Confucius on True Ministers: Upholding Righteousness Over Allegiance

Ji Ziran(1) asked, “Can Zhong You and Ran Qiu be called ministers?” The Master said, “I thought you were asking a different question, between Zeng (2) and Qiu. A minister is one who serves the ruler according to the Way, and if he cannot, he stops. Now Zeng and Qiu can be called ordinary ministers (3).” He said, “Then who will follow them (4)?” The Master said, “Even if they kill their father or ruler, they will not follow them.”

[Notes]

(1) Ji Ziran: a fellow member of the Ji clan in the state of Lu.

(2) Zeng: then.

(3) Guochen: ordinary ministers.

(4) Zhi: pronoun, here referring to the Ji clan. At the time, both Ran Qiu and Zi Lu were household ministers of the Ji clan.

Translation:

Ji Ziran asked, “Can Zhong You and Ran Qiu be considered ministers? Confucius said, ”I thought you were asking about someone else, but it turns out you were asking about You and Qiu. A minister is someone who can serve the monarch using the principles of Duke of Zhou. If that doesn’t work, he’d rather resign. Now, Yu and Qiu are only servants who are there to fill the ranks. Ji Ziran said, “Then will they follow the Ji clan in everything?” Confucius said, “They will not follow them in killing their father or their ruler.”

Commentary

Confucius pointed out the principle of “serving the ruler with the Way.” He warned Ran Qiu and Zilu that they should use the way of Duke of Zhou to advise the Ji clan, not to rebel against the ruler. If the Ji clan does not listen, they should resign. This shows that Confucius regards the relationship between the ruler and the minister as being governed by the principles of the Way and propriety. Here, he is asking both the minister and the ruler to follow the Way and propriety. If the Ji family kills the father and the ruler, Ran Qiu and Zilu should oppose it.

In the annals of Chinese philosophy, Confucius stands as a towering figure whose teachings continue to resonate across centuries. His insights into governance, loyalty, and morality offer timeless guidance. A significant lesson from his teachings is encapsulated in a dialogue concerning the true nature of a minister’s duties.

In a recorded conversation, a member of the Ji clan, Ji Ziran, asked Confucius whether two individuals, Zhong You and Ran Qiu, could be considered great ministers. Confucius responded by clarifying that the term “great minister” is not used lightly. According to him, a great minister serves their ruler according to the principles of the Duke of Zhou—a paragon of virtue and righteousness in ancient China. If these principles cannot be adhered to, a true minister should resign rather than compromise their integrity.

Confucius remarked that Zhong You and Ran Qiu could only be deemed ordinary ministers. This judgment was not a slight against their capabilities but rather a reflection of their adherence to the moral and ethical standards expected of a true minister.

Ji Ziran further inquired whether Zhong You and Ran Qiu would follow the Ji clan in all matters. Confucius’s answer was unequivocal: even if it meant opposing their own ruler, a true minister should not follow actions that involve betrayal, such as the killing of one’s father or ruler. This response highlights a critical principle in Confucian thought—the supremacy of moral righteousness over blind loyalty.

Confucius’s teachings emphasize that both rulers and ministers must adhere to principles of virtue and propriety. For Confucius, the relationship between ruler and minister should be guided by moral integrity rather than mere allegiance. A minister’s role is not to follow their ruler unconditionally but to uphold the moral path even in the face of personal risk or conflict. This perspective underscores the Confucian ideal that righteousness and ethical conduct should always come before personal or political loyalty.

In essence, Confucius’s teachings challenge us to consider the moral foundations of our actions and allegiances. They remind us that true loyalty involves standing by ethical principles, even when it means resisting those in power. This principle remains a profound reflection on the nature of leadership and integrity, offering valuable lessons for contemporary governance and personal conduct.

By understanding and applying these timeless principles, we can better navigate the complexities of leadership and follow our moral compass, ensuring that our actions reflect a commitment to righteousness rather than mere compliance