Both Confucian "Li" and Kantian freedom are grounded in rationality, not mere impulse. For Kant, true freedom is acting according to self-given moral law, which requires rational self-discipline. Similarly, Confucian "Li" structures behavior through social norms to cultivate moral character. Thus, both traditions see rationality as the path to true humanity, though Confucianism focuses more on social harmony while Kant emphasizes individual autonomy.
教学团队
课程特色
视频(28)
考试(25)
文档(3)
讨论(3)
最新学员
Confucius's Li and Kant's freedom
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?
283 回复
-
-
Kant defines freedom as the will’s ability to act by self-made rational laws. It cultivates people’s practical reason through ren and li, guiding them to act by internalized moral norms. This realizes human dignity, rather than being inhumane.
Similarities: Both base moral andsocial order on human rationality and pursue human dignity.
Differences: Western rationality focuses on individual autonomy -
Confucius' concept of propriety is not a suppression of freedom. Instead, it transforms moral rationality into specific behavioral norms, and the two are inherently consistent.
Kant's "autonomy" is an abstract rational principle, while Confucius' propriety is the concrete practice of rational principles in family and social contexts. Both point to the freedom of "governing one's actions with reason" rather than indulgence in instincts.
-
Kant’s freedom (4:50)
Freedom = will autonomy: acting on self-made moral laws via reason.
Kant’s "rational capacity"
Split into theoretical reason (cognize the world) and practical reason (moral self-legislation, human’s core trait).
Confucian li & Kantian freedom
Li = rational, ren-rooted norms; following it voluntarily is reason-based autonomy (matches Kant’s freedom, not inhumane).
Confucian influence on Chinese humanity
Unites reason and emotion ： shapes "sensible morality" (self-discipline in social bonds, no emotion suppression).
-
-
Kantian freedom is rational self-governance. Confucian li, similarly, structures social behavior not to suppress but to cultivate moral autonomy. Both transcend raw impulse through reason—Kant via universal law, Confucius through relational harmony. Li trains ethical instincts, creating a social framework for genuine moral agency and human flourishing.
-
For Kant, freedom is rational moral self-rule (rooted in humans’ capacity to follow reason over instincts); this aligns with Confucius’s Li (rational virtuous conduct, not rigid rules), whose humanistic influence cultivates such rational virtue for ethical social order—while Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy, Confucian rationality centers on relational virtue to sustain harmony.
-
Kant defines freedom not merely as the absence of external constraints but as the capacity to act according to one's own rational will, guided by moral laws that one gives to oneself. Confucius emphasized the importance of propriety, ritual, and moral conduct as means to cultivate virtue and achieve social harmony. Both Western and Confucian rationality place a strong emphasis on morality and ethical conduct. They recognize the importance of rational thinking in guiding moral judgments and actions.
-
1.Kant defines freedom as autonomy, meaning humans legislate for themselves according to reason, rather than being driven by sensory desires or external factors. This freedom is not about doing whatever one wants, but about making autonomous choices in accordance with the moral law.
2.Kant believed that human rational capacity includes not only instrumental reason but also practical reason—the ability to recognize and follow universal moral laws. Reason enables humans to transcend the sensory world and autonomously choose moral actions.
3.Similarities: Both emphasize the role of reason in guiding emotions and desires.
Both believe that moral actions should be universal and self-determined.
Both attach importance to human moral agency and self-improvement.
Differences:Kantian rationality focuses more on individual autonomy and the universality of moral law, characterized by formality and abstraction.
Confucian rationality places greater emphasis on realizing morality within specific human relationships (such as those between father and son, ruler and subject, friends), characterized by contextualization and socialization.
Confucian "Li" integrates emotion and norms (such as the unity of "benevolence" and "propriety"), while Kant's moral philosophy emphasizes more the opposition between reason and sensibility.
-
-
Kant defines freedom as the will’s capacity to act according to self-given rational laws.
Kant defines rational capacity as the human ability to:Form abstract principles, act autonomously.
Confucian Li cultivates rational capacity by teaching individuals to act on principles- Confucian ren aligns with Kant’s emphasis on treating others as "ends in themselves".
-
-
Per Kant (Groundwork 4:50), freedom is will’s autonomy to follow self-made moral laws; Confucius’s Li, guiding rational restraint of instincts to "act as wished without transgression," aligns with this rational freedom.Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to transcend experience, legislate for nature (theoretical reason) and morality (practical reason), distinguishing humans from animals. From Kant’s view, Confucianism guides Chinese to use reason for desire regulation (good) but rigid Li may weaken rational autonomy (as Kant stresses self-legislation). Western rationality (separates theoretical/practical reason, emphasizes individual autonomy) and Confucian rationality (focuses on ethics, links to tradition) both use reason to constrain instincts but differ in focus and individual autonomy.
-
1. Freedom and Confucius' "Ritual": Kant's "Freedom is the self-discipline of reason", while Confucius' "Ritual" represents the moral self-discipline of "re-establishing propriety after self-restraint". The core of both is essentially the same.
2. Kant's "Rational Capacity": The ability to legislate for humans and nature, divided into theoretical (understanding laws) and practical (moral legislation).
3. Confucianism and Chinese Human Nature: Cultivating practical rationality through "Benevolence and Ritual", which aligns with Kant's "Reason creates the moral subject", shaping a human nature dominated by moral rationality.
4. Differences and Similarities between Western and Chinese Rationality: Both use reason to distinguish humans from animals; the difference lies in that in the West, emphasis is placed on individual autonomous legislation (theoretical/practical), while in Confucianism, emphasis is placed on practical rationality under community ethics.
-
1.According to Kant, true freedom is not about following our desires or emotions (instincts). Instead, it is the ability to act according to moral laws that our own reason creates. A free person is one who is self-disciplined and follows rational duty, not one who is controlled by their changing feelings.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to use reason to create universal moral laws and the self-control to act according to those laws, rather than being a slave to one's desires and instincts.
3.From Kant's perspective, Confucian "Li" can be seen as a social and moral framework created by reason. Its influence, therefore, is not about suppressing humanity, but about cultivating it. It trains individuals to use their rational capacity to control selfish desires and emotions, guiding them to become ethical, self-disciplined, and socially harmonious beings—much like Kant's ideal of a rational moral agent.
4. Similarity: Both Kant's Western rationality and Confucian rationality believe that true humanity and freedom are achieved by using reason to control our base instincts and emotions to follow a higher moral principle .
Difference: The source of the moral law is different. For Kant, the moral law comes from within the individual's own pure reason, which seeks universal and logical principles. For Confucius, the moral law ("Li") is primarily found in external social traditions, rituals, and hierarchical relationships that have been developed over time to create a harmonious society.
-
Kant defines freedom as the will’s autonomy.This echoes Confucius’s Li : not rigid rituals, but voluntary practice rooted in Ren. Both see "freedom/Li" as rational self-mastery, not lawlessness.
Kant’s rationality: humans can form universal principles, act on them, and reflect on actions.
Both take rationality as humanity’s core and use it to pursue moral goodness. But Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy and universal rules ; Confucian rationality focuses on relational harmony.
-
Confucian rationality is relational, socially-embedded, and expressed through Li and role-based ethics. Both Confucius and Kant see freedom as rooted in rational self-governance. Confucian Li fosters a socially-embedded autonomy, which should not be conflated with inhumanity as Russell suggested.
-
1、For Kant, true freedom is self-governance by reason, not following every impulse. Confucius's "propriety" aligns with this: it uses rational rules to refine our instincts, creating a harmonious social freedom.
2、Both Kant and Confucius see our rational capacity as the ability to act on ethical principles, not just desires. Confucianism shaped Chinese humanity by cultivating this moral reason to balance personal emotion with social duty.
3、The key difference is focus: Western rationality often seeks abstract, individual truths, while Confucian rationality aims for practical harmony within relationships and society. Both see reason as a path to morality, but their goals differ.
-
Kant's core definition of "freedom" is that freedom is "autonomy" (self-legislation), that is, people formulate moral laws for themselves through reason, rather than being dominated by instincts, desires or external rules.
From the perspective of Kant's "autonomy is freedom", Confucius' "ritual" is not the opposite of freedom, but rather "a manifestation of freedom at the practical level".
-
Kant defines freedom as the will’s capacity to act according to self-given rational laws , rather than being determined by external desires or instincts— it is not "doing whatever one wants," but acting out of rational autonomy .This aligns with Confucian "propriety" (li): Confucian li is not rigid constraint, but a set of rational, socially constructive norms rooted in "benevolence" (ren).
-
-
Kant believes that freedom has three levels, including transcendental freedom, practical freedom and free feeling. Transcendental freedom means independence from the empirical world and the ability to initiate a causal series by oneself. Practical freedom is divided into "free will" and "free choice". "Free choice" is the independence of arbitrariness from the compulsion of sensory impulses, and "free will" is the pure practical reason that determines actions according to moral laws.
-
Both are essentially about setting the "correct standards" for how people should act, and neither relies on practical interests (such as fame, fortune, and desires), but rather pursues a moral/action logic that transcends utilitarianism and can be universally adhered to.Difference1. The sources of the principles are different: Confucius' "Li" (with "benevolence" at its core) stems from external ethical order (such as the "ritual" relationships between ruler and subject, father and son, and friends), and it is "the responsibility you should fulfill to others/society". Kant's "freedom" stems from individual reason itself, which is "you make laws for yourself with your own reason, regardless of what the outside world demands."
2. The core orientation is different: "Li" means "fulfilling obligations according to relationships" (such as being filial to parents and loyal to the monarch), and ultimately integrating into social order; "Freedom" means "making choices based on one's own reason" (even if it is different from social expectations, as long as it does not harm others), and ultimately achieving the independence of individual will.
-
Kant's freedom is autonomy, acting according to self-given rational laws rather than desires. This aligns with Confucius's li, which fosters self-discipline through rational norms to achieve moral harmony. Kant defines rational capacity as the ability to self-legislate moral principles, while Confucian rationality emphasizes social order, sharing a focus on reason but differing in individual autonomy versus collective responsibility.
-
-
1. Kant defines freedom as acting on self-given moral laws (autonomy); Confucius’s Li aligns with this, as it guides acting on inner Ren (benevolence) rather than being restrictive.
2. Kant splits rationality into theoretical (knowing) and practical (moral acting); Confucianism shapes Chinese humanity by fostering practical rationality via Ren-Li, balancing individual will and social harmony.
3. Western and Confucian rationality both value rational moral autonomy; the former centers on individual abstract laws, the latter on relational concrete Li for communal harmony.
-
Kant's freedom is to act according to a law one gives himself ，it is a principle and a kind of self-discipline.
For Confucius’s propriety, Li is not mere rigid social rules, but a rational framework for ethical action that aligns with human nature.
From Kant’s perspective, Li is not a restriction on freedom, but a form of rational autonomy: by adhering to Li (which embodies shared moral norms rooted in benevolence), individuals act in line with self-legislated rationality (rather than unregulated emotional impulses). This aligns with Kant’s view that true freedom is acting on rational, universal principles—not "unrestrained impulse."
-
-
Kant defines freedom not as "unrestricted arbitrary choice" (the "freedom of inclination"), but as the autonomy of the will—the capacity of a rational being to act in accordance with self-given moral laws, rather than being determined by external desires, instincts, or circumstances.
-
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：
--
