Nalei Chen

This case examines Han Feizi’s (d. 233 BC) philosophy of leadership by focusing on selections from the Hanfeizi and their application in the modern business setting. When facing an unprecedented crisis, we naturally look for an extraordinary leader with strong skills and virtues who can lead us out of the crisis with innovative solutions. However, Han Feizi has a sober observation that most leaders are mediocre, which is probably true even in our modern context. Thus, he argues that the leader should not rely on their limited political agency and judgment, which often does more harm than good. Instead, the leader should govern through a bureaucratic administration that is rule-bounded, impersonal, operates based on the knowledge of professionals, and overall, is highly similar to the administrative system in modern states and companies. In this system, most governance tasks are delegated to professional bureaucrats, while the ruler does nothing but is responsible for supervising the performance of bureaucrats. This case can help students develop a “realistic” expectation of leadership and obtain a lesson that is still relevant to modern leaders: Maintain a system where the knowledgeable can contribute effectively and try not to interfere with your preferences and wisdom!

Fazang (643–712) was a Chinese Buddhist philosopher of the Tang dynasty and the third patriarch of Huayan Buddhism. In this project, I argue that Fazang’s philosophy can shed light on our discussion of contemporary Western cosmopolitanism, despite the radical diferences of time and space. First, I will show that Fazang’s vision of the cosmos is totalistic and everything is identical because they all belong to one body, which requires us to treat all things, including sentient and insentient as well, with equal concern and care. Then, I will show that Fazang’s metaphysical and ethical views could be insightful for developing an account of cosmopolitanism from a non-Western classical source, which is much needed in contemporary cosmopolitanism. The reason is that his metaphysical view can afrm the universal identity of human beings as members of one community, and his ethical view would be compatible with a moderate version of cosmopolitanism.

Han Feizi’s philosophy has greatly influenced Chinese politics, but he is commonly perceived in Chinese history as an apologist for tyranny. Can his legalist philosophy be compatible with human rights? In this essay, I take up this interesting question. I argue that Han Feizi’s philosophy could endorse a “political” account of human rights. Han Feizi plans to help the state become orderly and stable. To achieve this goal, the key is the effectiveness of the incentive system and bureaucratic administration, under which people will be incentivized to act in ways that lead to the benefit of state interest. To enable these systems to function fully, there must be certain protections for people, which can be ensured effectively by providing them with rights. Han Feizi’s approach to human rights is different from the Confucian approach and can offer contemporary discussion of human rights new insights from the East Asian perspective.

While ancient Chinese philosopher Han Feizi (d. 233 BC) and early modern Italian philosopher Machiavelli (d. 1527 CE) wrote in vastly different contexts, they shared both pessimism about human psychology and a belief that people are selfish. Hence, they came to similar conclusions about the requisite limits of ethics and ethical instruction in politics. And yet, they propose drastically different solutions for how rulers should generate stable and ethical states. In Machiavelli’s plan, the ruler should be an exceptional figure who possesses uncommon virtues necessary for achieving political order. Han Feizi, in contrast, argues that since most rulers are mediocre, the ruler should govern with the support of a wider bureaucratic state that is regulated by a complicated system of laws. This chapter compares Han Feizi’s and Machiavelli’s conceptions of how the ruler should establish order. It argues that this project has several benefits: (1) it can benefit the study of both Han Feizi and Machiavelli and (2) it can shed light on contemporary discussion of political philosophy and help us develop realistic political theory.

In this essay, Han Feizi is compared to Max Weber. It is argued that comparing the two enables us to see a distinctive aspect of Han Feizi's political thought. In particular, it is proposed that Weber's theory of the modern state (especially bureaucratic administration) can provide us with a helpful lens for understanding the structure, inner logic, and implications of Han Feizi's account of administration. Moreover, this comparison enables us to see clearly that the Han Feizi still has contemporary relevance. First Weber's account of political order and bureaucratic administration is explained. Next, Han Feizi and Weber are compared by focusing on six characteristics of Weberian bureaucracy. Then some differences between Han Feizi and Weber are considered. Finally some philosophical implications of this comparison are outlined for contemporary political philosophers.