Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Mencius’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Mencius (c. 372-289 BCE), the preeminent successor to Confucius in Confucianism, developed a philosophy rooted in the innate goodness of human nature (ren xing shan), advocating benevolent governance (ren zheng) to cultivate virtue and harmony. His core ideas in the Mencius emphasize the people as paramount (min wei gui), moral kingship (wang dao) over coercive hegemony (ba dao), the flood-like qi of righteousness (hao ran zhi qi) as inner moral fortitude, and the righteousness-profit distinction (yi li zhi bian), where ethical duty trumps expediency. Mencius championed righteous rebellion against tyrants and the ruler’s duty to nourish the people, warning that unjust laws breed disorder. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Mencius’s lens, exemplifies tyrannical ba dao: the judiciary forsakes human goodness for coercive profit, suppressing righteous qi and violating the people’s primacy, eroding moral harmony.

1. Innate Goodness and the Failure of Benevolent Governance: Coercion Over Nurturing Virtue

Mencius’s doctrine of human nature’s goodness posits that all possess “sprouts” of benevolence (ren), righteousness (yi), and wisdom, which rulers must nurture through ren zheng—governance that educates and sustains, not punishes preemptively.

The verdict betrays this: sentencing Chen for scholarly forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) presumes malice in innate inquiry, stifling the “sprout” of wisdom rather than cultivating it. The closed-door trial and “shut up” directive embody un-ren: no moral education, only force, contradicting Mencius’s dictum, “To govern is to nourish” (Mencius 1A.7). The prosecutor’s unverified admission ignores goodness’s potential—Chen’s prison letter, sprouting righteousness through rumor taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact), is dismissed. This coercive failure risks disorder: suppressing virtue’s sprouts, as Mencius warned, “If the people are not nourished, the state cannot stand” (Mencius 1A.5), fostering resentment over harmony.

2. Wang Dao vs. Ba Dao: Judicial Hegemony as Tyrannical Coercion, Not Moral Kingship

Mencius contrasts wang dao—virtuous rule inspiring willing obedience—with ba dao—hegemonic force extracting compliance through fear and expediency.

The case epitomizes ba dao: Article 293’s “disruption” charge coercively extracts obedience, treating Chen’s inquiry as profit-driven “quarrel” without ethical weighing—selective enforcement (millions of similar forwards unpunished) reveals tyrannical whim, not moral rectitude. The non-oral appeal and barred defense enforce hegemony: no kingly dialogue, only fiat, inverting Mencius’s ideal, “The ruler guides by virtue, the people follow like water downstream” (Mencius 4A.20). Anomalies like evidentiary voids (no causal chaos) expose the facade—ba dao profits short-term “order” at virtue’s expense. Mencius would decry this as self-defeating: “Tyranny loses the Mandate of Heaven” (Mencius 1B.8), breeding rebellion from suppressed righteousness.

3. Flood-Like Qi and Righteous Courage: Chen’s Resistance as Moral Fortitude Against Expedient Tyranny

Mencius’s hao ran zhi qi is the indomitable moral energy, cultivated through righteousness and courage (yong), enabling resistance to injustice for the people’s sake.

Chen embodies this qi: his prison letter’s analytical courage—avalanche theory denying causal “disorder” and ethical taxonomy—flows flood-like against expedient tyranny, prioritizing righteousness over profit (e.g., exposing unverified claims). Yet the judiciary dams this flow: the “high education” presumption mocks qi as “discernment” for compliance, not courage. Mencius, who praised the assassin’s duty against tyrants (Mencius 1B.8), would hail Chen’s unyielding spirit as junzi fortitude, a sprout of rebellion against ba dao. The case’s silence post-release amplifies this: suppressed qi gathers force, warning of the people’s righteous uprising.

Conclusion: Mencius’s Lens on the Case—A Mandate in Peril from Tyrannical Excess

From Mencius’s ethical Confucianism, the Chen Jingyuan case is a perilous inversion: goodness unnurtured, wang dao eclipsed by ba dao, and righteous qi dammed, fracturing harmony and imperiling the Mandate. As of October 22, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a gathering flood. This case cautions: rulers must nourish virtue, or lose heaven’s favor. As Mencius proclaimed, “The people are the root of the state”—uproot them at peril.