The “legalist” current still has a great influence on the administration, politics and legal practice in China today. [29] [30] The administration and political theory developed during the period of formation of the Warring States will continue to influence any dynasty thereafter, as will the Confucian philosophy that underpins China`s political and legal institutions. [280] Fajia`s influence on Han Confucianism is very evident, as it adopts Han Fei`s emphasis on a supreme ruler and authoritarian system instead of Mencius` devaluation or Xun Kuang`s emphasis on the Tao. [281] Despite historical relativism, legalist philosophy envisions a “natural” and “automatic” politics that, once established, coincides with the Dao (i.e., the way the natural world functions spontaneously). The leader practices “inaction,” “emptiness,” and “calmness” to embody Dao, thus personifying objective and impersonal norms about subjective and personal preferences. Once this “natural” community is established, the ruler does not act while his subordinates act according to the Xingming responsibility mentioned above. The ruler does not act as the center of the ladder that does not move, and yet it knows which side is heavy and which side is light. In the end, the leader does not act to be able to act, that is, to be able to use “the two handles” to control his subordinates. This seemingly “natural” and “automatic” policy always requires a “wise” leader who is extraordinarily adept at secret state-mindedness. Only such a “wise” leader can hope to attain order, wealth and power for himself and his people. The emperor and his chief advisor/premier Li Siu (also Li Si, l. c. 280-208 BC, another disciple of Xunxi) understood how well legalism had worked for the Qin in the war and adopted it as an official philosophy of the state at peace.
According to historian and scholar Joshua J. Markus, Shi Huangdi “ordered the destruction of all history or philosophy books that did not conform to legalism, his family lineage, the state of Qin, or himself” and had more than 400 Confucian scholars executed. Legalism is an approach to the analysis of legal issues characterized by abstract logical thinking that focuses on the applicable legal text such as a constitution, legislation or jurisprudence and not on the social, economic or political context. In its narrower versions, legalism perpetuates the idea that the already existing corpus of authoritative legal documents already contains a clearly predetermined “correct answer” to any legal problems that may arise; and that the judge`s job is to determine this clearly given answer by means of an essentially mechanical process. This Western school of law enforcement has little to do with the Chinese philosophical school of the same name, which is now being discussed. The basic structure and functioning of the traditional Chinese state was not “legalistic,” as the term is commonly understood. Although premodern Chinese mainstream thought has been persistent, it has never really accepted the role of law and jurisprudence or the Shang Yang wing of fajia. The most important contribution of the fajia lies in the organization and regulation of a centralized and bureaucratic government. Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel called his philosophy administrative for lack of a better term and considered it to have been founded by Shen Buhai (400-337 BC), who probably played a “leading role in the creation of the traditional Chinese system of government.” [Citation needed] The legalistic philosophy of governing by Fa, Shi and Shu was indeed a new model of socio-political reorganization. It became increasingly popular during the Warring States period, a period of incessant political struggle and irreversible systemic disintegration of the Zhou feudal order.
Legalists, in the name of historical relativism, have called for a radical systemic transformation through this new model: “There are as many situations as there are generations. and situations change, so that measures change” (Han Feizi 49). The term “legalist school” (fa jia 法家) is ubiquitous in the study of ancient Chinese political philosophy. Despite many criticisms about its inaccuracy (e.g. Goldin 2011), the term can still be used judiciously as long as two main points are taken into account. First, the legalists were not a self-confident and organized intellectual current; On the contrary, the name was coined as a post-factual categorization of certain thinkers and texts, and its main function before the twentieth century was that of a bibliographic category in imperial libraries.