鄧析と孔丘 : この二人はなぜ敵対しなければならなかったか

Abstract

K'ung ch'iu (孔丘) understood the primary virtue of "jen" (humanity) as based upon the obedience toward one's father and one's eldest brother. He was keenly aware of the necessity of emphasizing the importance of the paternal rights. The social system then was founded on the paternal rights which included corresponding rights of property. K'ung ch'iu's doctrine aimed at the defense of the system. The system, however, had already begun to decline and had allowed the appearance of a doctrine which insisted upon the rule of law over against the rule of morality. The new doctrine of legalism was to do justice to, and to defend the rights of, the class of people who newly acquired their property. The new doctrine had to be against the old doctrine of morality because of the antagonism between the two social forces supporting them. While K'ung ch'iu defended the doctrine of morality it was Têng hsi (鄧析) who represented the doctrine of legalism When in the latter half of the 6th century B. C. part of the criminal law came to be codified and made known to the public, K'ung ch'iu strongly opposed to the move because he feared that it would lead to the decline of the patriarchal order. Têng hsi, on the contrary, opened a law office for the common people and gave them legal advice for a certain fee. He very often criticised decisions of the court, encouraged a new sense of justice, and thus undermined the established value system. The logic peculiar to Têng hsi, commonly called "sophism", was an indispensable weapon for his legal activities. And I take the doctrine of "correcting the name" (正名) held by K'ung ch'iu to be no other than a direct attack on the logic of the legalist.