Translated Text

[4:10] The Master said: “When the noble man deals with the world he is not prejudiced for or against anything. He does what is Right.

[4:11] The Master said: “The superior man thinks of virtue; the inferior man thinks of possessions. The superior man seeks discipline; the inferior man seeks favors.”

[14:22] Zi Lu asked how to deal with a ruler. Confucius said, “Do not impose on him, and, moreover, withstand him to his face.”

Analysis

In passage 4:11, Confucius draws a clear distinction between a superior man and an inferior man. Confucius says, “The superior man thinks of virtue; the inferior man thinks of possessions. The superior man seeks discipline; the inferior man seeks favors.” From a general reading of the passage, it can be seen that a superior man is a morally exemplary person who possesses virtue and acts in accordance with moral principles, whereas an inferior man disregards virtues and focuses on petty affairs such as benefits and reputations. However, at a deeper level, it is crucial to understand how such a distinction is established.

A close reading of the passage 4:11 would require an examination of the verbs’ think’ and ‘seek.’ Both verbs, though appear to mean differently, are translated from the same Chinese character ‘Huai 怀.’ In common usage, ‘Huai’ means having an attitude or an emotion toward something or someone. For example, one may possess (Huai) a sense of respect toward her teacher. ‘Huai’ also implies that attitude can influence action, just as a person who is respectful to his teacher would go to class on time, participate in class, etc. In the context of Passage 4:11, what Confucius implies by ‘Huai’ is that a person habituates moral concerns with which she would carry out her moral judgments and act accordingly. In Great Learning, this idea is described as “What truly is within will be manifested without.” While the common conception of ‘think’ may allow assorted considerations, ‘Huai’ demands one’s devotion to a particular moral position. Perhaps, it would be better to say, “The superior man [cherishes] virtue.”

Passage 14:22 could serve as a further illustration of the idea of ‘Huai’ or ‘cherish.’ When Confucius’ student Zi Lu asks how a ruler should be served, Confucius replies, “Do not impose on him, and, moreover, withstand him to his face.” An explanation of this passage would be that an inferior man would avoid criticizing and upsetting the ruler. Instead, he flatters the ruler to gain favors and rewards for himself. On the other hand, a superior man who cherishes virtue would restrain himself from personal desires and preferences when dealing with public affairs as he is solely devoted to Confucius’s moral principles. He will be honest with the ruler and will stand up against the ruler’s wrong deeds.

Moreover,  in passage 4:10, Confucius says, “A superior man in dealing with the world is not for anything or against anything. He follows righteousness as the standard.” One could treat this passage as a restatement of the arguments outlined in passage 4:11. The interpretation goes:  a superior man in dealing with the (public) world is not for or against anyone’s personal benefits and preferences. He only makes moral judgments against the principle of righteousness (or virtue). In the context of this passage, righteousness carries a very similar meaning as ‘virtue’. This could be shown by passage 4:16, which is almost identical to passage 4:11, where Confucius says, “The superior man is versed in what is righteous. The inferior man is versed in what is profitable.”

To sum up, an inferior man would take personal benefits and preferences as his priority. His judgments are not morally guided, and his actions do not incorporate virtue.  Conversely, a superior man would take virtues as his standard. He bases his moral judgments solely on moral principles and restrains himself from personal desires. Therefore, his actions are always appropriate to the Way.

Original Text

[4:10] 子曰：「君子之於天下也，無適也，無莫也，義之與比。」

[4:11] 子曰：「君子懷德，小人懷土；君子懷刑，小人懷惠。」

[14:22] 子路問事君。子曰：「勿欺也，而犯之。」

Translated Text

The man of superior virtue is not (conscious of) his virtue,

And in this way, he really possesses virtue. 

The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue,

And in this way he loses his virtue.

The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior propriety takes action, 

And when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them.

Therefore, only when Dao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise.

When virtue is lost, only then does the doctrine of humanity arise.

When humanity is lost, only then does the doctrine of righteousness arise.

When righteousness is lost, only then does the doctrine of propriety arise.

Now, propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.

Those who are the first to know have the flowers (appearance) of Dao but are the beginning of ignorance.

For this reason the great man dwells in the thick (substantial), and does not rest with the thin (superficial).

He dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance).

Therefore, he rejects the one, and accepts the other.

Analysis

In this chapter, Laozi discusses the ways in which moral principles influence the evolution of society. In particular, he argues that conscious moral education, based on the tenets of Confucianism such as Humanity (Ren), Righteousness (Yi), and Propriety (Li), causes the decline of Dao and the corruption of social order.

Chapter 38 begins with: 

The man of superior virtue (De) is not (conscious of) his virtue (De),

And in this way he really possesses virtue. 

The man of inferior virtue (De) never loses (sight of) his virtue (De),

And in this way he loses his virtue.

What does Laozi mean when he says a virtuous man is unaware of his own ‘virtue’? How can one make sense of such an abstruse statement? First of all, note that the word ‘virtue’ was directly translated from the Chinese character ‘De (德)’. However, from a linguistic perspective, there was a subtle difference (which has often been ignored) between ‘De‘ and virtue in ancient times. While ‘virtue’ means high moral standards, ‘De‘ was more a less a neutral term: it refers to moral standards that can be evaluated (as good or bad). In ancient Chinese society, moral standards are evaluated based on what individuals got for the society (wealth, possessions, reputations, etc.), which ultimately boils down to what individuals got for themselves since there was very little distinction between individuals and a collective at that time. This is why in the Chinese language, ‘De’ is sometimes used as a homonym (德=得)^[1].

We can now go back and unpack the text. It is clear that ‘the man of superior virtue’ refers to a ruler with high moral standards (and conversely, ‘the man of inferior virtue’ refers to a ruler who has low moral standards). The subsequent ‘De’ is used as a homonym, meaning ‘to get’. Therefore, a ruler who has high moral standards is not conscious of what he gets for himself, so he is indeed virtuous. However, a ruler who has low moral standards pays too much attention to what he gets for himself (instead of for his people), so he loses his status (of being virtuous).

As the distinction between a virtuous ruler and a non-virtuous ruler is recognized, the remainder of the chapter becomes rather straightforward. Next, Laozi says,

The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so.

The man of superior propriety takes action, 

And when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them.

In this part of the chapter, Laozi argues that as civilization progresses, a ruler who adopts the Confucian moral teaching would no longer have his political principle based on high moral standards. He would rule in terms of Humanity first, then shift to Righteousness, and eventually to Propriety. As a result, his political system is in continuous moral degeneration. 

Laozi argues that the ruler in a political system based on high moral standards takes no action and has no ulterior motive because he has no personal desire to interfere with social development. However, a political system based on Humanity requires the ruler to take action because it aims for moral cultivation. For example, the ruler may have to introduce policies such as three years of moaning period for the death of parents in order to ‘morally’ transform his subjects. However, such a ruler still places the benefits of his people as the priority, so he is said to have no ulterior motive. On the other hand, a political system based on Righteousness implies that the ruler would move on to further interfere with society by establishing more rules on behavior and conduct. For example, he would ask his subject to kneel in front of him to show respect. However, his ulterior motive might be to fulfill his vanity and personal desire. Eventually, the ruler becomes morally corrupted and starts to rule in terms of Propriety by imposing rigid laws and behavioral codes on his people in order to exploit them. As a result, he inevitably faces opposition from his people, so he would have to use forces and punishments to achieve his goal.

Next, Laozi summarises his argument:

Therefore, only when Dao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise.

When virtue is lost, only then does the doctrine of humanity arise.

When humanity is lost, only then does the doctrine of righteousness arise.

When righteousness is lost, only then does the doctrine of propriety arise.

This part can be easily understood as a repetition of Laozi’s previous statements.

Last, Laozi says,

Now, propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.

Those who are the first to know have the flowers (appearance) of Dao but are the beginning of ignorance.

For this reason the great man dwells in the thick (substantial), and does not rest with the thin (superficial).

He dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance).

‘Those who are the first to know’ is translated from ‘前识者’. In the context of the text, it means ‘the political system prior to the introduction of the later’, which refers to Humanity (Ren). So by the end of chapter 38, Laozi reaches an important conclusion: we need to recognize that although Humanity is similar to Virtue in terms of its form, it would inevitably lead to chaos of disorder. Therefore, the ruler should abandon Confucian teachings and adhere to the Daoist teaching of Virtue. 

To sum up, in chapter 38 of Daodejing, Laozi argues that when the ruler rules in accordance with Dao, his original nature is unspoiled and he is removed from personal desires, so he is unconsciously good. The decline of virtues comes with the development of conscious moral knowledge, which leads to the moral deterioration of the ruler and eventually causes hypocrisy and chaos among the people.

Notes

[1] This can be verified using a Chinese dictionary.

Original Text

上德不德，是以有德。下德不失德，是以無德。

上德無為而無以為；下德為之而有以為；上仁為之而無以為。上義為之而有以為。上禮為之而莫之應，則攘臂而扔之。

故失道而後德，失德而後仁，失仁而後義，失義而後禮；夫禮者，忠信之薄而亂之首。前識者，道之華，而愚之始。

是以大丈夫處其厚，不居其薄，處其實，不居其華，故去彼取此。