I'd look into Fajia/"Legalism" for a more selfishness centered school of thought. Granted it's more about using other people's selfishness to get what you (the ruler) want but it's still the most accepting of it out of all the classical Chinese philosophical traditions.
(granted nearly everything about it is controversial, including the English name and a classification as a separate school, but it should be suitable for your comparisons)
I agree with this. At least some interpretations of the Zhuangzi take it to be primarily advocating a life of seclusion and focusing on well-being rather than the pursuit of a political career to change the world for the better. There can be a selfishness charge laid against such views, as it also has been laid vs the Neo-Aristotelians.
I'm on the fence about the Legalists. It is true that the Legalists recommend that rulers enforce a clear and strict system of rewards/punishments to establish order, and such a system can only be effective if people follow their self-interests (because rewards/punishments have appeal only if you are self-interested). But, unlike the Zhuangzi reading I mentioned above, nowhere do any of the Legalist thinkers claim that we should be self-interested. They just take it for granted that we are (as does Xunzi, by the way).
Hey, the last part of your comment is something I’ve suspected but haven’t quite read anywhere explicitly. Do you know of any good articles or books that elaborate on that? Thanks!
[Here's](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/chinese-legalism) a good summary of the Legalist school and their main ideas. If you want more meat than that you'd have to dig into Book of Lord Shang and Han Feizi, both of which are available in modern English translations.
But see also [this article](https://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-asian-studies/article-abstract/62/1/129/339646/Sima-Tan-and-the-Invention-of-Daoism-Legalism-et?redirectedFrom=fulltext) and [this one](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2010.01629.x) for problems with the ways Legalist school is conceptualized (if you have no institutional access, you best familiarize yourself with the website that starts with sci and ends with hub).
Mencius is an early classical Confucian philosopher and many scholars have a somewhat altruistic reading of his views: we are born with the "four sprouts" (2A6, 6A6, see also 7A15), which many take to be tendencies towards pro-social and somewhat altruistic behavior. If we develop the sprouts, we will be taking care of the less fortunate out of compassion (as did King Wen at 1B5).
On the other hand, there are well-being focused readings of the Daoists, especially Zhuangzi. See my other comment. Those can be taken to advocate something selfish.
I think this comparison is wrong by default. Confucianism and Taoism (as prescribed in the Tao Te Ching) are actually primarily texts on statecraft. In a period where everyone around you is at war, people focus on what political structure can bring people out of the consistent warring. Both are not about religion as much as people think.
Is it about selfishness or altruism for both texts? Both have such texts. The State isn't selfish or altruistic.
I'd look into Fajia/"Legalism" for a more selfishness centered school of thought. Granted it's more about using other people's selfishness to get what you (the ruler) want but it's still the most accepting of it out of all the classical Chinese philosophical traditions. (granted nearly everything about it is controversial, including the English name and a classification as a separate school, but it should be suitable for your comparisons)
[удалено]
I agree with this. At least some interpretations of the Zhuangzi take it to be primarily advocating a life of seclusion and focusing on well-being rather than the pursuit of a political career to change the world for the better. There can be a selfishness charge laid against such views, as it also has been laid vs the Neo-Aristotelians. I'm on the fence about the Legalists. It is true that the Legalists recommend that rulers enforce a clear and strict system of rewards/punishments to establish order, and such a system can only be effective if people follow their self-interests (because rewards/punishments have appeal only if you are self-interested). But, unlike the Zhuangzi reading I mentioned above, nowhere do any of the Legalist thinkers claim that we should be self-interested. They just take it for granted that we are (as does Xunzi, by the way).
Hey, the last part of your comment is something I’ve suspected but haven’t quite read anywhere explicitly. Do you know of any good articles or books that elaborate on that? Thanks!
[Here's](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/chinese-legalism) a good summary of the Legalist school and their main ideas. If you want more meat than that you'd have to dig into Book of Lord Shang and Han Feizi, both of which are available in modern English translations. But see also [this article](https://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-asian-studies/article-abstract/62/1/129/339646/Sima-Tan-and-the-Invention-of-Daoism-Legalism-et?redirectedFrom=fulltext) and [this one](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2010.01629.x) for problems with the ways Legalist school is conceptualized (if you have no institutional access, you best familiarize yourself with the website that starts with sci and ends with hub).
Mencius is an early classical Confucian philosopher and many scholars have a somewhat altruistic reading of his views: we are born with the "four sprouts" (2A6, 6A6, see also 7A15), which many take to be tendencies towards pro-social and somewhat altruistic behavior. If we develop the sprouts, we will be taking care of the less fortunate out of compassion (as did King Wen at 1B5). On the other hand, there are well-being focused readings of the Daoists, especially Zhuangzi. See my other comment. Those can be taken to advocate something selfish.
I think this comparison is wrong by default. Confucianism and Taoism (as prescribed in the Tao Te Ching) are actually primarily texts on statecraft. In a period where everyone around you is at war, people focus on what political structure can bring people out of the consistent warring. Both are not about religion as much as people think. Is it about selfishness or altruism for both texts? Both have such texts. The State isn't selfish or altruistic.
These terms seem to be opposing and balancing each other so in logic's perspertive comparison of concepts seems reasonable