Bad "Integrity" in the Daodejing (with one reference to Zhuangzi)

The discussion of the meaning of "de" - 德 - "Integrity" continues.  Peony has another nice post up that explores the possibilities of understanding "de" as "virtue." In the comments there the question of whether someone can have a bad "de" - however it is translated: bad "integrity" or bad "virtue" - comes up again.  This has got me to thinking further, as I have been reading the Daodejing with my class, and I want to offer here a somewhat more involved defense of the possibility of a bad "de," a bad "integrity."

First of all, I like the translation "Integrity" because it gets at that notion of particularity, that each thing is integral unto itself, and thus any sense of "virtue" or "potency" or "efficacy" would follow from allowing a thing to express its integral particularity in Dao (Way). 

In the Daodejing there are a number of references to the existence of "bad" people.   Here are a few:

Passage 53 (excerpt):

The great Way is open and smooth, but people adore twisty paths: Government in ruins, fields overgrown and granaries bare, they indulge in elegant robe and sharp swords, lavish food and drink, all those trappings of luxury.

It's vainglorious thievery - not the Way, not the Way at all.

Passage 62 (excerpt):

Way is the mystery of these ten thousand things.

It's a good person's treasure and an evil person's refuge.  Its beautiful words are bought and sold and its noble deeds are gifts enriching people.

It never abandons even the evil among us.

Passage 74:

In their misery, the people no longer fear death, so how can you threaten them even with death?

Let the people fear death always, then if we seize those who follow sinister ways and put them to death, no one will dare live such lives.

The Executioner's killing is perennial, it's true.  But to undertake the killing yourself - that's like trying to carve lumber for a master carpenter.  Try to carve lumber for a master carpenter and you'll soon have blood on your hands.

From these passages I think we can establish that the DDJ recognizes that there are those among us who "adore twisty paths," "follow sinister ways," or are just plain "evil".  In a sense these could be considered "bad" people.  Of course it is how we consider them "bad" that matters.

"Bad" for a Daoist would mean exercising human will in such a manner as to obstruct the natural unfolding of things in ways that harm or exploit or perhaps even kill others (i.e. interfering in the unfolding of their particular de in Dao).  "Bad" here is not measured in terms of some external moral standard, because the DDJ resists the imposition of any external moral standards.  "Bad" things just are bad without reference to a universal notion of "good;" they just are.  Moreover, there is nothing much we can do with "bad" persons - we can't kill them (that is the ultimate verdict of passage 74).  We just have to let them play out their "badness."

And all of this is prelude to these lines from passage 38, which speaks directly to "de:"

High Integrity never has Integrity and so is indeed Integrity.  Low Integrity never loses Integrity and so is not at all Integrity.

And for those of you keeping score at home, here is the Chinese:

上德不德，是以有德；下德不失德，是以無德

What can this mean?  To me it is saying that real Integrity ("high Integrity") never aspires to, or even pays attention to, Confucian-defined (or any humanly created notion of) "Integrity" and, thus, is a more genuine (as in keeping with or following Way) Integrity.  And just to get the point across: Confucian-defined (or any humanly created notion of) "Integrity" ("low Integrity") never stops imposing and reaching for an artificial (i.e. not in keeping with or following Way) standard of "integrity" and, thus, is not really Integrity at all.

Substitute "virtue" for "integrity" if you like.  In either case, the Daoist notion here is warding us off external (i.e. external to the particular experience of any specific individual in Way) standards of "proper" behavior.  We should not determine what is right for an individual based upon the experience of some other individual.   Should we call this a kind of ethical incommensurability?

There is no recourse to a broader sense of "human nature" here, which is best established by reference to Zhuangzi:

"Can a person really have no nature?" asked Hui Tzu of Chuang Tzu?

"Yes," replied Chuang Tzu.

"But if i you no nature, how can you be called human?"

"Tao gives you shape and heaven gives you form, so why can't you be called human?"

"But if you're called human, how can you have no nature?"

"Yes this and no that - that's what I call human nature," replied Chuang Tzu.  "Not mangling yourself with good and bad - that's what I call no nature.  Instead of struggling to improve on life simply abide in occurrence appearing of itself (ziran)".

"If you don't try to improve on life, how do you stay alive?"

"Tao gives you shape and heaven gives you form, so why mangle yourself with good and bad?...".....

Let's sum up: each thing has a particular place in Way and each has a unique unfolding in Way. We cannot (or should not) mangle ourselves articulating and applying notions of "good" and "bad".  Rather, we should simply let each thing unfold as it will in Way.  Some of those things, some of those people, will "adore twisty paths" or "follow sinister ways" or just be plain old "evil."  We can't change or stop them.  We just have to let them live out their particularity.  We have to let them live up to the shape Tao gave them and the form heaven gave them.  In that sense, we have to let them realize their "bad" Integrity.

Some things have a "bad" Integrity.  Of course, to a Confucian this would be nonsensical at least and deeply immoral at worst.  But, for a Daoist, that is the whole point: upending the Confucian notion of de.  And why shouldn't the Daoist notion of de have just as strong a claim to our understanding of the meaning of the term as the Confucian notion of de?

Comments

[Bao Pu]

Hi Sam,

I don't have much to say, but your mention of "bad people" made me think of:

DDJ 27:
善人者不善人之師。
不善人者善人之資。

DDJ 49:
善者吾善之。
不善者吾亦善之、
得善。

Harmony,
Bao Pu

[Sam Crane]

Bao Pu,
Thanks for the comment.
Yes, there are "good people" - 善人 - and "bad" people - 不善人 - but not a consistent, universal (or universalizable) human nature....Way includes them all....

[isha]

下德不失德，是以無德

Here is a real life example: Enron (I know of them on the first hand. Of course, you can exchange Enron with Citigroup, AIG, and all the major names on the Street) had a code of ethnics that is so beautifully put together that you can shame all the sages of the world and it was so thick it can be used to knock its employees unconscious if needed. I am sure Enron paid quiet a small fortune for it, maybe they paid a college B-School professor to write it. I am not so sure Ken Lay had the time to read through it once but anyway it didn’t prevent him from doing what he had done.

I was laughing two weeks ago when I were listening the sale pitch of a the B-school professor selling his M.B.A. program for having a strong corporate ethics course where he is teaching. Somebody does recognize a business opportunity when there is a disaster. I am pretty sure Lay get his code of ethnics from his Sunday school and his P.H.D. program, but what credential that said professor can present to his prospective students that he is better than Ken Lay (before the fall). From the mid-western farm boy to the C.E.O. of Enron, he has come a long way, he can’t get there without some de (integrity) like do his homework and not to cheat on the exams but boy he can cheat on a larger scale. (Of course he will disagree on that).

What about the employees who had faithfully served Lay's every whim with integrity? Are they living in a higher moral sphere than Lay than the ones that steal from Enron? How about the professors who justify the system on which Lay and his equivalents are playing, are they living on a higher moral sphere than Lay ?

Well, one has to laugh to think that Laozi foresee this dilemma thousands of years ago. Will Havard and Yale B-schools teach Laozi for a change? W might have learn something in Yale if they did teach Laozi. But again, can one teach ethics, can one wisdom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay

isha

[Leanne Ogasawara]

Hi Sam,

I needed time to be able to respond to your highly interesting post!! You are probably wondering why I am sticking to virtue and not switching to Integrity? It is strictly intuitive on my part. Integrity, to me, is too focused on a person's character. It's not that I cannot understand your point because I do understand why you would feel this is a preferable translation-- and yet...I hesitate....(that is, while I do not disagree with you, something keeps stopping me).

I Guess I feel somehow that your integrity still comes closer in meaning and feeling to 誠 in terms of action, and to 仁 in terms of personhood. This is my hesitation. Especially with regard to Confucius...

My other issue, with compound kanji terms is that when you put 2 kanji together, it is not that the 1st kanji serves as an adjective to the 2nd kanji. So that, 美徳 or 善徳　does not mean "beautiful virtue" or "good virtue"... or does 悪徳 or　暴徳 mean "bad virtue" or "violent virtue" but rather these form new words; ie "a virtue" or "a vice"

Now, just by this alone, you can see we are not any longer talking about a person. It is more something referring to action or person-in-context (in terms of possible action). So, I still do not think we are talking of "bad virtue" or "bad integrity" but rather "a vice" or a person who potentially performs a vice.

This is based on Japanese and I went ahead and asked my translator friend his opionion--- which he backed me up. However, while he is Chinese, he is coming from a comfort zone of Tang poetry-- so take this with a pinch of salt as we are still 1000 years away. I could be wrong and indeed, often am wrong! (You can read his comments in the virtue and dostoevsky post if you are interested)

The same can probably be said, though, for your example above too 上徳 versus 下徳。 I think according to 老子 (is that who the quote is by??) 下徳　is a reference not to " lower integrity but to Confucius' 仁、義、礼... is that possible? So what the quote could mean is something like true "virtue" comes not from a commitment to 仁、義、礼 but rather to a person's natural state. That is, things proceed according to the dao when one does what feels natural and "right" to them at that moment in time in that context...

People who act according to their natural talents or natural "taste" 個性 tend to just naturally act in accordance to the dao while those relying on outside normative principles (too much yi, ri or jen) tend to act unnaturally and out of accordance with dao...

善人者不善人之師。
不善人者善人之資。
Bau Pu's example-- too-- is about how one "practices" being an exemplery model, right? That is to say it is another knock against confucian understandings of 聖人
First of all, it should have started with a 故 "therefore" so unless we read the entire proceeding passage, we cannot say with any certainty hat these two lines mean...

How about something like this 牡丹訳?

Therefore from the perspective of the Sage (from the "eyesight" of the sage):
"The good person (person's actions) can serve as the teacher of the bad person. But also, the bad person can serve as the food for thought for the good person."

That is how I read it.

I have to work today but hope to hear from you. When do you leave? I think Notes are a must.

[Bao Pu]

Hey Peony,

Can you tell me what you mean by "virtue"? What is virtue?

[Leanne Ogasawara]

No, I can't Bao Pu... I am way too busy to even try and guess what you mean by that question. Except that virtue would be used as a technical word as a translation for 徳。 So just like with any other translation it would be a... translation. In the same way if I said, "regards" is a translation for "yoroshiku" and then you asked me what does "regards" mean. How should I answer that question? I mean really...

Well, OK, "regards" in this situation is standing in for "yoroshiku" with the understanding that it is imperfect but with the tentative feeling that I am unable to find something better yet. Replace Virtue for Regards and Toku for yoroshiku and shazam. There is my answer. Other than that, I go by wikipedia for the English term itself (which I could care less about).

[Bao Pu]

Hi Peony,

I was referring to the English word. I just wanted to make sure I know what you mean when you say "virtue." Wikipedia says "moral excellence." So, you believe De is moral excellence. Good. Thanks.

Good health,
Bao Pu

[Leanne Ogasawara]

No, Bao Pu, that is not what I think de means. There is no english word that maps on to the meaning of "de" Hence the debate. Indeed, I have repeated so many times that "virtue" is not right. My problem-- maybe everyone's problem-- is coming up with something more persuasive. At first I thought that Integrity was perhaps more persuasive... but now, I hesitate. Manyul has suggested Latin Virtus... I like it. Ivanhoe has "moral power"... which could be closer but I really am not crazy about the sound of that.... so that is all. I am a translator so the question of translation would of course interest someone like me. If I wanted to really understand the concept, however, I would approach it via Chinese and Japanese sources as much as possible (that is, I would try and completely bypass the english altogether in my thinking as I think I would be more successful). But just to repeat, no, I do not think de is "moral excellence" (but that is certainly, I would hope, part of "de")...

Like my example with "yoroshiku" 宜しくwhatever english word you choose, it would only ever be "filling in" for the Japanese word as no english word could ever perfectly map to that Japanese concept. Which I surprisingly learn Ames/Hall believe is connected to the Chinese 義 "yi"... now that is interesting.

[Sam Crane]

This is a debate that is never to be settled. It is an open question. I like "integrity" generally, perhaps because of the connotations in English that "virtue" or "moral power" conjure. There is a way in which "integrity" might be more morally neutral than the others....Anyway, thanks for the great comments....

[isha]

Integrity comprises perceived consistency of actions, values, methods, measures and principles
...
Integrity in ethics

In discussions on behavior and morality, one view of the property of integrity sees it as the virtue of basing actions on an internally-consistent framework of principles. ... One can describe a person as having integrity to the extent that everything that that person does or believes: actions, methods, measures and principles — all derive from the same core group of values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

Would one consider Bush Junior as one with intergity? Would oen consider him to be one with "de"? Who i deny that Bush as
"
a person as having integrity to the extent that everything that that person does or believes: actions, methods, measures and principles — all derive from the same core group of values."

Isha