In this essay I will argue that differences between how Confucius and Lao-Tzu view the political essence of a state are much more numerous and substantial than common features they share.
1. The primary way in which Taoism relates to politics and society is the bunch of views this philosophical theory has towards disparity in the society. As harmony in the Universe established by the nature is the central idea of Taoism the latter criticizes excessive richness of rulers, growing influence and coherence of the apparatus of bureaucracy and the too far-reaching influence of authorities in the everyday life of a state in general (Lao-Tzu, 2009). As for the followers of Taoism the natural is supreme towards the divine they deny dogmas about the heavenly will of what is done by the rulers of the state and the view that the ruler is the son of the sky. Of course, by depriving authorities the divine origin Taoists made them not so very much influential.
Seeking harmony in simplicity Taoists thought that the best way to rule the country is to hold back any attempts of authorities to excessively intervene in the affairs of members of society. By excessive intervention Taoists meant such things as imposing too many taxes as well as restrictive legislative measures. Lao-Tzu says that the best ruler is the one for whom the only thing he knows about his nation is the fact that it exists. Lao-Tzu was very conservative and called upon rulers to establish rules that had existed in the ancient times, to give up on tools of work and, interestingly enough, stop teaching the nation. Because ruling a nation that knows very much, according to Lao-Tzu, is especially hard (Lao-Tzu, 2009).
Lao-Tzu criticizes very sharply any coercion and violence obviously having in mind wars and armies in the first place. One of his major arguments is that famines usually follow wars. He says that therefore victories have to be celebrated with mourning ceremonies (lao-Tzu, 2009). This is embedded in a very logical way in the more general framework of Lao Tzu’s philosophy – any deviation from Tao (which wars and any violence whatsoever definitely are) leads to misbalance in life and universe and therefore, destruction.
2. Confucius was the philosopher who chose to develop the concept of a patriarchal and paternalistic state. He construes the state as a large family. The authority of the emperor, i.e. the son of the sky, is similar to that of a father. Similarly, relations between rulers and subjects resemble those between members of a family (Eno, 2015). Therefore the societal structure pictured by Confucius is based on the idea of disparity between people. He distinguishes such groups as the commoners, the lower class, the younger who have to be subject to the better, the higher, the elder and the nobler. This is to prove that Confucius was the proponent of the aristocratic concept of rule, i.e. he denied simple people any participation in the rule of state.
Another principal feature of political views of Confucius is the fact that he advocated for non-violent principles of rule. This means that notwithstanding the existing – and supported by him – disparity in the society he thought that mutual relations between state apparatus and subjects had to be based on virtues and goodness. Confucius was sure that there is no use to kill people for the good of a state. He said, to the contrary, that inner peace in relations between the state and citizens is what can make a state more robust. Therefore, even when he speaks about supporting order in the society Confucius says that the right way to do that would not be punishment but reward instead (Eno, 2015) . From all of the above it may be concluded that virtues for Confucius are a branchy complex of ethical norms and principles that includes love, respect, loyalty, duty and other suchlike things.
Finally, though Confucius advocates for the strict hierarchical division of the society, he emphasizes that is vital that there is no significant gap between the rulers and the subjects in terms of richness and poverty. The lesser the polarization according to this index is, the easier the harmony in the society can be achieved (Eno, 2015). Equality in this specific sense helps the previously described principle of virtues persist and rule the relations between the state and the people.
3. Judging from all that has been said above I must admit that political views of Lao-Tzu and Confucius seem to be more different than common thought not totally deprived of similarities.
The primary difference worth highlighting consists in the nature of origin of state authorities. For Lao-Tzu it is nature that is the source of everything existing in this world. Therefore, authorities if the state are also not regarded as something given from the above, something divine. At the same time, for Confucius, the specialty of authorities, of a ruler or rulers consists namely in the heavenly origin. Confucius articulates and supports the idea of the “son of skies” to the contrary of Lao-Tzu’s vision.
The next difference is how the structure of the society is construed. For Lao-Tzu equality is considered to be the central element, the principal idea. Therefore, Lao-Tzu recognizes that there are authorities and there is people, and that there has to be some level of subordination. But Lao-Tzu seeks to minimize this subordination, because that would be a violation of Tao, of natural stance of things, and therefore proposes the state influence the society the very least possible. Confucius, to the contrary, considers that hard structure and subordination is the key element for supporting the order in the society.
However there can be found some similarities though they are not numerous. For instance both philosophers recognize that the gap between the rulers and the people has to be narrowed. For Confucius, the one possess power, the others do not but in other relations – acquisition of property, richness and so on – the gap has to be minimized.
Also, the two philosophers converge in the notion that non-violence should be the guiding principle of the rule of a state. For Lao-Tzu violence is the violation of Tao, for Confucius violence is just the irrational way of mutual relations between the state and the society. But both agree that elimination violence is the right way to go to make a state and a society a better place.
Given all of the above I once again come to the conclusion that though there are some similarities between the ideas of the two philosophers they are not defining and are overshadowed by the differences existing between them.
References
Eno, Robert. (2015). The Analects of Confucius. An Online Teaching Translation. Retrieved at: http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Analects_of_Confucius_%28Eno-2015%29.pdf.
Lao-Tzu. (2009). The Tao-Te Ching. Retrieved at: http://classics.mit.edu/Lao/taote.1.1.html.
