Abstract

Confucian governance has long been regarded as an important foundation of Chinese political philosophy. Its core concepts center on “inner sage, outer king,” elite moral rule, and the guidance of social order through benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. However, scientific-philosophical critique reveals fundamental limitations in Confucian governance. First, it relies excessively on elite moral judgment, neglecting social complexity and knowledge asymmetry, which leads to cumulative policy deviations and institutional fragility. Second, the system lacks feedback and self-correction mechanisms, making it unable to conform to natural laws and systemic logic, so long-term operation easily results in social imbalance. Third, moral rationality is fundamentally misaligned with systemic rationality: ethical standards emphasize behavioral norms, while complex social governance requires dynamic balance and multi-level adaptation. Historical experience—from the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, through the Han and Tang imperial examinations, to the centralized governance of the Ming and Qing dynasties—demonstrates repeated structural risks in Confucian governance, including policy lag, social stratification, and institutional rigidity. This paper, framed by scientific-philosophical critique, systematically analyzes Confucian governance, examining elite cognitive limitations, conflicts between institutional ethics and natural laws, and lessons from history. It further offers modern governance insights: institutional design must balance ethical norms, systemic rationality, and natural laws, achieving a dynamic equilibrium between elite wisdom and societal participation to safeguard public interest, institutional stability, and long-term sustainability. This study aims to provide philosophical warnings and scientific methodological guidance for modern political system design.