韩非子“吏治”思想研究

Study on HanFei’s Thought of Administration of Officials

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

马克思主义学院

作者:

刘新春

导师:

陈应琴

导师单位:

马克思主义学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

韩非子;吏治;理论前提;治吏举措

摘要:

作为法家的核心代表人物,韩非的哲学思想被学界筛定在“法治”,偶有争议,亦只是局限在“法治”与“法制”层面,然而笔者认为,“法治”并不是韩非子的代表性哲学思想,“吏治”才是韩非子的主流思想及光芒所在,“法”与“势”“术”一样,只不过是达到“吏治”的手段。而韩非“治吏”的举措更是令人耳目一新,在为何治吏、如何治吏方面韩非子都有其独到却令人费解的思想,韩非子倾向采取极端的手段达到相对积极的目的,往往从一个端点走向了另一端点,而其看似极端、绝对的背后却有其深层次的理论前提与假设,有着韩氏的思维与逻辑。韩非认为人性本恶,人人为我,故重臣对君王之“势”始终构成威胁,君主维“势”,故需治吏;韩非认为人情逐利,故刑赏二柄得以可行;然君臣异利,故需治吏;韩非认为人有“祸恐”之心,故在治吏时严刑峻法、轻罪重罚会达到“以刑去刑”“以治去治”的社会功效;韩非认为世多“中主”,故治国应减少对君王个人才能的依赖,故治国以法。韩非子的思想是进化性的,兼具现实主义与功利主义,其认为“新故异备”“世异事异”,故其“不忆古”,而主张“以吏为师”。人性本恶、人情逐利、祸恐思想、中主预设、进化史观等正是其隐性的理论支点。韩非独具匠心的提出了君王“治吏不治民”的政治哲学命题,然而此命题却存在逻辑悖论,命题本身强调的是治吏的重要性,然而治吏却是为了达到治民的功效,君主不治民,治吏为治民,不治民而为治民,而从言辞逻辑上韩非只是以火为喻,将吏——民——火概念偷换成君——吏——民。韩非子的“吏治”思想包括“君治臣吏”与“臣吏治民”两个部分,在“君治吏”方面,韩非子主张的举措为:刑德二柄;审合参验,即形——名——情的三位一体与言——事——功的三位一体;“使贱议贵”,但反对用培植重臣来遏制重臣的以虎搏狼式的权力制约平衡;君主“无为”式的有为;“绝爱道,不悬怒”。在“臣吏治民”部分,韩非主张的举措为:臣吏依法治民;“齐民”;惩处“不令之民”;“定位一教之道”,即“以吏为师”,“以法为教”;“称俗而行”。韩非的“吏治”思想对现当代官僚制亦有补益的价值,如在选官方面,当代官僚制中“跑官要官”现象严重,而韩非在其治吏思想中明确提出反对“近习私说”,现代政治主张反对“空谈”,而韩非在其治吏举措中规劝君王反空谈,便要杜绝“学士之风”。在反腐败方面,现代人尚辩是否可行“高薪养廉”,韩非已主张“君霸王,臣富贵”的治国之策,现代政治学与行政学前沿领域还在小心探讨“下属权利”,韩非的治吏思想中便已明确提出“使贱议贵”。中国几千年的“吏治”向来被称为“外儒内法”之治,比较儒法的“吏治”思想便会发现,尽管法家因其“术”而饱受苛责,然儒家治吏亦有其“术”,在治吏赏罚方面,韩非认为以孔子为代表的儒家主张赏信、赏无过、可赏私,而其所代表的法家则主张赏诈、赏有功、必赏公等。剖析韩非子“吏治”思想,我们会发现,与“法治”对立的未必就是“人治”,“以法”“以德”均只是达到“吏治”的通途。

学科:

中国哲学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

刘新春. 韩非子“吏治”思想研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2015.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 韩非子“吏治”思想研究
  • dc.title
  • Study on HanFei’s Thought of Administration of Officials
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120101020019
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 刘新春
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 马克思主义学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 哲学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 陈应琴
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 马克思主义学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 韩非子;吏治;理论前提;治吏举措
  • dc.subject
  • Hanfeizi;administration of ministers;theoretical precondition;the physical measure of the official governance
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 作为法家的核心代表人物,韩非的哲学思想被学界筛定在“法治”,偶有争议,亦只是局限在“法治”与“法制”层面,然而笔者认为,“法治”并不是韩非子的代表性哲学思想,“吏治”才是韩非子的主流思想及光芒所在,“法”与“势”“术”一样,只不过是达到“吏治”的手段。而韩非“治吏”的举措更是令人耳目一新,在为何治吏、如何治吏方面韩非子都有其独到却令人费解的思想,韩非子倾向采取极端的手段达到相对积极的目的,往往从一个端点走向了另一端点,而其看似极端、绝对的背后却有其深层次的理论前提与假设,有着韩氏的思维与逻辑。韩非认为人性本恶,人人为我,故重臣对君王之“势”始终构成威胁,君主维“势”,故需治吏;韩非认为人情逐利,故刑赏二柄得以可行;然君臣异利,故需治吏;韩非认为人有“祸恐”之心,故在治吏时严刑峻法、轻罪重罚会达到“以刑去刑”“以治去治”的社会功效;韩非认为世多“中主”,故治国应减少对君王个人才能的依赖,故治国以法。韩非子的思想是进化性的,兼具现实主义与功利主义,其认为“新故异备”“世异事异”,故其“不忆古”,而主张“以吏为师”。人性本恶、人情逐利、祸恐思想、中主预设、进化史观等正是其隐性的理论支点。韩非独具匠心的提出了君王“治吏不治民”的政治哲学命题,然而此命题却存在逻辑悖论,命题本身强调的是治吏的重要性,然而治吏却是为了达到治民的功效,君主不治民,治吏为治民,不治民而为治民,而从言辞逻辑上韩非只是以火为喻,将吏——民——火概念偷换成君——吏——民。韩非子的“吏治”思想包括“君治臣吏”与“臣吏治民”两个部分,在“君治吏”方面,韩非子主张的举措为:刑德二柄;审合参验,即形——名——情的三位一体与言——事——功的三位一体;“使贱议贵”,但反对用培植重臣来遏制重臣的以虎搏狼式的权力制约平衡;君主“无为”式的有为;“绝爱道,不悬怒”。在“臣吏治民”部分,韩非主张的举措为:臣吏依法治民;“齐民”;惩处“不令之民”;“定位一教之道”,即“以吏为师”,“以法为教”;“称俗而行”。韩非的“吏治”思想对现当代官僚制亦有补益的价值,如在选官方面,当代官僚制中“跑官要官”现象严重,而韩非在其治吏思想中明确提出反对“近习私说”,现代政治主张反对“空谈”,而韩非在其治吏举措中规劝君王反空谈,便要杜绝“学士之风”。在反腐败方面,现代人尚辩是否可行“高薪养廉”,韩非已主张“君霸王,臣富贵”的治国之策,现代政治学与行政学前沿领域还在小心探讨“下属权利”,韩非的治吏思想中便已明确提出“使贱议贵”。中国几千年的“吏治”向来被称为“外儒内法”之治,比较儒法的“吏治”思想便会发现,尽管法家因其“术”而饱受苛责,然儒家治吏亦有其“术”,在治吏赏罚方面,韩非认为以孔子为代表的儒家主张赏信、赏无过、可赏私,而其所代表的法家则主张赏诈、赏有功、必赏公等。剖析韩非子“吏治”思想,我们会发现,与“法治”对立的未必就是“人治”,“以法”“以德”均只是达到“吏治”的通途。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As the core legist, HanFei’s philosophy thought had be limited in nomocracy by the educational circles. Though disputed occasionally, it is only about the difference between “by law” or “of law”. However, I think that thought of the administration of officials is his typical thought instead of the idea about “ruling of law”. The same as “puissance” and “tactics”, the “law” is only the mean of administrating officials. HanFei’s thought of officials is unique, especially in why and how to. To gain his good ends, HanFei was fond of adopting extreme measures. So he often did from one termipoint to the other. But in the background of the extreme measures, there are many theoretical precondition and his logical thinking. HanFei held the idea of the evil of human nature and every miller draws water to his own mill. So ministers threat the emperor’s puissance all along. Human’s favor is pursuing benefit. However, the emperor and the minister pursue different benefits. That’s why it needs. Everyone has the feared state of mind. So draconian laws are needed. People would be punished severely even if he commits a misdemeanor. HanFei thought that if did as such, he would get the result that “abolish punishment with punishment” and “abolish management with management”. HanFei held the idea that govern a state well should decrease the dependence on the governors maximatily because the most of emperors were in the medium range. So the state should be ruled of law. HanFei’s thought is evolutionism, realism and utilitarianism. He thought we should prepare differently for the different and had changed world. As the result, he advocated that we should not look back on olden times and we needed not do follow the former sovereign. Instead, HanFei took his stand on learning from the officials. The evil of human nature, human’s favor in pursuing benefit, the feared state of mind, the medium emperors, the evolutionism are his theory’s fulcrum.HanFei proposed a famous thesis that wise emperor should administrate ministers, nor the ordinary people. But this thesis is self-contradictory logically. Because the thesis originally emphasizes the importance of administrating the ministers. But in HanFei’s eyes ,the importance of administrating ministers depends on the importance of ruling the ordinary people. Administrate the ministers is for ruling people. HanFei disguised replacement of concepts. He used the “emperor——ministers——people” instead of the concepts “ ministers——people——fire” respectively and correspond to each other. HanFei’s thought of the administration of ministers has two parts: the administration of ministers and the administration of people. In the first part, Hanfei advocated the measures as such: rewards and punishment; examine, include “ form——essence——nature” trinity and “ words——problems——merits” trinity; the low status discusses the powerful officials, but against the way by cultivating one powerful official to restrict another; inactivity technique but include action; don’t set aside the angry and put an end to the kindheartedness. In the second part, HanFei insisted the measures as such: rule people by law; QiMin; punished the undisciplined men; definite one way of education, for example, learn from the officials, teach from the law; act follows the custom. HanFei’s thought of administration of ministers gives enlightenment to today’s bureaucracy. For example, in choosing officers, in connection with today’s crave official positions, HanFei insisted removing from the courtiers. Today we fight against windbaggary, HanFei had pointed out that governor should put an end to the general mood of scholar-bureaucrat. Now we combat corruption, many experts are investigating the feasibility of “ nourish honesty with high salary”, HanFei had insisted that “emperor fight for seeking hegemony, while minister for wealth”. Now politics try to discuss “ the right of the underling” while HanFei had insisted that low status could discuss the powerful officials. China’s administration of ministers in the course of millennia is considered to the employment of Confucian mode in dealing with diplomatic relations with other countries and the employment of Legalists. We also would find that the Legalists is being criticized impetuously because of its tactics. However, Confucianism also has the “tactics”. About the rewards and punishments, Confucius advocated rewarding the good faith, the faultless, the private sometimes. But HanFei advocated rewarding the dishonest, the merits and the publish must. By analyzing HanFei’s thought of the administration of ministers, I find that the nomocracy’s opposite maybe not the rule of man. Each other is only the way to minister’s administration.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-01-22
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2015-05-05
回到顶部