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?
Both Kant and Confucius see rationality as humanity's defining trait, but differently:
Kant's rationality is inward, abstract, and focuses on individual moral law-making. Confucian rationality is outward, practical, and embedded in social relationships and rituals (Li). Thus, Confucianism shaped Chinese humanity by emphasizing a freedom found in social responsibility, not in conflict with it.
First, via Kant’s (4:50) definition of freedom—acting by self-given rational laws—it aligns with Confucian "li" (propriety), which isn’t rigid but rational norms from "ren" (benevolence); both link freedom to moral self-governance.
Kant views rational capacity as humans’ ability to transcend instinct and act on universal moral ends. Confucianism thus shaped Chinese humanity by guiding people to use reason for "ren" (e.g., filial piety).
Western and Confucian rationality both prioritize reason over instinct for morality, but the former emphasizes individual autonomy, while the latter focuses on communal harmony. It also refutes the claim that Confucius is inhumane.
1. What indeed is freedom?
Kant’s freedom: act by rational self - laws. Confucius’ “li” are rational social rules; following them is moral duty, not limiting freedom.
2. How does Kant define human’s “rational capacity”?
Ability to use reason for universal moral laws, think independently, and act beyond instincts.
1. Kant defines freedom as "autonomy of the will" – acting by rational moral laws, not just desires. Confucius’ "Li" (propriety) also guides behavior with rational ethics (like benevolence), not suppressing freedom but realizing true freedom through self-discipline.
2. Kant sees rationality as having theoretical (for understanding nature) and practical (for moral actions) parts. Confucian rationality focuses more on moral practice (shaping Chinese values like social responsibility), while Western rationality balances both theory and practice.
Kant defines freedom as rational autonomy, a notion echoed by Confucius’s li—guiding moral practice through rational norms. Kant’s rationality includes theoretical (for understanding nature) and practical reason (for moral imperatives), and Confucianism thus fosters Chinese moral rationality. While Western (Kantian) rationality centers on universal a priori laws, Confucian rationality emphasizes relational moral practice, sharing a focus on reason for autonomy but differing in priorities and origins.
Confucius' Li & Kant's Freedom: A Concise Comparison
1. Freedom According to Kant & Confucius
Kant defines freedom as autonomy—the ability to govern oneself through rational moral laws, rejecting external control (e.g., desires or societal pressure). Confucian li (ritual propriety) is often misread as rigid conformity, but it aims to cultivate virtue through structured practice. When li becomes internalized, it transforms into spontaneous moral action, aligning with Kant’s idea of autonomy as "second nature." Both systems reject blind impulsivity, advocating self-directed ethics.
2. Kant’s “Rational Capacity”
For Kant, rationality is humanity’s defining trait: the power to transcend instincts/desires and make principled choices. It involves:
- Theoretical reason: Understanding objective truth.
- Practical reason: Acting on universal moral laws (e.g., “Do not lie”).Rationality is not just intellectual but practical—guiding ethical behavior through deliberate thought.
3. Confucianism’s Impact on Chinese Humanity
Confucianism shaped Chinese ethics via li, emphasizing harmony, hierarchy, and ritualized respect. Unlike Kant’s abstract universalism, Confucian rationality is grounded in social relationships (e.g., filial piety) and cultural traditions. Critics like Russell argue it stifles freedom, but Confucius saw li as refining emotions (e.g., ren—benevolence) through discipline, not suppressing them. This parallels Kant’s view: reason and emotion coexist, with reason guiding desires toward moral ends.
4. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
- Overlap: Both value reason over pure instinct; humans are seen as capable of moral choice.
- Differences:
- Scope: Western rationality (Kant) focuses on abstract universal laws; Confucianism prioritizes practical, context-sensitive ethics within social roles.
- Method: Kant emphasizes individual self-legislation; Confucianism blends communal harmony with tradition.
- Emotion: Western thought often separates reason and emotion; Confucianism integrates them—morality is both rational and empathetic (e.g., compassion as ren).
Conclusion: Confucian li and Kantian freedom are not opposed but complementary paths to moral autonomy.
Kant's View on Freedom
Kant defines freedom as autonomy of the will—acting not from inclination but in accordance with the categorical imperative (moral law one gives to oneself), transcending natural determinism.
Difference Between Confucius's "Li" and Kant's Freedom
Li: A system of ritual norms rooted in social order and virtue, guiding conduct to harmonize individuals with society (heteronomous in practice, as norms are culturally transmitted).
Kant's Freedom: Emphasizes individual rational autonomy, where moral action stems from self-imposed law rather than external norms (independent of societal or cultural constraints).
Kant defines freedom as autonomy，acting by self-given rational law. Confucian "li" (propriety) aligns with this，it cultivates rational self-mastery over instincts, not suppresses humanity. Both emphasize rational control, but Kant focuses on individual reason, while Confucius embeds rationality in social roles. Thus, Confucius isn't inhuman; Russell misunderstood li as repression rather than moral development.
The influence of Confucianism on the humanistic spirit of China lies in fostering a rational self-awareness that realizes the self within the community. Both Confucianism and Western rationalism attach importance to human rational ability, but Confucianism emphasizes practical wisdom in human relations, while Kant focuses more on the universal legislation of individual morality.
For Kant, freedom is obeying self-given moral law through reason, not following desires. Confucius’s Li (propriety) also uses rationality to guide emotions, creating moral autonomy. Both value rational self-control, but Western rationality focuses on universal logic, while Confucian rationality emphasizes social harmony and ethical cultivation.
Kant defines freedom as autonomy, acting according to self - imposed moral laws derived from reason. It's about self - governance beyond external constraints.
Confucius's "Li" is a set of social norms and rituals that structure behavior. While it may seem to restrict at first glance, when individuals follow "Li" out of an internal understanding of its moral value and a sense of respect for others, it aligns with Kant's freedom. For instance, showing courtesy in "Li" reflects an autonomous choice based on rational recognition of social harmony. So, "Li" can be a practical expression of Kantian - style freedom in a social and cultural context.
Kant frames freedom as the will’s autonomy (reason legislating moral laws for itself, not arbitrary desire) and rational capacity as humans’ ability to use pure reason to set such self-governing principles. Confucius’s Li (propriety) aligns with this as a rational moral order, not freedom’s suppression. Western rationality (Kant) relies on universal pure reason; Confucian rationality is ethical reason rooted in human relations—both prioritize rational conduct, differing in foundational frameworks.
Kant defined freedom as the autonomy of rational beings, i.e., obeying moral law rather than sensory impulses. Confucius's "propriety" does not suppress emotion but shapes moral self-discipline through norms. It aligns with Kantian freedom in "rational self-legislation": propriety is an external rational framework that, when internalized, achieves moral freedom—"acting at will without overstepping boundaries."
Kant defines freedom as autonomy—acting on self-given rational moral laws rather than instinct or external pressure—and sees rational capacity as humans’ unique ability to grasp and act on universal moral principles (practical reason). Confucian “propriety” (Li) aligns with this: it is not rigid constraint but a rational framework rooted in “benevolence” (ren), guiding individuals to cultivate practical reason, regulate emotions, and act in harmoniously relational ways. Both reject “freedom as license” and affirm that humanity is realized through rational self-mastery, disproving the claim that Confucianism is “inhumane.”
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)
Kant defines freedom as autonomy (acting on self-given rational moral laws) rather than unrestrained desire; Confucius’s Li (ritual) aligns with this as a rational ethical framework (rooted in Ren, benevolence) that realizes, not restricts, autonomous freedom. Kant frames human rational capacity as twofold: theoretical reason (understanding the world) and practical reason (recognizing self-legislated moral laws, the core of human dignity). From this lens, Confucius’s influence on Chinese humanity lies in Li and Ren shaping a rational ethical order oriented toward virtue and harmony (rejecting the "inhumanity" claim). While both Kantian (Western) and Confucian rationality tie ethics to reason, they differ: Kant centers individual moral autonomy, while Confucius focuses on rational ethical action for social harmony.
For Kant, freedom is not the ability to do what one wants, but the capacity to do what one ought. It is not freedom from law, but freedom through law.It is the submission of the will to its own rational law. It is the ability of reason to be a practical faculty, determining the will independently of sensuous inclinations.
Kant defines freedom as rational autonomy (self-legislation through reason, not being controlled by instincts). His "rational capacity" refers to humans' ability to use pure reason to recognize moral laws and act morally. Western rationality (like Kant's) is abstract and pure, centered on universal moral principles.
1. Kant’s Freedom & Confucian Propriety
Kant defines freedom (4:50) as acting from reason’s categorical imperative (self-given moral law), not inclination. Confucian li (propriety), when internalized, mirrors this: following li not for social pressure but rational recognition of its link to ren (benevolence). Both equate true freedom to rational self-mastery.
2. Kant’s "Rational Capacity"
The unique ability to:
Form universal moral laws.
Act autonomously (reason over desire/coercion).
Value others’ rationality as an end in itself.
3. Confucian Influence (Kantian Lens)
It ties Chinese rationality to role-based duties (filial piety, loyalty) rather than abstract laws. Chinese humanity is shaped to pursue ren via concrete relationships, making ethics contextual and community-focused.
4. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
Similarities
Both see rationality as virtue’s core and tie it to self-discipline.
Differences
Western: Abstract, universal laws from individual reason; goal = respect autonomy.
Confucian: Contextual duties from tradition; goal = ren in community.
First, we definitely can’t call Confucius inhumane (as Russell hinted). Kant says freedom is acting by reason and morality, not urges—Confucius’ “Li” isn’t limiting, but using reason to live out “Ren” (kindness). Kant’s rationality is knowing moral rules and acting on them, which Confucianism actually fosters. Western rationality (like Kant’s) focuses on individuals seeking universal rules, while Confucianism links it to relationships, but both reject being controlled by instincts.
Both Confucius' "li" and Kant's "freedom" aim to regulate human behavior for moral order—"li" through conforming to societal norms that nurture virtue, and Kant's freedom through acting autonomously by reason, which also upholds universal mora little.
Confucius' "li" is rooted in social hierarchy and communal harmony, requiring individuals to follow pre-established rituals; Kant's "freedom" is based on individual rational autonomy, emphasizing moral actions driven by one’s own reason rather than external rules.
Freedom is not arbitrary, but self-discipline and choice under the guidance of rationality. Kant believes that freedom is the ability of human beings to act according to moral laws under the guidance of rationality, rather than pure emotional impulse or external coercion.
Confucius's demand for etiquette is based on respect for rationality and morality. Etiquette not only standardizes the social order, but also shapes people's character, enabling people to maintain moral self-discipline in complex social relations and realize real freedom.
Kant defined human's "rational ability" as the ability of self-legislation and self-restraint, that is, people can guide their behavior according to universal moral rules. From this perspective, Confucianism, especially Confucius' ethics, emphasizes cultivating people's moral rationality through learning and practicing ritual system, so that individuals can transcend the bondage of instinct and desire and achieve self-improvement and social harmony.
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.
Confucius' concept of "Li" (礼) is fundamentally a set of ritual norms and hierarchical ethics that guide social behavior, emphasizing harmony through adherence to one’s role (e.g., ruler-subject, parent-child) and collective order.
Kant’s idea of freedom, by contrast, centers on rational autonomy: true freedom lies in acting according to moral laws one gives oneself
Kant defines freedom as autonomy through self-given moral law, not mere desire. Confucius's Li aligns with this: it structures behavior via ritual to cultivate rational self-mastery, harmonizing emotions and society, thus enabling true freedom rather than oppression. This refutes Russell's inhumanity charge, as both traditions elevate humanity through reason. While Kant's rationality is universal and abstract, Confucian rationality is relational and role-based, yet both advocate governing impulses for moral living.
For Kant, true freedom is not the liberty to do whatever one feels like doing (what he would call "pathological" or heteronomous freedom). Instead, genuine freedom is autonomy (auto-nomos: self-law). It is the capacity to act according to a law that you give yourself through your own reason.
In essence, for Kant, freedom is rational self-determination. It is the triumph of the rational will over the impulses of the sensuous, emotional self.
Kant places human rational capacity at the very center of his philosophy. It has two primary functions
您确定给 “0” 位老师发送协议吗？
