[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"guanxue-ming-wangdao-badao":3},{"slug":4,"topic":5,"name":6,"aliases":7,"school":8,"era":9,"glyph":12,"oneLiner":16,"summary":17,"tags":18,"infobox":23,"sections":35,"quotes":51,"related":79,"seo":90},"wangdao-badao","ming","王道与霸道",[],"ru",{"from":10,"to":11},-551,-221,{"ossKey":13,"caption":14,"link":15},"excavated\u002Fguodian\u002Fglyphs\u002F01A\u002Flaozi-jia_22_31_93d71b8d.jpg","郭店 · 老子（甲） 简22","\u002Fexcavated\u002Fguodian\u002Flaozi-jia","辨以德行仁与借力假仁","王道与霸道是战国儒家尤其孟子用来辨析政治正当性的概念。王道以德行仁、保民并取得天下归心，霸道借强力和大国之势假托仁义；二者并非简单的强弱二分，还涉及战争、民生与名义的关系。",[19,20,21,22],"孟子","王道","霸道","政治正当性",[24,27,30,32],{"label":25,"value":26},"定义","以德行仁与以力假仁之别",{"label":28,"value":29},"首见","《孟子·公孙丑上》",{"label":20,"value":31},"保民、行仁、得民心",{"label":33,"value":34},"对举","霸道、力政、征伐",[36,39,42,45,48],{"heading":37,"md":38},"定义与语源","王道与霸道是战国政治论辩中定型的一组对举，孟子保存了最系统的儒家说明。“王”与天下共主、正当统治相连，“霸”与诸侯盟主、凭强力主导秩序有关。关键在“以德行仁”与“以力假仁”：前者把仁义落实为保民政治，后者借兵力和大国声势冒用仁义名号。\n\n这组概念回应战国兼并。孟子不否认军队，也不把一切战争都称霸，而考察出兵是否救民、合义并使人归附。王道是正当性与治理内容的综合判断，霸道则是权力有效而根基不足的统治。",{"heading":40,"md":41},"《孟子》中的展开","孟子说：“以德行仁者王，以力假仁者霸；霸必有大国，王不待大。”王道不以领土和军力为必要条件，小国只要行仁保民也能得天下归心；霸道必须有强国后盾，其“仁”是力量施加下的名义。“假”兼有借、凭借之义。\n\n齐宣王问霸业，孟子转说“保民而王，莫之能御也”，以不忍杀无罪、制民之产、薄赋省刑说明王道不是抽象慈悲。五亩之宅和谨庠序之教，把生计与教化连在一起。又说“王何必曰利”，要求富国强兵服从保民和正义；得天下首先是得民心。",{"heading":43,"md":44},"孔孟荀异同","孔子较少成对使用“王道”“霸道”，但以“为政以德”说明正当统治靠德礼而非刑罚，也未全盘否定管仲辅政的功效。孔子的尺度是有德、守礼、正名与安民，孟子把这些要求系统化为王霸之辨。\n\n孟子以仁义和民生建立王道，并允许在特殊情况下以义制暴；“诛一夫纣”不是为任何战争开口子，而是要求战争对象和动机经得起义的判断。荀子承认王者以义胜、霸者以力胜，却更重礼义、法度、军政和官制，认为兼用礼法可使国家强而有义。三家共同反对暴虐无信，差异在孟子突出民心、孔子重身教、荀子重制度。",{"heading":46,"md":47},"相关概念","王道与“仁政”“民贵君轻”相连。仁政说明施政内容，民贵君轻把民众安危置于君位得失之前；二者不取消君主，而要求君主以保民证明正当性。与“为政以德”相比，王道更聚焦战争、竞争和天下归属。\n\n王道也与义、礼、天命有关。暴君失去民心，可能失去天命，但天命不能脱离民意和政绩凭空宣称。霸道不是一切强国政治的同义词；若强力止暴救乱，仍须考察目的、对象和后果。区分在于力量是否服从仁义，名义是否与保民相符。",{"heading":49,"md":50},"后世流变","汉代以后，王霸之辨常被用于评价帝王和解释汉唐政治，王道逐渐成为正统理想，霸道则多被贬为权宜或强权。宋明儒者又把它纳入义理与治道的体系，近现代则常把王霸简单翻译成道德政治与现实政治。先秦语境中两者不是抽象二元，而是对具体战争、民生、名义和权力组织的综合评判，仍须回到《孟子》《荀子》的章句辨析。",[52,58,64,68,72],{"text":53,"source":29,"note":54,"classic":55},"以德行仁者王，以力假仁者霸；霸必有大国，王不待大。","王道以德行仁，不以大国和强力为必要条件；霸道则凭借强力假托仁义。",{"slug":56,"volume":57},"mengzi",3,{"text":59,"source":60,"note":61,"classic":62},"保民而王，莫之能御也。","《孟子·梁惠王上》","只要真正保全民众，便能取得无可抵挡的政治正当性。",{"slug":56,"volume":63},1,{"text":65,"source":60,"note":66,"classic":67},"王何必曰利？亦有仁义而已矣。","君主不应以逐利作为政治起点，而应以仁义规定公共目标。",{"slug":56,"volume":63},{"text":69,"source":60,"note":70,"classic":71},"五亩之宅，树之以桑，五十者可以衣帛矣。","孟子以土地、生产和养老说明王道必须落实为使民有恒产的政策。",{"slug":56,"volume":63},{"text":73,"source":74,"note":75,"classic":76},"故修礼者王，为政者强，取民者安，聚敛者亡。故王者富民，霸者富士，仅存之国富大夫，亡国富筐箧，实府库。","《荀子·王制》","荀子以富民、富士和聚敛的不同结果区分王、霸及危亡之国。",{"slug":77,"volume":78},"xunzi",9,[80,82,83,85,87,88],{"topic":81,"slug":56},"ren",{"topic":81,"slug":77},{"topic":5,"slug":84},"weizhengyide",{"topic":5,"slug":86},"minguijunqing",{"topic":5,"slug":81},{"topic":5,"slug":89},"yi",{"title":91,"description":92,"keywords":93},"王道与霸道——孟子王霸之辨及其政治正当性 | 儒家百科","王道与霸道有什么区别？本文依据《孟子》《荀子》解释“以德行仁者王、以力假仁者霸”，梳理保民、民心、战争和强国的关系，并比较孔子德治、孟子仁政与荀子礼法政治。",[6,20,21,94,95,96,97,98],"孟子王霸之辨","以德行仁","以力假仁","仁政","保民而王"]