Shen Buhai formalized the concept of shù (術, “methods”), a bureaucratic administrative model to assist the ruler and prevent mismanagement. In legalism, the intelligent minister was the ruler`s most important instrument of government. The minister`s job was to understand and regulate certain issues; The leader was responsible for properly assessing the ministers` achievements. The ruler must master the technique of comparing words (ming) and performance (xing). Han Feizi stressed that ministers and other officials too often seek favor from foreign powers by abusing their positions, urging leaders to control these individuals through the two “holds” of punishment and favor. Public servants were responsible for ensuring that ministers` performance was neither superior nor inferior to the duties assigned to them. According to the eminent sinologist Robin Yates, the recently discovered Qin law books show that officials were obliged to correctly calculate the exact amount of labor expected of all craftsmen; If the handyman was ordered to do too much or too little work, the official was held responsible. In the legalistic theory, ministers and other officials were prevented from performing the duties of another official and were punished if they tried to deceive the leader with words or failed to warn the leader of danger. One consequence of this was that ministers could still be held responsible for royal misfortunes, while the sovereign`s name was never tarnished. For more than 200 years, the Chinese people have experienced war as their daily reality, and a legalistic approach to trying to control people`s worst impulses – controlling people through the threat of severe punishment for injustice – would have been the best way to deal with the chaos. Shang Yang`s legalism dealt with everyday situations, but also extended to how to behave in wartime, and he is credited with the tactic of total war, which allowed the Qin state to defeat other warring states in order to control China. Han Feis repeated anti-ministerial Philippik confused the reader.

It is somewhat ironic that a thinker who actively sought employment in the courts of leaders portrayed his own class as inherently malicious. As many traditional and modern scholars have noted, Han Fei`s personal tragedy—he was slandered, imprisoned, and allegedly forced to commit suicide at the Qin court before he could present his views to the King of Qin—was a byproduct of the atmosphere of distrust towards the ruler and minister created by the thinker himself. But beyond this personal tragedy, there is a more general question: how can the leader maintain his functions in a situation of permanent danger and absolute mistrust between himself and his aides? The first to use the term fa jia was Sima Qian`s father, Sima Tan 司馬談 (died 110 BC). In an essay on the “nature of the six schools of thought,” Sima Tan notes that fa jia “are strict and have little kindness” and “make no distinction between relatives and strangers, or between nobles and viles: everything is determined by norm (or law, fa).” Sima Tan criticized the legalists` approach as “a one-off policy that could not be applied constantly,” but also praised Jia Fa for “honoring leaders and devaluing subjects and clearly distinguishing functions so that no one can override [his responsibilities]” (Shiji 130:3289-3291; for translations, see Smith 2003:141; Goldin 2011:89). A century later, the bibliographic category fa jia was created. Han librarian Liu Xiang 劉向 (79-8 BC) identified ten texts from the Han Imperial Library as Fa Jia (Han shu 30:1735). From then on, the “legalistic school” remained a main category of imperial book catalogues. Since the beginning of the 20th century, this term has been widely used to classify and analyze ancient Chinese thought. Legalism is a popular, though rather inaccurate, term for an intellectual current that gained considerable popularity in the second half of the Warring States period (Zhanguo, 453-221 BC). The legalists were political realists who wanted to achieve a “rich state and a powerful army” and ensure domestic stability in a period of intense international and national competition.

They believed that people – citizens and elites – would always remain selfish and aspire to wealth and fame, and that they should not be expected to behave morally. On the contrary, a viable socio-political system should allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in a way that benefits the state, namely agriculture and war. At the same time, an appropriate administrative system should allow civil servants to benefit from grades and emoluments, but also prevent them from undermining the power of the ruler. Both systems do not care about the individual morality of rulers and ruled; Rather, they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules for promotion and decommissioning, etc. One of the main problems faced by the leaders of the Warring States was recruitment into the civil service. During the aristocratic spring and autumn, the overwhelming majority of civil servants were descended from hereditary ministerial lines; Only exceptionally could foreigners join the government.