正义是公正适宜的道理，是某个历史阶段某个人类共同体为保障其成员的利益而形成的一套价值观念与行为准则。

由于儒家思想在中国古代相当长的时间里占据主流地位，韩非子思想中的某些正面价值长期得不到承认。近代以来，西方民主自由思想传入中国，在这种思想指导下的韩非子思想研究，一方面启发人们认识到韩非子的思想具有哲学、政治学等多方面的价值；另一方面却也产生了一定的遮蔽作用，例如用西方近代以来的法治观念来否定韩非子的法具有法治精神，用西方的平等、自由和民权等观念把韩非子的政治思想定性为“专制”与“奴役”思想等等。沿着这两条思路，都无法揭示韩非子思想的全貌，更不用说给予客观公正的评价了。为此，本文选取“正义”视角并与柏拉图正义思想进行对比来研究韩非子的思想，力求能够全面地揭示韩非子思想的全貌，特别是其中含有的一些被忽略的正面价值，给予一定的合理评价。

韩非子宣称自己所倡导的全部思想都是为了“便国利民”。用今天的学术语言来说，就是在韩非子的心目中，利国利民就是正义。按照他的想法，理想的社会要以利国利民为宗旨，以重建秩序为前提，而要达到这一目标，则必须以君主为主导和中心，以法、术、势为实现途径。由此可见，韩非子所憧憬的本质上是一种规训正义。按照这种正义的思路，首先，秩序是正义实现的前提条件。战国时代，在君主制的现实和“立君为民”之共识的共同作用下，君主被认为是重建秩序和正义的主要承担者。这赋予君主制以某种正义性。其次，正义需要制度的保障。“法”“术”“势”是韩非子最看重的三个概念。“法”的制度化程度最高，正义性表现得最为明显；“术”和“势”在很大程度上也有制度化的属性，因此也具有一定的正义性。君主制下，单纯使用法不足以保证“正义”的实现，必然需要术和势的协同。术是保障法得到贯彻执行的措施，其中“因能授官”、“循名责实”的部分是制度化的。势是君主得以执法用术的根据，它的“分势不二”的原则就是以法制为基础的。法术势中即使有些内容是非制度化的，但在韩非子心目中，那也是利国利民所需要的，因此在他看来也是合乎时宜的，因而也是正义的。再次，利益是正义思想得以实现的驱动力。韩非子认为，人是趋利避害的，所以赏罚可用。而赏罚能够驱动并把官民纳入到所谓“利国利民”的方向上去。最后，少数杰出人物是正义得以实现的主导和决定因素。在韩非子看来，每个时代都有相应的时代主题，它们都是由这个阶段上社会发展的“道理”决定的。要想审时度势、立法定制，就必须在道理的层面上率先得到领悟，有了这样的先见之明，才可以驱动臣民去实现法治改革的目标。这样神圣的使命，必须由圣人（英明的君主和法术之士）才可承当。

韩非子的正义思想与他思想中的其他内容紧密相连，不可分割，他的历史观、人情论和道理论是他的正义思想的理论基础。韩非子认为，历史发展是有阶段性的，每个阶段有各自的主题，不能错乱。战国的时代主题是“争于气力”，因此只能实施法治，法治就是战国时代实现正义的手段。人情论是韩非子对人性的基本看法。所谓人情是指人的实际情况，人在社会中的行为倾向与表现。韩非子认为人情是自为自利且趋利避害的，所以要实现正义必须充分考虑当时的人情，适当满足人们对利益的追求。这是立法必须遵守的原则之一。法治改革必须遵守的另一个原则是道理。道理论具有“只真不善”的特点，这解释了韩非子何以将道德和私情私利排除在政治之外。道理论强调变常统一，重视情实，这决定了韩非子变常统一的历史观、正义思想的功利性和他对自然人情的重视。由于道理艰深，只有圣人才能体悟，并在体悟的基础上根据正义立法定制。这预设了圣人在正义实现中的决定性作用。此外，在韩非子眼里，法术势的正义制度是历史发展的必然要求，其根本依据是道理。

与柏拉图正义思想进行比较可以更好地认识韩非子正义思想的特点。柏拉图在《理想国》中主张在卫士等级中废除家庭和私有制，这种做法很是无情，但却是为了铲除私情私利对实现正义的阻碍。韩非子认为，要实现正义，必须坚持法的公正性，排除私情私利对公共事务的干扰。这在重视家族亲情的传统社会看来显然也是无情的。不同的是，韩非子不主张废除私有制和家庭，而是用明确的外部规则来监管人们的行为。邦国纷争的局势使得柏拉图和韩非子都将个人不同程度地工具化。不同的是，韩非子秉持“世异则事异”的历史观，这就给个人与国家的关系在历史新阶段中的转变留出了余地，而柏拉图则在理念论的基础上坚持城邦正义的恒定性质，拒绝理想城邦中护卫者与城邦的既定关系有改变的必要和可能。这体现了历史理性和逻辑理性在政治思想领域中的差异。在正义实现方面，韩非子的圣人和柏拉图的哲学家王都被赋予了发挥决定性作用的属性。不同的是，圣人是要在运动变化中体悟和把握道理，以顺应历史之变化；而哲学家王则是要认识理念，形成知识，以为公民的城邦生活确立永恒不变的原则。

Justice is a just and proper principle, a set of values, and a code of conduct formed by a human community to protect the interests of its members in a certain historical stage.

Some of the positive values of Han Feizi’s thought have long been unrecognized, as Confucianism dominated the official ideology of much of ancient China. Since modern times, the western thought of democracy and freedom has been introduced into China. Under the guidance of these thoughts, the study of Han Feizi’s thought, on the one hand, inspired people to realize the value of Han Feizi’s thought in many aspects, such as philosophy and politics. On the other hand, it also has a certain shielding effect. For example, some used the western modern concept of the rule of law to deny that Han Feizi’s “Fa” has the spirit of the rule of law and used western notions of equality, freedom, and civil rights to characterize Han Feizi’s political thought as “despotic” and “servile” and so on. Neither line of thinking can reveal the full extent of Han Feizi’s thinking, let alone giving an objective and fair assessment. Therefore, this paper chooses the “Justice” angle of view and compares it with Plato’s justice thought to study Han Feizi’s thought, to fully reveal the whole picture of it, especially some neglected positive values, to a certain degree of reasonableness.

Han Feizi claimed that all the ideas he proposed were “for the benefit and convenience of nation and the common people”. In today’s academic parlance, it is Han Feizi’s idea that what is good for the country and good for the people is justice. According to his thinking, the ideal society should take the benefit of the country and the people as its aim, and take the reconstruction of order as its premise. To achieve this goal, the monarch must be regarded as the leading and the center, “Fa, Shu, Shi” must be regarded as the realization way. Thus, what Han Feizi envisioned was essentially disciplinary justice. According to this idea of justice, first of all, the order is a prerequisite for the realization of justice. In the Warring States period, the monarch was regarded as the main undertaker of the reconstruction of order and justice under the joint effect of the reality of the monarchy and the consensus of “making the monarch is to serve the people”, which gives the monarchy a kind of justice. Secondly, justice needs the guarantee of the system. “Fa, Shu, Shi” were the three concepts that Han Feizi valued most. “Fa” has the highest degree of institutionalization and the most obvious sense of justice, and “Shu” and “Shi” also have the attribute of institutionalization to a great extent, so they also have a certain sense of justice. Under the monarchy, the use of “Fa” alone is not enough to ensure the realization of “justice”, it is necessary to coordinate “Shu” and “Shi”. “Shu” is the measure to ensure the implementation of the “Fa”. The part of “appointing officials according to their abilities” and “acting responsibly according to its names” is institutionalized. “Shi” is the basis for the monarchy to use “Fa” and “Shu”, and its principle of “undivided power” is based on the rule of law. Even if some of the content of “Fa, Shu, Shi” is not institutionalized, in Han Feizi’s mind, it is also the interests of the country and the people's need, so in his view is also appropriate, and therefore is just. Thirdly, interests are the driving force for the realization of justice. In Han Feizi’s view, people seek the good and avoid the bad, so rewards and punishments work, which can drive and bring officials and people into the so-called direction of “benefiting the country and the people”. Finally, a few outstanding figures are the dominant and decisive factors for the realization of justice. In Han Feizi’s view, each era has its theme, which is determined by the principles of social development at this stage. If someone wants to judge the situation and make legislation, one must get an understanding at the level of reason first. With such foresight, one can drive the people to realize the goal of the reform of rule of law. Such a sacred mission must be undertaken by a saint (a wise monarch and a man of “Fa” and “Shu”). 

Han Feizi’s thought of justice is closely connected with other contents in his thought and cannot be separated. And his view of history, the theory of Renqing, and the theory of Dao are the theoretical basis of his thought of justice. According to Han Feizi, there are stages in the development of history, each stage having its theme and not to be confused. The theme of the Warring States period is “competing in strength to win”, so it is right to only implement the rule of law, which is the means to achieve justice in the Warring States period. The theory of Renqing is Han Feizi’s basic view of human nature. The so-called Renqing refers to the actual situation of people, and people’s behavior tendency and performance in society. Han Feizi believed that Renqing is self-interest and tends to avoid harm, so to achieve justice must take full account of the Renqing at that time and properly meet people’s pursuit of interests. This is one of the principles that must be observed in legislation. Another principle that rule-of-law reform must adhere to is Dao. The theory of Dao has the characteristic of “only being true is not being kind”, which explains why Han Feizi excluded morality and personal interest from politics. The theory of Dao emphasizes the unity of change and norm, the importance of feeling and truth, which determines Han Feizi’ s theory of history containing the unity of change and norm, the utilitarianism of Han Feizi’s justice thought and Han Feizi’s emphasis on natural and human feelings. Because comprehending Dao is difficult, only the saint can appreciate the Dao, and make legislation and draw regulation according to justice based on Dao. This presupposes the decisive role of the saint in the realization of justice. In addition, although the justice system of “Fa, Shu, Shi” is the inevitable requirement of historical development, its basic basis is Dao.

Compared to Plato’s thought of justice, Han Feizi’s thought of justice can be better understood. In the Republic, Plato advocates the abolition of the family and private property in the hierarchy of the guard, which is ruthless, but it is to eliminate the private interests and therefore achieve justice. Han Feizi believed that to achieve justice, the interference of private interests to public affairs must be eliminated and the fairness of law must be upheld. In a traditional society that values family ties, this is clearly ruthless. The difference is that Han Feizi does not advocate the abolition of the family and private property, but using clear external rules to regulate people’s behavior. The chaotic warring situation has led both Plato and Han Feizi to instrumentalize the individual to varying degrees. On one hand, Han Feizi held the historical view of “different times results in different deeds”, which left room for the transformation of the relationship between the individual and the state in the new stage of history. On the other hand, Plato insisted on the constancy of the justice of the polis based on the theory of ideas and refused that it was necessary and possible to change the established relationship between the defenders and the polis. This reflects the difference between historical reason and logical reason in the field of political thought. Both Han Feizi’s saint and Plato’s philosopher king have been given a decisive role in the realization of justice. The difference is that the saint is to understand and grasp the truth in the movement change, in order to adapt to the changes in history, while the philosopher king is to understand the ideas, form the knowledge to establish the eternal and invariable principle for citizens’city-state life.