Kant sees freedom as acting morally through reason, similar to Confucian propriety in social behavior. Both contribute to moral decision-making and ethical understanding.
教学团队
课程特色
视频(28)
考试(25)
文档(3)
讨论(3)
最新学员
A discussion on Li with a comparitive view of Kant's interpretation of "freedom"
Some people believe Li or rituals are about organizing and structuring social and personal behaviors, and thus seem to conflict with human emotional instinct and free spirit. Then, can we draw the conclusion that Confucius is in line with inhumanity (as suggested by Bertrand Russel on page 54)? Bear this question in your mind and answer the following questions:
–a) What indeed is freedom? Use Kant’s interpretation of freedom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety. In what way are Confucius’s idea of propriety comparable with Kant’s idea of imperative duty?
–b) How does the German philosopher Kant define human’s “rational capacity”? From this perspective, how should we look at Confucian's influence on Chinese humanity? How is western rationality similar and different from Confucian rationality?
341 回复
-
-
Freedom, in Kant’s interpretation, is closely tied to the concept of autonomy, which is the ability to act according to a self-imposed law or principle。Kant distinguishes between a will that is determined by external factors (heteronomy) and a will that is self-determining (autonomy). For Kant, true freedom lies in the latter, where one’s actions are guided by the moral law that one has legislated for oneself。
Confucius’s concept of propriety (Li) can be seen as a system of social and moral norms that guide behavior and maintain social order。Proper behavior, according to Confucius, is not just about following rules but also about embodying the moral values behind those rules。This is comparable to Kant’s idea of imperative duty in that both require individuals to act in accordance with a set of moral principles. For Confucius, the observance of Li is an important way of realizing Ren (benevolence), which is subjective cultivation and self-awareness, much like how Kant’s categorical imperative requires individuals to act in a way that their actions could be universalized。
In both Kantian and Confucian thought, there is an emphasis on the internalization of moral principles. For Kant, the moral law is a product of practical reason and is binding because it is self-legislated. For Confucius, the practice of Li is not just about external conformity but also about internalizing the values of Ren and Li, which aligns with the idea of acting out of a sense of duty rather than mere compliance。
-
Kant's freedom is acting by self-made moral laws. Confucius' propriety, similar to Kant's categorical imperative, isn't a limit but a guide for social harmony and self-growth, with both stressing self-restraint and universal moral norms. Kant's rational capacity is understanding and following moral laws. Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity rationally. Western rationality emphasizes individual logical thought; Confucian rationality focuses on human relations and social ethics, being practical. Confucianism is a people-centered system for holistic development and social harmony.
-
Kant's freedom is a moral freedom under rational self-discipline, realizing the autonomy of will through self-restraint; while the Confucian concept of "Li" is to enable people to live in harmony in society through the regulation of behaviors, thus realizing the individual's free development in an orderly social environment.
-
Kant viewed"freedom"as central to moral agency and responsibility.He distinguished between empirical freedom,based on desires,and transcendental freedom rooted in rationality and autonomy.For Kant,true freedom lies in the ability to act according to reason and moral law,independent of external or internal determinants.
Kant defines"rational capacity"as the ability to reason and make moral judgments independently.Confucianism's influence on Chinese humanity is seen in its emphasis on moral development and social harmony,which can be rationally pursued.Western rationality often focuses on individual rights and critical thinking,while Confucian rationality emphasizes collective well-being and moral rectitude,showing both overlap in the value of reason and divergence in its application.
-
While there may be elements within Confucian "li" that seem restrictive from a purely individualistic perspective like Kant's emphasis on personal autonomy, it ultimately serves a purpose aligned with cultivating virtue and maintaining social order. Rather than being a suppression of reason, "li" can be viewed as providing a structure that enables individuals to express their rational capacities within a communal context. Thus, it supports rather than undermines true freedom when considered holistically.
-
A
Kant's freedom: Acting per self-given moral laws by reason. Confucius & propriety: Propriety like Kant's imperative, guiding harmonious social interactions, a form of moral self-discipline.
B
Kant's rational capacity: Enables understanding ，following moral laws, autonomous moral judgments.
Confucian influence: Promotes moral cultivation, social responsibility.
Comparison: Both value moral self-discipline. Western is more abstract in law-making, Confucian is more practical in daily ethics and social relations.
-
a. Kant's freedom has positive (acting by rational moral law) aspects. Confucius' propriety, like Kant's positive freedom, offers rational behavior guidance. Kant's categorical imperative and Confucius' propriety both have a quasi-universal nature for guiding actions, such as filial piety in Confucianism being similar to a universal principle for harmony.
b. Kant defines rational capacity as self-legislating to know and follow moral laws. Confucianism deeply influenced Chinese humanity, emphasizing moral cultivation. Similar to Western rationality, both aim to guide moral behavior. But Western rationality (Kant's) is more about abstract universal moral laws via pure reason, while Confucian rationality is closer to specific social and family ethics, more context-dependent and practical. And it's incorrect to deem Confucius inhumane; his thought promotes self-cultivation and social harmony, sharing some similarities with Kant's moral philosophy.
-
Kant defines freedom as the ability to act according to rational self-imposed laws rather than external compulsions. Similarly, Confucius’s concept of propriety (Li) emphasizes self-discipline through rituals and moral education, fostering harmony rather than restricting human instinct. Both Kant’s imperative duty and Confucius’s propriety prioritize internal moral obligations over unchecked emotions, aligning personal conduct with societal harmony.
b) Rational Capacity and Humanity
Kant views rational capacity as humanity’s ability to act in accordance with reason and universal moral laws. Confucian rationality, grounded in relational ethics and social harmony, cultivates humanity by balancing personal virtues and societal duties. While Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy, Confucian rationality focuses on interconnectedness, highlighting complementary perspectives on human flourishing.
-
a)To act freely is to act autonomously.
Confucius's "etiquette" includes not only external codes of conduct, but also internal moral emotion and cultivation. Kant's moral principles also emphasize the unity of formalization and self-discipline, that is, moral laws are both formal and self-formulated by rational people, reflecting the freedom of will. Both Confucius's "ritual" and Kant's absolute command aim to provide guidance for individual behavior and enable people to make correct moral choices in daily life.
b)In Kant's view, rationality is human's cognitive ability, which includes knowledge elements such as congenital form, transcendental category and congenital concept.
Confucianism emphasizes moral ethics such as "benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom and faith", which is similar to Kant's ethics of duty theory, that is, it emphasizes that moral behavior should be based on rational principles, rather than merely pursuing personal happiness or interests. Confucianism believes that people can achieve internal harmony and perfection through moral cultivation and practice, which is in line with Kant's View of realizing moral self-discipline through rationality.
Western rationalism emphasizes individual autonomy and rationality, while Confucian rationality pays more attention to individual's role and responsibility in social relations and emphasizes the harmony between family and society.
-
True freedom is defined in Kant's philosophy as "self-discipline", which means that freedom is not the ability to do anything as one pleases, but rather the ability of a person to have self-control and act according to moral principles, even if such action may cause pain or inconvenience. Kant believed that true freedom is achieved through moral self-discipline, not through the satisfaction of external conditions.The core of Confucius' etiquette requirements is "to follow one's heart and mind, without exceeding the rules", which means that individuals can freely express their wishes and emotions while following the norms of etiquette, but will not exceed the rules. This kind of freedom is similar to Kant's emphasis on self-discipline, that is, freedom is achieved on the basis of following certain rules and moral principles.
-
Freedom, in Kant’s interpretation, is not about acting without any constraints but about acting in accordance with the moral law that one gives to oneself. Kant argues that “the moral law is the causal law of a free will” and that “the supposed ability of free will to choose indifferently between options is an empty concept” . Freedom, for Kant, is a power to initiate action from oneself, and the only way to exercise this power is through the law of one’s own will, the moral law
Confucius’s idea of propriety (Li) can be seen as comparable to Kant’s idea of imperative duty in several ways. Firstly, both emphasize the importance of moral norms in guiding behavior. Kant’s categorical imperative requires that one acts only on maxims that can be willed as universal laws ，while Confucius’s propriety involves following a set of social and moral norms that maintain social order and promote moral development . Secondly, both Kant and Confucius see moral actions not just as externally imposed rules but as expressions of an internal moral compass. For Confucius, propriety is not merely a set of behavioral norms but an expression of moral and ethical values ， which aligns with Kant’s view that moral actions should be motivated by respect for the moral law, not just adherence to it.Western rationality and Confucian rationality share the belief in the importance of reason in guiding human behavior. However, they differ in their focus and application. Western rationality, as influenced by Kant, often emphasizes individual autonomy and the universality of moral principles, while Confucian rationality is more focused on social harmony and the individual’s role within a social context. Confucianism places a strong emphasis on the interdependence of individuals and society, with rituals (Li) serving as a guide for maintaining social order and expressing moral values , whereas Western rationalism tends to stress the individual’s ability to reason independently and make decisions based on logical principles
-
Kant defines freedom as the capacity of rational beings to act according to self-imposed laws or principles rather than being driven solely by instincts, desires, or external influences. For Kant, true freedom lies in autonomy, where one's actions are guided by a rational will that aligns with moral imperatives.
-
-
①Kant believed that Freedom is the ability to act according to self-imposed moral laws, guided by reason and autonomy. Confucius thought that Li governs behavior through rituals, promoting social harmony and inner moral cultivation.
②Kant: Rational capacity is the ability to use reason to formulate and follow universal moral laws, enabling autonomy.Confucius: Rationality emphasizes ethical cultivation through relational and situational practices.
-
Confucius’s concept of “Li” (ritual or propriety) is not a simple suppressive ideology. Confucius’s “Li” focuses on social harmony and order, emphasizing the responsibilities and roles of individuals within society, rather than simply suppressing personal freedom. Kant’s view of freedom emphasizes individual rational freedom and moral self-discipline, arguing that everyone should pursue their own happiness as long as it does not infringe upon the universal lawful freedom of others. Kant’s concept of freedom is an internal, moral freedom, closely related to an individual’s moral law and reason.
Confucius’s “Li” differs from Kant’s view of freedom in its emphasis on personal self-discipline and morality. It focuses more on social order and individual responsibility, while Kant’s view of freedom emphasizes individual rational freedom and moral autonomy. Both reflect a profound understanding of the role and behavior of individuals in society, but their specific paths of practice and value orientations differ.
-
ant wants to show that freedom is possible in the face of natural necessity. Transcendental idealism is his solution, which locates freedom outside of nature. I accept that this makes freedom possible, but object that it precludes the recognition of other rational agents. In making this case, I trace some of the history of Kant’s thoughts on freedom. In several of his earlier works, he argues that we are aware of our own activity. He later abandons this approach, as he worries that any awareness of our activity involves access to the noumenal, and thereby conflicts with the epistemic limits of transcendental idealism. In its place, from the second Critique onwards, Kant argues that we are conscious of the moral law, which tells me that I ought to do something, thus revealing that I can. This is the only proof of freedom consistent with transcendental idealism, but I argue that such an exclusively first-personal approach precludes the (third-personal) recognition of other rational agents. I conclude that transcendental idealism thus fails to provide an adequate account of freedom. In its place, I sketch an alternative picture of how freedom is possible, one that locates freedom within, rather than outside of nature.
-
Confucius's "Li" and Kant's thought of freedom seem to be in conflict on the surface, but in fact they can complement and understand each other at a deeper level. Confucius' "Li" emphasizes social norms and moral codes of individual behavior, with the purpose of maintaining social order, promoting the harmony of interpersonal relations and personal moral cultivation. Confucius believed that by following rites, people could achieve self-improvement and social harmony. Therefore, "Li " is not only an external code of conduct, but also an important way of internal moral cultivation. Kant's free thought focuses on individual autonomy and rational self-discipline. According to Kant, true freedom lies in the ability of rational beings to act according to universal laws (i.e., moral laws) and not under the coercive influence of external factors. Kant's view of freedom emphasizes the individual's ability of self-determination and moral self-discipline. Confucius's "Li " did not suppress Kant's free thought, but complemented it on a deeper level. Both emphasize the importance of moral self-discipline and rationality, but the emphasis is different: Confucius pays more attention to social harmony and collective well-being, while Kant emphasizes individual autonomy and rational self-discipline.
-
Kant believes that freedom is a kind of moral self-discipline. In his ethical system, human beings, as rational beings, have the ability to act according to moral laws. This moral law is not imposed externally, but arises from man's reason itself. Therefore, Kant's moral freedom emphasizes that people restrict their own behavior through reason, and this constraint is internal. Although the etiquette of Confucius is an external social norm, when people internalize the etiquette in their hearts, it also becomes an internal code of conduct. Moreover, Kant's moral law is universal and applies to all rational beings. Although the rites of Confucius are produced in a specific social and cultural background, they also have a certain universal significance. However, the difference between them is that the core of Kant's concept of freedom is the individual's free will, and it discusses how to realize moral freedom from the rational nature of human beings. However, Confucius' rites lay more emphasis on social norms and regulated human behavior from the point of view of the overall social order.
-
Kant believes that freedom is the ability of an individual to act according to self-imposed moral laws under the guidance of reason, which is known as autonomy. This freedom not only manifests as the capacity to control instinctual desires but also involves making choices based on reason and morality, enabling individuals to act in accordance with universally applicable moral laws, thereby achieving true self-determination and moral value.
-
Confucius believed that "without learning etiquette, you can't stand", emphasizing the importance of learning etiquette for individuals to gain a foothold in society. Through his own words, deeds and teachings, he summarized and reflected on the etiquette system of the Zhou Dynasty, and gave it a new ideological connotation, making etiquette an important part of Confucianism. This not only regulates people's behavior, promotes social harmony and stability, but also improves people's moral cultivation and cultural literacy. At the same time, it has also made important contributions to the inheritance and development of Chinese culture.
-
a)
Definition of Freedom: Kant defines freedom as autonomy, the ability to act according to self-imposed rational laws, rather than being driven by desires. True freedom arises from adherence to universal moral principles.
Role of Propriety (Li): For Confucius, propriety serves as a behavioral framework to guide self-cultivation and achieve social harmony by restraining impulses and fostering moral character.
Comparison:
1. Foundation: Kant’s moral laws are grounded in reason, while Confucian propriety is rooted in tradition and ethical practice. 2. Internalization: Kant internalizes morality through rational reflection, while Confucius achieves it through habitual practice. 3. Nature of Freedom: Both see freedom as achieved through self-discipline, but Kant focuses on universal individual principles, while Confucius emphasizes relational harmony.
b)
Kant’s Rational Capacity: Kant sees rational capacity as the ability to act according to universal moral laws, rising above instinctual desires through ethical reasoning.
Confucian Influence: Confucius emphasizes moral cultivation through propriety, focusing on fulfilling social and familial roles, shaping a relational understanding of humanity.
Comparison of Rationalities:
Similarities: Both stress morality and self-cultivation.
Differences: Kant centers on individual autonomy and universal rules, while Confucius prioritizes social harmony and context-specific duties. -
a）For Kant, freedom refers to the ability to act according to reason, not to desire or external influences. Kant believed that true freedom is the act of acting in accordance with the universal and binding moral law recognized by reason, which is embodied in his concept of the categorical imperative. Confucius's etiquette (etiquette, norms) emphasizes the observance of established rituals, customs, and social norms in order to promote social harmony and personal moral cultivation. Confucius's rites are similar to Kant's categorical imperatives in that they both emphasize moral behavior under the guidance of reason. However, Kant's categorical imperative is universally applicable, while Confucius's rites are more focused on specific social and cultural contexts, representing universal and situational moral norms, respectively.
b）The German philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the "rational faculty" of human beings as the ability to think and act according to logical and moral principles. From this perspective, the influence of Confucianism on Chinese nature lies in its emphasis on cultivating people's moral rationality through education and etiquette, so that they can live in harmony in society. The similarity between Western rationality and Confucian rationality is that both attach importance to morality and rational thinking, but the difference is that Western rationality emphasizes more on universality and abstract principles, while Confucian rationality focuses more on concrete social relations and moral behavior in practice. Western rationality pursues universally applicable truths, while Confucian rationality is more concerned with how to achieve morality and harmony in specific situations.
-
Freedom is to act according to a law I give myself.For Kant, freedom is the ability to act in accordance with moral law out of a sense of duty. The categorical imperative is a central concept. It is a moral command that is unconditional and applies to all rational beings.Confucius emphasized the importance of propriety as a set of norms and rituals that govern human behavior. Propriety includes behaviors such as filial piety, respect for elders, and proper social etiquette. Firstly, Moral Constraint and Guidance.Kant's categorical imperative and Confucius's propriety both serve as moral constraints and guides. Just as Kant's moral law tells people what they should do based on pure reason, Confucius's propriety provides a set of rules for people to follow in different social situations. Secondly,both concepts aim to achieve social order and harmony. Kant's moral duties, when followed by individuals, contribute to a just and rational social order. Similarly, Confucius's propriety is designed to maintain a harmonious social hierarchy and interpersonal relationships.Lastly ,there is an aspect of inner - driven morality in both. Kant emphasizes that moral actions should be based on a sense of duty that comes from the individual's rational will. Confucius also values the internalization of propriety. True propriety is not just about following external rituals but also about having a sincere and respectful attitude from the heart.
-
a) In Kants view,freedom is the ability of individuals to legislate universal laws for themselves.Confuciuss concept of propriety is similar to Kants categorical imperative,both requiring individuals to follow universal moral norms to maintain social order and interpersonal relationships.
b) Kant defines humanrational capacityas the ability to legislate moral laws for oneself.The influence of Confucianism on Chinese humanity lies in emphasizing moral cultivation and social responsibility.Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy and critical thinking,while Confucian rationality focuses more on moral responsibility within social relationships.Both value rationality,but with different focuses and applications.
-
Freedom is the ability of an individual to act autonomously according to their own rational principles, without being driven by external factors or desires. Kant believed that freedom means following universal moral laws, which is the command of practical reason.Confucius's requirements for propriety involve individuals adhering to certain norms and roles within society to achieve social harmony. This is comparable to Kant's concept of imperative duty because both emphasize that individuals should act in accordance with universal moral norms. Both Confucian propriety and Kantian imperative duty require individuals to act out of respect for the norms themselves, rather than for personal gain. Both philosophies suggest that through self-discipline and adherence to moral norms, individuals can achieve a higher moral and social order.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant defines human "rational capacity" as the ability to use reason to understand and act according to universal moral laws, which is a fundamental aspect of human autonomy and dignity.
Western rationality, as represented by Kant, often focuses on individual autonomy, critical thinking, and the transcendental nature of moral principles. In contrast, Confucian rationality emphasizes social harmony, moral cultivation, and the individual's role within the collective. While both value the role of reason in moral action, Western rationality tends to prioritize individual rights and critical examination of norms, whereas Confucian rationality is more concerned with the individual's responsibilities and the maintenance of social order.
-
1、Kant’s View of Freedom: For Kant, freedom isn’t unrestrained action but acting per rational moral law, following the categorical imperative, a universal duty principle for moral acts, overriding personal desires.
2、Confucius’s Propriety (Li): In Confucianism, “li” comprises rituals, norms guiding behavior, for virtue cultivation, emotion regulation, respecting social roles and moral order.
3、Comparison: Kant focuses on individual autonomy, Confucius on social harmony. Yet both hold freedom needs constraint. Kant’s is self-determined moral action; Confucius’s “li” aids virtuous acts in society. Both promote a higher freedom, Kant via duty, Confucius via harmony and virtue.
4、Conclusion: Both see true freedom as aligning actions with moral principles. Kant uses rational duty, Confucius “li”, both stressing freedom in moral self-discipline.
-
Kant's interpretation of freedom is deeply connected with his moral philosophy, specifically the concept of autonomy. For Kant, freedom is not merely the ability to act without external constraints but the capacity to act according to a self-imposed moral law that is derived from reason. Freedom, therefore, for Kant, is the freedom to follow this moral law, which one recognizes through reason.
Now, turning to Confucius, the concept of propriety (li) is central to Confucianism. Propriety refers to a set of rituals and social norms that govern behavior in society. Confucius’s requisites on propriety are aimed at cultivating moral character and social harmony. While propriety can be seen as a set of rules that dictate behavior, it is comparable to Kant’s categorical imperative in that it is based on a moral principle that one should follow for the sake of the principle itself, rather than for any instrumental reason or personal gain.
The way Confucius’s idea of propriety is comparable to Kant’s idea of imperative duty is in their shared emphasis on the intrinsic value of moral conduct. Both philosophies assert that there are certain actions that are inherently right or wrong, regardless of personal desires or outcomes. For Confucius, following propriety is a duty that contributes to social harmony, while for Kant, following the moral law is a duty that arises from rationality.
Kant defines human “rational capacity” as the ability to use reason to determine the moral law and to act according to it. This capacity allows humans to be autonomous and to bind themselves to moral duties through their own rational decisions.
From this perspective, Confucian influence on Chinese humanity can be seen as fostering a society that values moral conduct, social harmony, and the fulfillment of one’s role in the community. Confucian rationality emphasizes the importance of moral virtues and the proper exercise of social roles, which are rational in the sense that they contribute to a well-ordered society.
Western rationality, particularly in the Kantian tradition, often emphasizes individual autonomy and the use of reason to determine moral principles independently of social roles or external authority. Both Confucian and Western rationality share a commitment to morality and reason as guiding principles for human conduct.
However, they differ in their approaches to the individual’s role in society. Western rationality, especially in liberal traditions, tends to prioritize individual freedom and the right to pursue personal autonomy within the bounds of moral law. In contrast, Confucian rationality emphasizes the importance of one’s social relationships and the fulfillment of social duties as essential to moral life.
In summary, while both Kant and Confucius discuss freedom and moral duty, their approaches are rooted in different cultural and philosophical contexts. Kant’s view is more individualistic and based on universal moral principles, while Confucius’s is more communitarian and based on social roles and norms. Both perspectives contribute to our understanding of morality and human rationality.
-
- The Meaning of Freedom (from Kant's Perspective): Kant defines freedom as the autonomy of the will, i.e., self-legislation. It enables one to act according to self-established moral laws, independent of external desires and impulses, representing a moral autonomy beyond natural causality.
- Comparison between Confucius' View of Propriety and Kant's View of Imperative Duty: Confucius' "propriety (Li)" appears as an external constraint on personal behavior. However, from Kant's freedom perspective, it is a self-restraint for social and individual harmony. Similar to Kant's categorical imperative, Confucius' propriety is a moral principle. For instance, Kant's "do not lie" and Confucius' "let the ruler be a ruler, etc." are both norms. By following them, social order and individual self-worth are achieved, signifying freedom within order. Without propriety, chaos ensues and freedom vanishes. Thus, both ensure freedom via moral norms.
- Kant's Definition of Man's "Rational Capacity": Kant holds that human rational capacity transcends sensuous experience to formulate universal moral laws. It allows one to distinguish good from evil and demands acting in line with moral laws.
- The Influence of Confucianism on Chinese Human Nature: Confucianism deeply shapes Chinese human nature. Positively, it emphasizes moral cultivation like "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trust", fostering good qualities such as moral focus, respect for elders, and family and social order. The concept of "cultivating oneself, etc." spurs self-improvement and social responsibility. Negatively, it might suppress individuality due to overemphasis on group and order.
- Similarities: Both stress morality. Western rationality (e.g., Kant's moral laws) and Confucian rationality (e.g., propriety and benevolence) guide behavior and aim for an ideal social and personal state.
- Differences: Western rationality centers on individual self-legislation and rights/freedom (e.g., Kant's free will). Confucian rationality starts from social and group relations, defining individuals within them and giving less direct emphasis on individual rights.
-
1. Kant's Interpretation of Freedom
- For Kant, freedom is the ability to act in accordance with the moral law that one gives to oneself. The categorical imperative is at the core of his ethical theory. It is an unconditional moral obligation that is binding on all rational beings. For example, the principle of universalizability - an action is moral only if it can be willed as a universal law. In this view, freedom is not the freedom to do whatever one wants, but the freedom to act in a way that is rationally and morally justifiable.
2. Confucius's Requisites on Propriety
- Confucius emphasized propriety (li). Propriety in Confucianism includes a set of social norms and rituals that govern human behavior. It is about acting in a way that is appropriate to one's social position and the situation. For example, in the context of filial piety, children are expected to show respect and obedience to their parents. This is a form of propriety that is considered essential for a harmonious social order.
3. Comparing the Two Concepts
- Similarities:
- Both concepts involve a sense of obligation. Kant's categorical imperative is a moral obligation that all rational beings should follow. Confucius's propriety also imposes a kind of obligation on individuals to behave in a certain way in society. For example, just as Kant would argue that one has a duty to tell the truth because it is a universal moral law, Confucius would say that a person has an obligation to follow the rules of propriety in social interactions, such as greeting others with respect and using appropriate language.
- They both aim at a higher good. Kant's moral law aims to achieve a just and rational moral order, where actions are based on pure reason and respect for persons. Confucius's propriety aims to achieve a harmonious social order. For instance, in a Confucian society, following propriety in ceremonies and relationships helps to maintain social stability and harmony, similar to how Kant's moral principles aim to create a just moral community.
- Differences:
- Kant's moral law is based on pure reason and is more abstract. The categorical imperative is derived from rational thinking and is meant to be a universal principle that applies to all situations regardless of cultural or social context. In contrast, Confucius's propriety is deeply rooted in the specific social and cultural context of ancient Chinese society. For example, the elaborate rituals of ancestor worship in Confucianism are a product of the traditional Chinese cultural and family - centered values, while Kant's moral law does not have such specific cultural content.
- Kant's view of freedom emphasizes the individual's autonomous decision - making based on reason. The individual is free when they act according to the moral law they have rationally determined. Confucius's propriety, on the other hand, is more about individuals fitting into the pre - existing social order and fulfilling their social roles. For example, a person's actions in a Confucian society are guided by the norms of propriety for different social relationships such as ruler - subject, father - son, etc., rather than a self - determined moral law as in Kant's view.1. Kant's Definition of Human's "Rational Capacity"
- Kant defines rational capacity as the faculty that allows humans to think and act according to principles that are independent of empirical conditions. Pure reason, for Kant, is the ability to know things a priori, without relying on sense - experience. It is a way of understanding the world through concepts and principles that are inherent in the mind. For example, in moral philosophy, practical reason enables humans to act according to the moral law that is self - imposed and based on the categorical imperative. This means that rational beings have the capacity to determine moral actions through their own reasoning, not simply based on desires or external coercion.
2. Confucian Influence on Chinese Humanity from Kant's Perspective
- Positive Aspect:
- From a Kantian view of rational capacity, Confucianism's emphasis on self - cultivation and moral education can be seen as a way of guiding people to use their rationality to improve themselves. Confucian values such as "Ren" (benevolence), "Yi" (righteousness), and "Li" (propriety) encourage individuals to think about moral principles and act in a way that is in line with moral values. For example, the practice of self - reflection in Confucianism, as in the concept of "examining oneself three times a day," is similar to the Kantian idea of using reason to evaluate one's actions and motives.
- Negative Aspect:
- However, Kant might also point out that Confucianism's heavy reliance on traditional values and hierarchical social structures could potentially limit the full exercise of individual rational capacity. In some cases, people might follow Confucian norms more out of custom and social pressure than out of a self - determined rational choice. For example, the strict observance of filial piety in some traditional Confucian contexts might lead to actions that are not fully questioned or evaluated through an individual's own rational thinking.
3. Similarities and Differences between Western and Confucian Rationality
- Similarities:
- Moral Focus: Both Western and Confucian rationality place importance on moral values. In the West, through thinkers like Kant, moral actions are determined by rational principles such as the categorical imperative. In Confucianism, moral values like "Ren" and "Yi" guide human behavior. For example, in both systems, lying is generally considered immoral, although the justifications might differ.
- Social Harmony: They both aim to achieve social harmony. Western rationality, through concepts like the social contract, tries to establish a just and harmonious society. Confucianism aims to achieve a harmonious social order through the proper observance of relationships and moral values. For instance, the Confucian idea of the "five relationships" (ruler - subject, father - son, husband - wife, elder - younger brother, friend - friend) is designed to maintain social stability, similar to the Western idea of a well - ordered society.
- Differences:
- Epistemological Basis: Western rationality, especially in the Kantian tradition, emphasizes a more abstract and a priori understanding of knowledge and morality. It is based on logical deduction and the search for universal principles. Confucian rationality, on the other hand, is more grounded in human relationships and practical experience. For example, Western ethics might try to define the concept of justice through abstract principles, while Confucianism looks at justice in the context of how people interact and treat each other in society.
- Individual vs. Collective: Western rationality, to some extent, emphasizes the rights and autonomy of the individual. Kant's moral philosophy is centered around the individual's ability to make rational moral decisions. Confucian rationality focuses more on the collective and the role of the individual within the social group. For example, in a Western context, an individual's rights and freedoms are often given a high priority, while in Confucianism, the individual's actions are considered in the context of how they affect the family, community, and society as a whole.
添加回复
您确定给 “0” 位老师发送协议吗？
UMOOCS用户服务协议
问题分类：
--
4008987008