맹자와 순자 왕패론의 相對的 논리와 相補的 논리

Abstract

This essay intended to clarify a characteristic of theory of the rule of right[王道] and the rule of might[覇道] in Mencius and Xunzi, who represented Confucianism of pre-Qin Dynasty by succeeding to Confucius’ thought on the basis of the philosophical point of view focusing treatise of human nature. Especially, this thesis mainly investigated reason and grounds on which Mencius and Xunzi regarded the rule of right and the rule of might as oppositive viewpoint and complementary one respectively. In the hidden side of an attitude from which Mencius regarded the rule of right and the rule of might as oppositive viewpoint, treatise of human nature through which he recognizes ethical human nature and sensuous desire as right oppositeness is lying. Whereas Xunzi’s treatise of human nature not put emphasis on the internal and ethical human nature, but underlines concrete and outer norms and institutions composed through moral standards and consideration capacity of mind. In other words, standard of moral truth in him does not lie in the inner human nature, but the outer institution and norms. In this reason, while in Mencius the rule of right is based on the inner morality and the rule of might pursues sensuous desires, the rule of right and the rule of might in Xunzi is continuous in that they all are connected with solid practice of humanity, justice, law and rightness or outer institutions. As this, difference of treatise of human nature between Mencius and Xunzi caused theoretical distinction recognizing differentially government of the rule of right and the rule of might as mutual oppositive viewpoint or complementary one each other. Because Mencius fundamentally considered the rule of right and the rule of might as a methodology of mutual oppositive government, the rule of might as rule pursuing national prosperity and military power and profit couldn't coexist with the rule of right aiming at moral ideal. Whereas, Xunzi viewed governance of the rule of right as the most ideal method of rule on the one hand, he also regarded one of the rule of might as a system acceptable practically. He defined the rule of right as governance built on benevolence, righteousness and propriety, while the rule of might was regulated with reference to system giving one outer confidence than inner humanity and justice at least. In the eyes like this, it can be concluded that difference of the mutual categorical meaning of the rule of right and the rule of might which Mencius and Xunzi suggested arises from perception gap about periodical circumstances with their treatise of human nature.