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?
Kant defines freedom (in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:50) as the will’s capacity to act according to self-given rational laws (the categorical imperative), 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 Confucius’s "Li" (propriety) more than it conflicts. Confucian "Li" is not rigid constraint on freedom, but a set of rational norms rooted in human nature (e.g., respect, benevolence) that guide behavior. Just as Kant’s freedom requires acting on rational laws to avoid being enslaved by impulses, Confucius’s "Li" helps individuals transcend selfish instincts (e.g., egoism, impulsiveness) and realize "benevolence" (Ren)—both frame freedom as rational self-mastery, not lawlessness.
Confucius and Kant saw true freedom as following rational self-discipline, not our raw instincts. For Confucius, this was "Li" for social harmony; for Kant, it was an internal moral law for individual duty.
Kant's freedom: The core is "self-discipline is freedom", which refers to the moral law that allows people to break free from the constraints of sensory desires and actively follow reason to legislate for themselves. It is a spiritual and moral "positive freedom" that conforms to the law. Confucius' freedom: more emphasis is placed on "following one's heart and not exceeding the norm", which is achieved through long-term cultivation to internalize "ritual" and "benevolence", and to achieve harmonious unity between behavior and inner self in moral norms. It is a practical freedom that integrates into the social ethical order. Simply put, Kant's freedom is' reason sets its own rules', while Confucius' freedom is' cultivating oneself to conform to the rules of nature '.
My understanding of freedom is that it is not the absence of structure, but the conscious alignment of one's will with a rational and ethical framework. It is the capacity to act not merely from fleeting desire or instinct, but from a self-chosen principle that respects both our own humanity and that of others. In this sense, true freedom is a form of self-mastery—whether guided by Kant's internal moral law or Confucius's cultivated sense of propriety (Li)—that elevates our actions from being simply reactive to being genuinely our own, thereby allowing us to participate meaningfully in a harmonious society.
Confucius's Li emphasizes external social norms and rituals to achieve harmony, while Kant's freedom is an inner rational autonomy to act according to self-given moral law.
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.
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 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 sees freedom as obeying self-made moral laws, not following desires. Confucius' "Li" also guides us to control ourselves through ethical rules. Both use reason to achieve true freedom, not suppress humanity. This shows Confucian thought aligns with humane rationality.
Kant defines freedom as acting by rational moral laws. Confucius's Li, based on rationality, helps people behave properly, and it has similarities and differences with Western rationality in cultural contexts.
To illustrate Kant’s concept of freedom through "acting autonomously," the core lies in acting out of self-imposed moral law rather than external coercion or mere desires.When you act autonomously in Kant’s sense, you don’t do something just because it’s convenient, profitable, or pressured by others . Instead, you act because you recognize a universal moral duty — a law you voluntarily impose on your own will. For example, you keep a promise not because breaking it would cause trouble, but because you believe "keeping promises" is a principle that should apply to everyone, and you choose to follow it out of respect for this self-legislated moral rule.This autonomy is true freedom: your will is not enslaved by fleeting desires or external forces, but governed by a rational, universal standard you endorse yourself.
1. For Kant, freedom is acting in accordance with the moral law out of rational will, not driven by inclinations. Confucius's Li, when followed with rational self-discipline, can be seen as a way to achieve moral freedom by harmonizing social and personal conduct.
2. Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to think autonomously and act morally. Confucianism, emphasizing Li and Ren, fosters a humanity rooted in ethical rationality and social harmony. Western rationality (like Kant's) focuses on universal moral laws and individual autonomy, while Confucian rationality emphasizes contextual, role-based ethics and the cultivation of virtue within social relationships.
According to Kant, freedom is not simply the ability to do whatever one desires, but rather the capacity to act according to self-given rational laws – to autonomously follow moral duty, independent of our desires or inclinations. It is a product of our rational will.
Freedom is acting by rational moral law, not instinct. Confucius’ Li (ritual/propriety) is rational social order, so following Li can be seen as rational freedom.
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).
Both rely on rationality, but Western rationality (Kantian) focuses on individual moral autonomy, while Confucian rationality emphasizes ethical practice within communal relationships.
Confucius's "Li" is an ethical norm-based social order and moral constraint to achieve human relations harmony, while Kant's freedom is the will's autonomy under rational domination, realizing practical rational freedom through moral laws. They explore the realm of human behavior's constraint and freedom from the dimensions of ethical norms and rational autonomy respectively.
1. Freedom (Kant + Confucian Propriety)：Kant defines freedom as acting not on instinct but rational self-legislation (4:50)；Confucian "propriety (li)" is not bondage but rational norms rooted in human nature, enabling individuals to transcend raw emotions and achieve "free action in order"—aligning with Kant’s idea of freedom as rational autonomy.
2. Kant’s Rational Capacity & Confucian Influence：Kant sees rationality as the ability to grasp universal moral laws and act accordingly；Confucianism cultivates rationality through "li" and "ren (benevolence)", shaping Chinese humanity to prioritize relational harmony and moral self-discipline—far from "inhumanity", it’s a rational way to realize human dignity.
3. Similarities & Differences in Rationality：Both value reason over blind instinct and pursue moral goodness；Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy and universal principles, while Confucian rationality is relational, integrating personal ethics with social order (e.g., "filial piety" as rational expression of benevolence in family).
According to Kant, freedom is the ability to obey self-given moral laws through reason, not the enslavement to desires. From this perspective, Confucius's "Li" is not about suppressing humanity, but about using social norms to shape rational autonomy, sharing a similar goal with Kant in cultivating moral agency.
Kant defines freedom as rational self-governance according to universal moral law, not instinctual license. Confucian propriety similarly cultivates moral autonomy through structured social practice. Both see rationality as humanity’s capacity for self-legislation beyond mere desire. Confucianism thus shapes Chinese humanity by embedding moral reason in social roles, differing from Western abstract individualism but sharing the core ideal of freedom as ethical self-mastery, not opposing it.
From the perspective of Kantian philosophy, Confucius's "Li" (ritual/propriety) does not contradict genuine freedom. Kant defined freedom as "autonomy"—acting in accordance with one's inner reason rather than sensual impulses. Confucius's "Li" is precisely a form of this practical rationality. It does not suppress human nature but serves to temper moral self-discipline through the regulation of behavior, enabling individuals to express emotions rationally and ultimately achieve the moral freedom of acting at will without overstepping the bounds. Thus, both Confucian rationality and Kantian philosophy esteem reason as the core of humanity, pursuing a sublime freedom that transcends instinct through self-legislation. Their primary distinction lies in the fact that Confucian rationality is rooted in specific social and interpersonal relationships, whereas Kantian reason focuses more on abstract, individual moral lawgiving.
Kant's concept of freedom is a rational，self-governed and a morally responsible form of liberty. For Kant, it was an internal moral law for individual duty.For Confucius, this was "Li" for social harmony.
Conclusion on Freedom: Both Kant and Confucius see true freedom as rational self-mastery, not the indulgence of instinct. For Kant, the law comes from within (pure practical reason); for Confucius, it is learned from without (the cultural tradition of Li) and then internalized. The end goal—an autonomous moral agent—is strikingly similar.
Both take "rationality" as the core and pursue order and self-restraint. But at the same time, it is different: Western rationality focuses more on individual rationality, while Confucian rationality emphasizes the unity of reason and morality in specific social relations.
Genuine freedom is autonomy: the capacity to give the law to oneself. This self-given law is not based on desires, emotions, or instincts, but on rational duty.
Both emphasize the guiding role of reason in human beings, believing that reason is an important characteristic that distinguishes humans from animals and can be used to regulate behavior, pursue truth, or achieve moral perfection.
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.
Kantian freedom is autonomy—self-legislation by pure reason, not whim. Ritual in Confucius works the same: outward forms train inner autonomy, so desire is re-civilized rather than crushed. Kant’s “rational capacity” is the power to will a universal law; Confucian ren extends that universality through graded empathy. Both traditions trust reason to humanize impulse, yet Kant seeks timeless maxims while Confucius anchors reason in historic roles and family feeling. Chinese humanity, therefore, is not inhuman repression but relational freedom: one becomes “freely filial,” able to give love its proper form.
您确定给 “
