‘義利’와 ‘興利’의 사이

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the meaning of a word, ‘benefit (利)’, used by intellectuals in the Edo period to reveal how the difference between the justice (義) and benefit (利) was criticized in Japan and how the value of using benefit (利) for people’s livelihoods developed.
 The evaluations of ‘benefit (利)’ are divided depending on whether you view 利 as ‘利 of liyog (利欲)’ or ‘利 of limul (利物)’. In Neo-Confucianism, ‘利’ was interpreted as ‘利 of liyog (利欲)’, so it was used in a negative sense. However, intellectuals in the early Edo period viewed ‘利’ ambiva- lently, which served as an opportunity to look at the Neo-Confucian view of justice and benefit critically. In the middle of the Edo period, Ogyu Sorai criticized the Neo-Confucian view of justice and benefit thoroughly, which significantly changed the Japanese perception of ‘利.’ He thought that both ‘justice (義)’ and ‘benefit (利)’ came from striving on social duties and defined those engaged in giving benefit (利) as ‘the superior man (君子)’ and those engaged in receiving benefit (利) as ‘the mean man (小人)’. He believed that both the superior and mean should endeavor for ‘pacifying the people (安民)’ and ‘making livelihoods (營生)’ so as to keep the society stable. Furthermore, Ogyu Sorai argued that 『Mencius (孟子)』’s view of justice and benefit was a discourse presented in the context of Baekgajaengmyeong (百家爭鳴) in which there was a lot of dispute between schools, and it did not make sense for posterity to imitate this discourse as it is. Japanese intellectuals influenced by him recognized that the saint as a ruler who gave benefit (利) to the people, not a moral person who rejected benefit (利), and argued that to carry out ‘flourishing benefit (興利)’ at the policy level conformed to the will of the old saint.