In response to Josh...

In response to Joshua Nitti's question: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

I think that, though both individuals have their merits, the world would benefit more greatly from a sage. Confucius' sages just seem to be all around good people. They value trustworthiness, selflessness, and respect. After all, their one goal in life is to become completely benevolent toward their fellow human beings in order to attain ultimate social harmony. They live by the Golden Rule and are governed by sympathy and empathy rather than selfishness and apathy. If humans today were to endeavor to embody such creatures, I think many of the world's problems would either be mitigated or flat out eradicated. People murder because they lack benevolence; they cheat and lie and steal because they lack benevolence. If we were to adopt the Way of the Sages, we would undoubtedly become more peaceful, agreeable, and ethical people, thus correcting our flaws and bettering our society.
The one problem I see with relying on sages and the Decree of Heaven to better our world is that a sage is generally not a forceful being. That is to say, when slapped, I believe he would rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I think our recalcitrant world requires more of a firm, authoratative grip to straighten its warped qualities.
Q.) If you were to choose to follow either path (that of the sage or that of the philosopher king), which would you choose? Why?