholar who has been active in human rights and international justice issues for many years. He has been a lecturer at Universities in China and Australia teaching in the fields of philosophy, politics and international relations. He is also one of the founding members of the Australian world citizens association and of the human union movement. His most recent book “Humanity or Sovereignty” shows the tragic consequences for international politics of putting our national identity ahead of our human identity.

References: