Some people believe Li or Confucian rationality is 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)? Bear this question in your mind and answer the following questions:
What indeed is freedom? Use Kant’s interpretation (4:50) of freedom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
dom as a way to comprehend your understanding of Confucius’s requisites on propriety.
How does 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?
1Confucius' "Li" (rites)：Its core is "consider others". Offering tea to companions at a party or holding the door for someone behind you—these little "rituals" are just us caring about people around, naturally.
2Kant's "Freedom"：Being moral not for praise or fear of punishment, but because your rationality tells you "this is right". Choosing to help others out of your own will? That’s the real moral freedom he talks about.
Kant & Confucianism: Core Parallels & Difference
Kant defines freedom as will autonomy (rational self-rule) and rationality as transcending instincts for universal morality—aligning with Confucian "li" (propriety as rational self-cultivation, not inhuman restraint). Both value reason, but Western rationality prioritizes individual logic/science, while Confucian rationality integrates ethics, social harmony, and emotion-reason balance.
Kant (4:50) says freedom is will self-legislating, and Confucius’ Li (rooted in Ren) is rational voluntary adherence—both are "rational freedom". Kant’s rationality means transcending instinct for moral reason; Confucius’ Li nurtures this (e.g., curb anger to be kind) and links rationality to harmony. Both let people voluntarily control instinct, but Western rationality is abstract/individual while Confucian is concrete/relational and unites reason with Ren.
Kant sees true freedom as rational self-governance,not following impulses.Similarly, Confucius's "Li"uses social rules to cultivate moral character, not suppress humanity. Both value using reason to achieve ethical freedom, but Confucianism focuses more on social harmony than individual autonomy.
Freedom, for Kant, is autonomy: the rational self giving itself universal law; Confucian li is not external chains but the self-cultivation that lets one’s inborn ren act autonomously—thus li and Kantian freedom converge in rational self-mastery, and Chinese humanity has been shaped by this same inner reason, not inhumanity.
1. Freedom & Li
Kantian freedom is autonomy (self-governance by reason). Confucian Li is the practice of this autonomy, where social rituals train one to willingly follow moral principles, achieving true freedom.
2. Rational Capacity & Influence
Kant's "rational capacity" is practical reason—the ability to act on universal moral laws. Confucianism shaped Chinese humanity by championing moral self-perfection through this innate human rationality.
3. Similarity & Difference
· Similarity: Both require using reason to transcend selfish desires.
· Difference: Kant's reason is abstract, universal, and rule-based. Confucian reason is concrete, situational, and relationship-centered.
Kant frames freedom as rational moral action. Confucius’s Li is this rational framework, not a freedom limit. Kant’s rational capacity is independent moral reasoning. Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity via relational virtue like ren. Western rationality prioritizes individual autonomy; Confucian rationality centers on relational duty. Both use reason for morality, with differing priorities.
Kantdefines freedom as the will’s ability to act by self-made rational laws ，not by external desires.
This aligns with Confucius’ "Li" : "Li" is not rigid restraint, but a rational framework rooted in "Ren" . Just as Kant’s free will follows universal moral laws, "Li" guides people to act rationally in relationships to restrain selfishness and achieve meaningful freedom
.For Kant ， freedom is acting per self-given rational moral law, not inclination. Confucian propriety (li) aligns as rational self-discipline—freedom in upholding social-ethical order via cultivated conduct.
Kant defines rational capacity as the ability to transcend desires, grasp universal moral principles, and act autonomously. Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity by framing rationality as "ren-li harmony" (benevolence + propriety), guiding ethical social engagement.
Similarity: Both prioritize rational self-governance over brute impulse. Difference: Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy; Confucian rationality centers on relational ethics and social harmony as rational ends.
1. According to Kant, freedom is not acting on instinct or external desires, but acting in accordance with self-given rational moral laws ("autonomy of the will"). For Confucius’s "propriety" (li), it aligns with this: li is not rigid constraint, but rational norms rooted in humaneness (ren) that guide behavior—helping individuals act with awareness (not impulse) to uphold social harmony, just as Kant’s freedom requires rational self-governance.
2. Kant defines rational capacity as humans’ ability to transcend animal instincts, form universal moral principles, and act on reason (not just desires). From this view, Confucianism nurtures Chinese humanity by tying rationality to "ren": it teaches people to use reason (to follow li) to express kindness, shaping a humanity that balances individual conduct with collective well-being.
3. Similarity: Both Western (Kantian) and Confucian rationality reject blind instinct, emphasizing reason as the core of human behavior. Difference: Western rationality focuses on individual moral autonomy (following one’s own rational laws), while Confucian rationality centers on relational rationality—using reason to fulfill roles (family, society) and practice ren within community bonds.
1. What is freedom? (Kant & Confucius)
Kant defines freedom as acting on self-given rational laws (not driven by desire). Confucius’ Li (ritual/propriety) is not rigid constraint, but rational self-discipline based on moral understanding (e.g., following Li out of respect, not force), which aligns with Kant’s idea of rational freedom.
2. Kant’s “rational capacity” & Confucian influence + Rationality comparison
- Kant: Rational capacity is the ability to think independently, distinguish right/wrong, and set moral principles for oneself.
- Confucian influence: It cultivates rationality in social ethics (e.g., ren [benevolence], li [ritual] guide human relations), shaping a society that values moral order.
- Similarity: Both emphasize rationality over instinct.
- Difference: Western rationality (Kant) focuses on individual rational autonomy; Confucian rationality emphasizes rationality in social/ethical relationships.
Kant defines freedom as acting via reason not instinct choosing universal moral principles over impulses. This aligns with Confucian propriety which isn’t rigid rule following but rational benevolent behavior like respect rooted in benevolence. Kant sees rationality as humans ability to transcend desires while Confucianism uses it to foster relational harmony shaping Chinese values of respect and collective well-being. Both rationalities humanize but Western focuses on individual autonomy and Confucian on community order neither is inhumane.
1. For Kant, freedom is the will acting on rational laws (like the categorical imperative) independently of sensual desires. Confucius's Li, by guiding people to act rationally in ethics, helps them achieve moral freedom beyond instinct.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to think via a priori categories (theoretical) and act on moral laws (practical). Confucian rationality shapes Chinese humanity to value ethical reasoning in social relations.
3. Similarity: Both emphasize rational control over instinct. Difference: Western rationality (Kant) is individual and metaphysical; Confucian rationality is social and practical, centered on Li and Ren.
1. Kant's freedom is rational autonomous legislation, and Confucius' "Li" is ethical rational autonomy; they are similar in rational domination of will.
2. Kant's rational capacity is transcendent self-legislation, and Confucian rationality shapes ethical self-awareness.
3.Western rationality emphasizes cognitive individual laws, while Confucian rationality emphasizes ethical social order.
Kant defines freedom not as following instincts, but as obeying self-given moral laws through reason. From this view, Confucian propriety (li) is not inhumanity but a training of reason to achieve moral freedom, shaping Chinese humanity to find virtue in social harmony rather than individual impulse. While both value rational self-mastery, Western rationality often focuses on the individual and universal logic, whereas Confucian rationality is more relational and rooted in social duties.
According to Kant, freedom is not acting recklessly based on instinctual desires, but making rules for oneself and consciously abiding by them.
Confucius’s “Li” is not about denying freedom either. Instead, it enables people to, on the basis of “Ren” , turn moral norms like “filially supporting parents” into behavioral habits that one truly endorses from the bottom of their heart. This is just like Kant’s idea of “making rules for oneself and following them” — it is a kind of freedom with moral self-awareness, not a restraint that suppresses human nature.
Freedom and "Propriety" : Kant believed that freedom is "rational self-discipline" (not indulgence), and the Confucian "propriety" precisely aligns with this - regulating emotions and behaviors with reason to achieve "doing as one pleases without overstepping the bounds", rather than suppressing human nature.
1. Freedom is not the ability to do what we want, but the ability to act according to self-given rational law，independent of our desires and instincts.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to act based on principles and universal laws, rather than being determined by sensory impulses or desires.
3. It trained generations of Chinese to see their humanity not in fulfilling every desire, but in achieving moral self-mastery and harmonious social relations.
Kant defines freedom as acting by self-given moral law, not desires.
Confucius's "propriety" (li)resembles this if internalized as moral self-discipline, not mere external rules.
So, Confucius isn’t “inhuman.” His system aims at moral cultivation through li and ren. Russell viewed it as restrictive, but from a Kantian perspective, Confucian ethics can be seen as a form of moral autonomy within a social framework.
Kant defines freedom as autonomy—the capacity to act according to the categorical imperative (a moral law one gives oneself) rather than being driven by personal inclinations or external coercion. For Kant, true freedom lies in choosing to follow rational moral principles, not desires.
Confucius's "Li" and Kant's "freedom" are two profound thoughts from Eastern and Western civilizations on "the relationship between reason and morality/freedom
From the height of philosophical metaphysics, Kant constructed a rational system of "freedom as autonomy".
From the dimension of human relations practice, Confucius proposed the moral rational path of "Li embodying Dao".
The two are consistent in their fundamental pursuit of "achieving morality/freedom through reason", and the difference lies only in the forms of expression and cultural carriers of reason.
Confucius's Li emphasizes social order, moral cultivation, and role-based obligations to maintain harmony. Kant's freedom centers on rational autonomy—acting out of duty based on the categorical imperative, where freedom lies in following self-imposed moral laws, not external constraints.
1. Kant’s freedom is acting by rational moral law. Confucius’s Li guides rational, moral action, so not against freedom.
2. Kant sees rational capacity as independent, moral reasoning. Confucianism fosters moral rationality in Chinese humanity for social harmony.
3. Both value reason in morality. Western rationality stresses individual rational autonomy; Confucian rationality focuses on social - relational ethics and ritual - based virtue.
Kant's interpretation of freedom: Kant defines freedom as autonomy, which means the ability to act according to one's own rational will, independent of external influences or inclinations. Freedom is not the absence of constraints but the capacity to act in accordance with universal moral laws that one gives to oneself through reason. For example, when a person refrains from stealing not because of fear of punishment but because they recognize it as a violation of a moral principle, they are acting freely in the Kantian sense.
Kant defines freedom as acting out of rational moral law, not instinct. Confucius’ Li, when followed rationally, isn’t inhumane but cultivates virtuous freedom. Kant sees rational capacity as universal moral reasoning. Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity via ethical order. Western rationality is abstract/universal; Confucian is social-oriented, yet both value rational moral conduct.
Kant's freedom is rational freedom, self-discipline, which refers to the ability of the will to be independent of all empirical desires and natural causality.
Confucius believed that freedom is a state of spiritual ease and calm action achieved through extremely high personal cultivation, within the inevitable order (Dao, Li).克己复礼/从心所欲不逾矩
您确定给 “0” 位老师发送协议吗？
