Chapter LV
REGULATIONS AND DISTINCTIONS[1]
In general,[2]
wherever the state is extensive and the ruler
is honourable, there laws are so strict that whatever is ordered
works and whatever is prohibited stops. Therefore, the ruler
of men who distinguishes between ranks and regulates
bounties, makes laws severe and thereby makes the distinction
strict.
Indeed, if the state is orderly, the people are safe; if
affairs are confused, the country falls into peril. Who makes
laws strict, hits on the true nature of mankind; who makes
prohibitions lenient, misses the apparent fact. Moreover,
everybody is, indeed, gifted with desperate courage. To
exert desperate courage to get what one wants, is human
nature. Yet everybody's likes and dislikes should be regulated
by the superior. Now the people like to have profit and bounty
and hate to be punished, if the superior catches their likes and
dislikes and thereby holds their desperate courage under
control, he will not[3]
miss the realities of affairs.
However, if prohibitions are lenient and facts are missed,
reward and penalty will be misused. Again, when governing
the people, if you do not regard[4]
conformity to law as right,
you will eventually observe no law. Therefore, the science
and philosophy of politics[5]
should by all means emphasize
the distinction between degrees of penalty and of reward.
Who governs the state, should always uphold the law.
In life there are ups and downs. If any ruler goes down, it is
because in regulating rewards and penalties he makes no
distinction between different degrees. Who governs the
state, always distinguishes between reward and punishment.
Therefore, some people might regard the distinction between
reward and punishment as distinction, which should not be
called distinction in the strict sense.
As regards the distinction made by the clear-sighted
ruler, it is the distinction between different grades of reward
and of punishment. Therefore, his subjects respect laws and
fear prohibitions. They try to avoid crime rather than
dare to expect any reward. Hence the saying: "Without expecting
penalty and reward the people attend to public affairs."
For this reason, the state at the height of order is able to
take the suppression of villainy for its duty. Why? Because
its law comprehends human nature and accords with the
principles of government.
If so, how to get rid of delicate villainy? By making the
people watch[6]
one another in their hidden affairs. Then how
to make them watch one another? By implicating the people
of the same hamlet in one another's crime. When everyone
knows that the penalty or reward will directly affect him, if
the people of the same hamlet[7]
fail to watch one another,
they will fear they may not be able to escape the implication,
and those who are evil-minded, will not be allowed to forget
so many people watching them. Were such the law, everybody
would mind his own doings, watch everybody else, and
disclose the secrets of any culprit. For, whosoever denounces
a criminal offence, is not held guilty but is given a reward;
whosoever misses any culprit, is definitely censured and given
the same penalty as the culprit. Were such the law, all types
of culprits would be detected. If the minutest villainy is not
tolerated, it is due to the system of personal denunciation
and mutual implication.
Indeed, the most enlightened method of governing a
state is to trust measures and not men. For this reason, the
tactful state is never mistaken if it does not trust the empty
fame of men. If the land within the boundary is always in
order it is because measures are employed. If any falling
state lets foreign soldiers walk all over its territory and can
neither resist nor prevent them, it is because that state trusts
men and uses no measures. Men may jeopardize their own
country, but measures can invade others' countries.
Therefore, the tactful state spurns words and trusts laws.
Broadly speaking, it is hard to uncover a crooked merit
that appears to fulfil the promise; it is hard to disclose the
feature[8]
of the fault that is ornamented with beautiful words.
Therefore, penalty and reward are often misled by double-dealers.
What is alleged to be fulfilling the promise but is hard
to uncover, is a villainous merit. Any minister's fault is hard
to disclose, because its motive is missed. However, if by
following reason you can not disclose the false merit and by
analyzing feelings you are still deceived by the villainous
motive, then can both reward and punishment have no
mistake respectively?
For such reasons, false scholars establish names inside,
while itinerants devise plans outside, till the stupid and the
coward mix themselves with the brave and the clever.
Inasmuch as the false path is customary, they are tolerated
by their age. Therefore, their law does not work and their
penalty affects nobody. If so, both reward and penalty
have to be double-dealings.[9]
Therefore,[10]
concrete facts have their limits of extension,
but abstract principles involve no accurate measures. The
absence of such measures is due not to the law but to the
abandonment of law[11]
and the dependence on cleverness.
If the law is abandoned and cleverness is employed, how can
the appointee to office perform his duty? If duty and office
are not equivalent to each other, then how can the law evade
mistakes and how can penalty evade troubles? For this reason
reward and punishment will be thrown into confusion and
disorder, and the state policy will deviate and err, because
neither penalty nor reward has any clear distinction of degree
as in the difference between black[12]
and white.
