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?
1. Per Kant, freedom is the will acting on self-made rational laws (not desires); Confucian Li, as rational shared norms, lets the virtuous (junzi) follow inner moral reason (Ren), aligning with this autonomy.
2. Kant’s rational capacity involves setting moral ends and acting on universal laws, including theoretical (understanding the world) and practical (guiding moral action, key to dignity) reason.
3. From Kant’s view, Confucianism fosters practical rationality via Ren (universal moral end) and Li, guiding altruistic acts and realizing rational humanity, not inhumanity.
4. Western and Confucian rationality both value reason for dignity and reject pure instinct, but differ in focus (individual autonomy vs relational harmony), norm source (individual reason vs cultural tradition) and goal (individual moral purity vs practical Ren).
Neither Confucius nor Kant advocates suppressing humanity - rather, they argue our true humanity is realized through rational moral cultivation. They simply prioritize different expressions of this universal project.
For Kant, true freedom is not the liberty to satisfy desires, but the autonomy to act according to self-given rational moral law, independent of sensual impulses.
Confucius's "Li" can be seen as a social and moral framework that, similar to Kantian autonomy, cultivates rational self-discipline and harmony, guiding individuals towards ethical freedom beyond mere instinct.
Similarity: Both emphasize using reason to govern desires and to establish universal ethical principles.
Difference: Kantian rationality is more abstract, individualistic, and focused on logical consistency and a priori principles. Confucian rationality is more practical, context-sensitive, socially-oriented, and integrated with human sentiments
1. Kant’s freedom: reason guides moral law-abiding, no desire/external control. Confucius’s Li: Ethical norms, not restraint; reason controls instincts for ethical freedom.
2.Kant’s capacity: Use reason to make moral laws, guide actions, take responsibility Confucian influence: Ren + Li guide reason for ethical order; fosters Chinese focus on collective ethics.
Kant defined freedom as rational self-discipline, that is, the moral law of self-legislation in which the will obeys. Confucius's requirements for etiquette can be regarded as shaping moral autonomy through norms and internalizing external etiquette into rational laws. Kant's rationality is the universal legislative ability of human beings, while Confucian rationality emphasizes moral consciousness in ethical situations—both pursue moral autonomy, but Confucianism emphasizes the social normativity of etiquette rather than a priori logical deduction. This rational practice has profoundly shaped the sense of order and moral community in Chinese nature.
1.Similarities: Both reject blind instinct, framing rationality as the core of human dignity.
2.Differences: Western rationality leans toward abstract, universal principles; Confucian rationality is contextual, embedding reason in concrete social roles.
1. Kant holds that freedom is acting according to self-made laws (autonomy) rather than being governed by instincts or external influences.
2. Kant defines "rational capacity" as the unique trait that distinguishes humans from animals and enables them to transcend instincts and act autonomously. From Kant’s perspective, Confucianism guides people to use reason to cultivate moral responsibility through "Li" and "Ren", which is a positive shaping of Chinese humanity.
3. Chinese and Western rationality share the view that reason transcends instincts and links to morality; they differ in that Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy, while Confucian rationality stresses communal ethics.
Freedom is the desire to obey some rules made by ourselves. They both empathize the importance of self-despline. But Kant treat it more serious, and thinks it's not good enough to obey your desire. Confusion thinks it's acceptable to obey desire, just justify the law and moral values.
Freedom is not to do as one pleases, but to be oneself. Similarities: Both prioritize moral reasoning over raw self-interest, viewing rationality as core to human dignity. Differences: Kant’s rationality is abstract, universal, and individual-autonomous; Confucian rationality is concrete, contextual, and relation-centered.
It is autonomy—governing oneself by rational moral law, not by desires.From this view, Confucius's Li is a form of rational self-discipline. Kant defines it as the capacity to create and obey universal moral laws. From this perspective, Confucianism shaped Chinese humanity to value social harmony, moral self-cultivation, and collective responsibility. It fosters a rational personality that finds fulfillment within ethical relationships.Both believe reason should govern instincts and emotions to achieve a higher goal Western.But western more abstract and universal, focusing on individual autonomy as the moral lawgiver.Confucian more contextual and relational, embedded in social roles and duties to achieve harmony.
For Kant, true freedom is not following desires but acting according to self-given moral law through reason. It is autonomy, not doing whatever one wants.
It is the human ability to use reason to determine universal moral laws and to act on them, overcoming mere instinct or desire.
3. Confucian influence on Chinese humanity & comparison to Western rationality:
Confucian Li (propriety) structures social life to cultivate moral character, similar to Kant in using rationality to guide behavior. The key difference is that Confucian rationality is embedded in social roles and relationships, aiming for harmony, while Western (Kantian) rationality focuses on the individual's autonomous, universal reason. Both see rationality as a path to morality, but their contexts and primary focus differ.
Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything if you want, but doing something you want within a law. Confucius' Li is restrict to humanity flexibly, compared with westerns' are not that flexible.
Confucian Li (ritual) is a rational (ethical) framework for social/individual order. It aligns with Kant’s "rational self-legislation": not suppressing humanity, but guiding it to "moral freedom" via reason, shaping Chinese emphasis on ethical order and responsibility.Confucian Li is a rational framework for social or individual order. It aligns with Kant’s "rational self-legislation": not suppressing humanity, but guiding it to "moral freedom" via reason, shaping Chinese emphasis on ethical order and responsibilit.
Similar: Both use reason to regulate behavior and pursue order/value.Different: Western rationality (Kant) focuses on individual moral autonomy; Confucian rationality centers on ethical-ordered practical reason (prioritizing group ethics/responsibility).
Freedom is not that you can do what you what to do.kant holds that freedom is rational autonomous legislation. Confucius li is a rational norm, guiding people to restrain themselves.
Kant holds that "rational capacity" is the ability to transcend experience and establish universal laws for oneself and the world. From this perspective, Confucianism cultivates practical reason through "Li" and "ren," shaping the Chinese traits of valuing responsibility and upholding ethics.
From Kant's lens, Confucianism’s ritual-based rationality, far from "inhumane", shapes Chinese humanity by guiding moral autonomy and social responsibility, echoing Kant’s reason-driven freedom.
Kant and Confucius both affirm the primacy of reason in human life, but they diverge in how reason is applied: Kant focuses on universal moral laws for individual autonomy, while Confucius centers on rational rituals and virtues for social harmony. Neither promotes “inhumanity”—rather, they offer distinct rational frameworks for ethical living.
Kant believed that freedom is opposed to demands , but this does not simply mean negating demands. Instead, he emphasized that freedom is using reason to legislate for demands.
Both Confucius' "ritual" and Kant's "freedom" oppose being dominated by sensual desires (needs), with the core being to set rules for desires through "moral self-awareness" (the internalization of ritual) or "reason".
Confucious's influence: Constructing social order "ethics": Through "ethics", moral norms are concretized as behavioral guidelines for families and society .
Kant’s Definition of Rational Capacity.Kant considers the rational capacity as the ability of humans to think and act according to principles. It is the faculty that allows humans to transcend mere sensuous desires and to act in accordance with moral laws. This rational capacity is what distinguishes humans from other beings and is the basis for moral action.
Kant holds that freedom is the "autonomy of the will"—that is, a rational being acts not under the domination of natural desires or empirical impulses, but entirely in accordance with the "moral law" that it legislates for itself. This kind of freedom is not "doing whatever one pleases", but "obeying the law one makes for oneself".From this perspective, Confucian "Li" is not a suppression of human nature, but a "self-regulation" based on Confucian rationality (the inherent requirements of "Ren" and "Yi").
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.
To obey your first. For Immanuel Kant, true freedom is not the liberty to do whatever one feels or desires (what he would call "lawless freedom" or "arbitrary choice"). Instead, genuine freedom is autonomy—the ability to give a law to oneself based on reason.
For Confucius 礼 i think that it not the opposite of kant's freedom but 礼 is the even same to kants freedom.
Kant defines freedom as acting according to self - given moral law, free from inclinations. Confucius’ Li, as rational propriety, guides people to act virtuously, which aligns with Kant’s idea of rational self - determination. Kant sees rational capacity as the ability to legislate moral laws. Confucian rationality fosters a humane society based on ritual and virtue.
Kant defines freedom as the will acting on its own rational laws (not desires), which aligns with Confucius’s "Li"—not a restraint but a rational framework guiding people to transcend impulses with "ren" (benevolence), as both view freedom as rational control over instincts rather than indulgence. Kant’s rational capacity includes theoretical reason (understanding natural laws like science) and practical reason (setting moral goals and resisting desires, the key human-animal distinction). From Kant’s perspective, Confucian rationality (“Li” and “ren”) focuses on practical reason for social harmony, training moral (not impulsive) actions rooted in family/community relations and emphasizing “human dignity in connections”—rejecting Russell’s “inhuman” claim. While Western (Kantian) and Confucian rationality both oppose instinct-driven behavior and pursue rational self-control, Kant’s centers on individuals and universal principles (e.g., “treat others as ends”) for autonomy, whereas Confucian rationality centers on relationships and specific rituals (e.g., filial piety) for social harmony.
Kant defines freedom (in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 4:50) as autonomy: the capacity to act by self-given moral laws (via reason) rather than being determined by desires or external forces. True freedom is not "doing as one pleases," but choosing to follow universal, rational moral principles.
For Confucius’s li (propriety), li is not a restriction on freedom but a rational framework for virtuous action: it aligns external conduct with ren (benevolence, an internal moral ideal), so following li (when rooted in ren) is a form of "freedom as rational self-governance" (similar to Kant’s autonomy, though Confucius ties it to social roles).
2. Kant’s "rational capacity":
It is the human ability to transcend sensory desires, form universal moral laws, and act on them (autonomy). Reason lets humans distinguish right from wrong independently of instinct or context.
3. Confucian influence on Chinese humanity (from Kant’s rationality):
Confucianism cultivates rational social virtue (via li and ren) but frames rationality as contextual (tied to family/social roles) rather than Kant’s abstract universal reason. It fosters communal responsibility but places less emphasis on individual autonomy separate from social bonds—so it is "rational" but oriented toward relational harmony, not pure individual moral self-legislation.
4. Similarities/differences between Western (Kantian) and Confucian rationality:
- Similar: Both use reason to constrain instinct and pursue moral goodness; both see rationality as central to human dignity.
- Different: Western rationality (Kant) is abstract, individual, and universal (focused on autonomous moral laws); Confucian rationality is contextual, relational, and practical (focused on virtuous action within social roles, tied to ren and li).
I think the pursuit of propriety can be regarded as the solid foundation and the premise of freedom. It's almost everyone's inner desire. We want to live freely, but it depends on that we don't have need to worry the martial things. Upon finishing it, we can follow our heart.
For Kant, true freedom is not the liberty to do whatever one feels like (heteronomy). That would be a slave to one's desires, impulses, and circumstances. Instead, genuine freedom is autonomy
Confucius's freedom through Li is like a master musician finding ultimate artistic expression and freedom not by playing randomly, but by mastering the scales, harmony, and structure of music. The rules don't confine him; they liberate his ability to create beauty.
Kant's freedom through autonomy is like a citizen who is truly free because they live under laws they have given themselves through their own reasoned vote, rather than obeying the arbitrary decrees of a tyrant.
您确定给 “
