The Confucian View

The social norm on "righteousness vs. profit" was formed as early as in the Spring and Autumn Period and valued greatly by Confucianism later. To Confucianism, the idea Righteousness stood for justice or morality, but the idea Profit stood for self-interest. In The Analects, Confucius said, "A gentleman takes righteousness as the fundamental principle (Zhi)." (King Ling of Wei) Here, Zhi meant source in "Source-End" or noumenon in "Noumenon-Function." Confucius also suggested the uniqueness of righteousness:

For a gentleman, there is no criterion to judge what is right or wrong but righteousness. (Li Ren)

And the harm of profit to human: "If a man who acts just in accordance with his profit, others will bear him malice." (Li Ren) Confucius here made choice between righteousness and profit, which was acknowledged by Confucianists later. For instance,

It is enough for Your Majesty to know what righteousness and benevolence rather than profit mean. (Mencius, King Hui of Liang 1)

When righteousness prevails, the country will enjoy peace; when profit prevails, the country will undergo disturbance. (Xun Zi, Strategies)

One makes acquainted with others not to obtain profit; one helps other to publicize righteousness. (The History of Han Dynasty, Biography of Dong Zhongshu)

Besides, Confucian view on "righteousness vs. profit" differentiated the gentleman and petty man:

The gentleman concerns whether it accords with righteousness; the petty man concerns whether it brings him profit. (The Analects, Li Ren)

A man who strives for righteousness is a sage like Shun; a man who strives for profit is a theft like Zhi. (Mencius, With All Heart I)

Human are born with bad nature. If they are not taught by teachers or restrained by law, they will pursue profit only. (Xun Zi, Honor and Shame)

Wang Fuzhi, a philosopher living in Ming Dynasty, also stressed that: "What differentiate gentleman and petty man, human and animal, is the view on righteousness and profit." (My Reading of History as a Mirror, Wei Zi) It was commendable that Confucians took righteousness or morality as the cardinal principle while dealing with righteousness-profit relationship; however, we should also notice their views were biased . Some Confucian scholars posed different opinions. In Southern Song Dynasty, Chen Liang and Ye Shi put more emphasis on achievement and utility. In late Ming Dynasty and early Qing Dynasty, Yan Yuan changed Dong Zhongshu's sentences to "One should obtain profit while making acquainted with others; one should consider his interest while publicizing righteousness." (Correcting The Four Books, vol. 1) In fact, the source of Confucianism embodied utilitarian color, like the value of accomplishment in Book of Documents and profit in Commentaries on Book of Change, which deserved our attention.

The issue "heavenly principle vs. human desire" was mentioned as early as in such Confucian classics as Record on the Subject of Music: "Human are born to be unselfish. That's the heavenly principle. They desire something when they see them. That's the human desire... The heavenly principle will perish when human do not control and examine themselves but indulge in desire. There is no limit of the lure in things, nor is human desire. If human desire can be gratified with endless pursuit of things, there will be no difference between human and things." The issue was widely discussed in Song Dynasty. Theoretically, it transformed from the issue "righteousness vs. profit." Principle, or heavenly principle, could be understood as Righteousness; desire, or human desire, could be as Profit. Obviously, the ideas of Neo-Confucianism and Cheng-Zhu School were embodied:

That human's nature is incomprehensible refers to human desire; that human's goodness is profound refers to heavenly principle. (Cheng Hao, Posthumous Work of Mr. Cheng, Vol. 11)

What the sages say can be summarized as "teaching human the heavenly principle and eliminating the human desire." (Zhu Xi, Words of Zhu Zi, Vol.12)

What a man should learn is how to eliminate human desire and revive heavenly principle. (Zhu Xi, Words of Zhu Zi, Vol.13)

It should be noted that Cheng-Zhu School's views on "heavenly principle vs. human desire" were not groundless, which suggested their reflections on moral and social issue. However, their biggest mistake lied in that they completely opposed heavenly principle to human desire and drew anti-humanistic or anti-nature conclusions. For instance,

When a man asked, "Could a widow who is lonely, poor, and helpless marry again?"

Cheng Yi replied, "People say this as they fear she will die of cold and hunger. To die of hunger is less important than to lose her virtue." (Cheng Yi, Posthumous Work of Mr. Cheng, Vol. 22)

Evidently, the idea "Reviving Heavenly Principle and Eliminating Human Desire" meant a disaster to human, as Dai Zhen, a scholar in Qing Dynasty, observed:

With truth, the superior blames the inferior, the old blames the young, and the noble blames the humble. The former must be respected in spite that they are wrong. With truth, the inferior refutes the superior, the young refutes the old, and the humble refutes the noble. The former must not defy in spite that they are right. As a result, the lower can never be equal with the upper in human nature (emotion and desire). It is uncountable that it is the lower's fault although the upper's blame is wrong. People sympathize with those who are killed by law, but who cares those are killed by principle? (Annotation of Mencius, Reason)

In modern China, Cheng-Zhu School's views on "heavenly principle vs. human desire" were criticized by more scholars. For instance, Lu Xun once said that what he discovered in the 24 histories of China was only two words - Eating Human.