Early Chinese philosophies shared common goals of creating a utopia but differed in their approaches to governance. Legalism is the use of strict laws and harsh punishments to maintain social order and integrate power into the hands of their ruler. Daoism stresses the importance of natural harmony and balance, advocating for non-obtrusive governance, being a passive observer, and allowing natural order. Confucianism believed in leading by example, rulers practicing virtue, and treating their people with respect and pity. Buddhism advocates for a compassionate and moral approach to governance, where a ruler should act with wisdom and kindness. Legalism emphasizes the rule of law, harsh punishments, and strict enforcement to create a stable and …show more content…
This leads to people wanting more success than their communities. Daosim's approach to governance emphasizes the importance of a gentle and measured approach that promotes balance and harmony, not forcing social order. As stated by Tao Te Ching, “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Don’t overdo it (Document 1).” This evidence shows Daoist belief in natural harmony and balance and advocates for a modern and measured approach to governance, rather than overbearing control, by comparing it to overcooking a fish. This belief in how governance should be ruled aligns with the Daoist focus on a gentle and measured approach and helps to avoid disruption of the natural order. Confucianism stresses the importance of virtuous leadership and economic expenditure leading to a harmonious society where the needs of people are met. As stated in the Analects “Let your desires be for what is good, and the people will be good (Document 2).” This evidence shows that Confucianism emphasizes the importance of moral leadership and social behavior by accentuating that if a ruler seeks what is good for their subjects, the people will naturally follow suit and behave …show more content…
Buddhism advocates for high-minded and compassionate governance, urging the ruler to govern with kindness and wisdom while also taking care of their subjects. As stated by Buddhist monk Huiyuan “Kings and princes, though they have the power of preserving existence, cannot cause a preserved creature to be without sadness (Document 4).” This piece of evidence implies that the ability to preserve life is not enough to ensure happiness. It suggests that even if a king or prince has the power to keep a human alive, it can not guarantee that it will be free from sadness. This differs from Legalism because Buddhism emphasizes compassionate governance and one that is moral, whereas Legalism wants a more strict ruler to create a rich and stable society. While Legalism, Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism differ on how a government should govern, they all share the same goal of creating a prosperous state. Legalism emphasizes that strict punishment should be applied to set a bar, which makes people want to break the rules. Daoism emphasizes the importance of freedom and balance rather than being trapped by a strict