Kant defines freedom as acting from rational moral law, not instinct. Confucian "Li" cultivates rational propriety. Chinese humanity emphasizes social harmony via ritual rationality, while Western rationality shares pursuit of reason but differs in focus—Kant on universal moral law, Confucius on social-ordered rationality. Both value rational guidance for human conduct.
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’s freedom: reason guides moral law-abiding, no desire/external control. Confucius’s Li: Ethical norms, not restraint; reason controls instincts for ethical freedom.
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.
Similarities: Reason regulates behavior, builds order; reject instinct rule.
-
-
Kant defines freedom as the will's adherence to rational self-discipline, whereby humans legislate for themselves through reason without being dominated by sensory impulses. Confucius emphasized that "to restrain oneself and return to propriety is benevolence," requiring behavior to be regulated by rites. While this appears to constrain emotions, it aligns with Kant's view—propriety does not suppress freedom but rather regulates instincts through reason to achieve moral autonomy ("I could follow my heart's desire without transgressing norms"). Both philosophers regarded true freedom as rational self-mastery.
-
-
-
-
For Immanuel Kant, freedom is not the absence of restraint or the ability to follow every impulse (what he might call "lawless freedom"). True freedom is autonomy—the capacity for self-legislation.
Heteronomy vs. Autonomy:When we act based on our inclinations, desires, emotions, or external pressures, we are being determined by these forces. This is *heteronomy* (being governed by another). For example, eating out of gluttony or lying out of fear is not free; it is a conditioned response.
The Moral Law:True freedom emerges when our will is determined not by desire, but by the moral law, which our own rational capacity legislates. This moral law is the Categorical Imperative. To be free is to act according to a principle you, as a rational being, would will to be a universal law. In this view, the addict who succumbs to a craving is a slave, while the person who refuses a wrong act, despite desire, is truly free.
-
Difference:Kantian freedom is internal moral autonomy, where the individual's rational will self-prescribes universal law. Chinese Li comprises external social norms and rituals aimed at establishing harmonious communal order through tradition and hierarchy.
Commonality:Both concepts require transcending raw personal desires and instincts. They aspire to a universally applicable standard for human conduct. Ultimately, both envision an ideal state where one acts freely yet in perfect accordance with moral principle—for Kant, rational self-legislation; for Confucians, following one's heart without transgressing the rules.
In essence, one prioritizes the individual's inner reason, while the other emphasizes social harmony, yet both paths seek to elevate human behavior above mere inclination.
-
Bertrand Russell's critique stems from a liberal, individualistic view of freedom as the absence of external constraint. From this perspective, Confucianism's dense network of social duties looks oppressive.
The conflict is not between humanity and inhumanity, but between two different conceptions of what it means to be free and rational.
-
Kantian freedom is rational self-governance through moral law, paralleling Confucian li as disciplined self-cultivation rather than suppressing emotion. Both see rational capacity as transcending instinct: Kant towards universal reason, Confucianism towards social harmony. Western rationality prioritizes individual moral autonomy. Confucian rationality embeds reason in relational ethics.
-
Comprehending Confucian Propriety through Kantian Freedom:
From this perspective,Confucius's requisites on propriety (li) are not an external suppression of human instinct but a framework for achieving a very similar kind of rational and moral autonomy.
Li as a Path to Self-Legislation: The rituals, norms, and social forms of li are not meant to be mindless rules. For Confucius, their ultimate purpose is to cultivate a noble character (ren or benevolence). When one practices li properly, one internalizes these forms until they become second nature.
-
Kant defined freedom not as doing what you want, but as using reason to create your own moral rules and then choosing to follow them. This is very close to the Confucian idea of "li," which also isn't about blind obedience, but about acting from genuine kindness. In short, both see real freedom as living by good, rational rules that you personally believe in.
Kant split human reason into two parts. The first understands how the world works, like in science. The second guides our moral actions, and this is what he believed makes us human. Confucianism focuses on this second part. It teaches us to be good to our family and to connect "doing good" with our relationships. This doesn't make us less human—it helps us become responsible and mature.
Both Kant and Confucianism agree that we shouldn't just follow our desires. They both link rational behavior to dignity and doing the right thing. But they differ in key ways. Kant's approach is universal, applying the same abstract rules to everyone and setting feelings aside. Confucian rationality, however, is flexible and relational. It expects you to treat your parents differently from your friends, and it warmly includes emotions, like combining care with respect.
-
For Immanuel Kant, true freedom is not the ability to do whatever one feels like doing (what he would call "arbitrary will" or the fulfillment of inclinations). This type of "freedom" would simply make us slaves to our desires, moods, and external stimuli. Instead, Kant defines genuine freedom as autonomy—the ability to self-legislate and act according to a law you give yourself, which is the moral law.
The cultivation of a truly human, rational being who achieves freedom not by following every passing whim, but by mastering the self in accordance with a moral and harmonious way of life.
-
In Kant’s Groundwork (4:50), freedom is autonomy—acting by rational moral law, not impulse. True freedom is self-legislation through reason.
Confucius’s Li (ritual propriety) likewise guides self-cultivation. Though seemingly restrictive, Li disciplines emotion and desire so that moral action becomes natural and spontaneous. It leads to inner freedom through self-mastery.
Kant sees rational capacity as humanity’s power to act by principles; Confucius shares this, aiming to refine emotion through reflection and harmony.
Western rationality stresses universal law and autonomy; Confucian rationality emphasizes harmony and relation. Both seek moral freedom through reason. Thus, Bertrand Russell’s claim that Confucianism is “inhuman” misreads it—Li expresses not suppression but the rational, humane order that makes true freedom possible.
-
Theoretical Reason: Cognizes the natural world (e.g., science, logic), addresses "what is," and is governed by the law of causality.
Practical Reason: Determines the will and actions based on moral principles, is autonomous, addresses "what ought to be," and is the core that distinguishes humans from other beings and endows them with dignity.
-
For Kant, true freedom is autonomy: acting according to a moral law you give yourself through reason, not following your desires (heteronomy).
Confucian Li (propriety/ritual) aligns with this. It is not ultimate external restriction, but a path to freedom. By internalizing Li, one transforms social rules into a "second nature," achieving self-mastery and the Confucian ideal of "following one's heart's desires without overstepping the boundaries." Both see freedom as rational self-discipline, not emotional license.
-
Kant defines freedom as acting per moral law, not instinct. Confucian propriety (li) isn’t restraint but a rational framework for free, virtuous acts—aligning with Kant’s "freedom as rational self-legislation."
Kant’s rational capacity is the ability to follow moral law autonomously. Confucianism cultivates this via li, shaping humanity as responsible yet empathetic.
Both value rational order; Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy, Confucian rationality links individual virtue to social harmony.
-
From Kant's perspective that "freedom is autonomy," Confucius' concept of "li" (ritual propriety) is not the humanity-suppressing external constraint as criticized by Russell, but rather a rational self-legislation. It requires people to restrain their primitive emotional impulses with social etiquette and norms; this is not inhumane, but a means to liberate humans from animalistic instincts, shaping a complete individual who understands respect, embodies benevolence, and achieves true moral freedom within a community. Confucianism, like Kant, holds that true freedom lies in obeying the laws established by reason, with the only difference being that the former’s laws are manifested in specific interpersonal relationships.
-
Kant sees freedom as following self-made rational laws, not our desires. Confucius's Li also trains us to overcome selfish impulses through ritual. Both link freedom to rational self-control. But Kant's reason is universal and abstract, applying to everyone equally. Confucian reason is practical and social, learned through roles and relationships to create harmony. So, the West often prioritizes individual moral autonomy, while Confucianism cultivates a socially-embedded freedom for the community's good.
-
1. K:Freedom is not doing whatever you want. It is using your reason to choose what is right, even if your feelings want something else.
2. Confucius's "Li" is similar. It asks you to use your reason to control your actions and follow social rules to be a good person. So, "Li" is not against freedom, but a form of it.
3. It is our ability to know moral law and follow it. This is what makes humans special.
4. Confucian's influence on Chinese humanity is that it taught people to use reason ("Li") to create a harmonious society. This made Chinese culture focus on family, duty, and the group.
5. Western vs. Confucian rationality
Same: Both say humans should use reason to control desires.
Different:Western reason comes from the individual's own mind. Confucian reason comes from outside, like tradition and social relationships.Western reason looks for a universal moral law. Confucian reason looks for harmony in a specific society.
-
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 definesfreedom as the will's capacity to abide byself-legislated rational moral laws,notsensory indulgence, and dividesrationality into theoretical(knowingnature) and practical (guiding morality,human's core). This resonates withConfucius's "Li":"Restraining oneself toreturn to Li" is using reason (rooted in"Ren") to regulate behavior, achievingtrue autonomy.Confucianism's influencelies in practical rationality education,fostering moral responsibility butsometimes linking to patriarchal normsWestern and Confucian rationality bothuse reason for morality, yet the formercenters on individual autonomy, the latteron interpersonal harmony
-
1. Freedom: Kant’s Interpretation & Confucian Li
Kant defines freedom as autonomy of the will—acting on self-given moral laws, not instinct or external coercion. Confucian "li (propriety)" is not rigid ritual but a rational framework rooted in "ren (benevolence)"; practicing "treating others as oneself" through li is rational self-restraint, freeing humans from selfish desires—aligning with Kant’s true freedom.
2. Kant’s "Rational Capacity" & Confucian Influence on Chinese Humanity
Kant sees rationality as humans’ unique ability to transcend instincts and act on universal moral laws. Confucianism cultivates this capacity by integrating li with ren: it refines emotions into rational benevolence (not suppressing humanity), shaping Chinese "balance of reason and emotion"—far from Russell’s "inhumanity" claim.
3. Similarities & Differences Between Western and Confucian Rationality
-
Kant defines freedom as the will acting by self-given rational laws, not external desires—true freedom is autonomy, not "doing whatever you want." Confucius’s li (propriety) matches this: it’s not rigid rules, but rational norms for harmony. Practicing li voluntarily is like Kant’s autonomy—both see freedom as mastering oneself via reason, not ignoring it.
2. Kant’s Rational Capacity & Confucian Influence
Kant’s rational capacity has two parts:
Theoretical: Understanding the world (logic, science).
Practical: Using moral laws to guide will—what makes humans dignified (not instinct-driven).
Confucianism nurtures Chinese humanity’s practical reason: "cultivate oneself" to align actions with li and ren . It’s not inhuman; it helps people fulfill rational/moral potential—seeing "being human" as acting responsibly for family/community.
3. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
Similarities: Both value reason over instinct; both link reason to morality (not just impulse).
Differences: Western rationality focuses on individual autonomy; Confucian rationality centers on social harmony (reason serves family/community, not just individual choice)
-
1. Kant defines freedom as autonomy. Confucian is no rigid constraint but a rational framework.
2. Kant’s "rational capacity" includes theoretical reason. Confucianism cultivates practical reason via li and virtues, shaping Chinese humanity as "rationalized benevolence"—guiding emotion with reason, not suppressing it. .
3.Similarities: link rationality to human dignity.
Differences: Western rationality emphasizes individual autonomy and abstract principles; Confucian rationality is contextual, relational , and integrates reason with emotion .
-
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.
-
Similarities：
Both prioritize reason over unreflective instinct: Western rationality (from Plato to Kant) and Confucian rationality reject brute desire as the basis of behavior, emphasizing rational self-governance.
For Kant (Western) and Confucius, rational capacity is inseparable from moral responsibility—reason guides humans to act ethically, not just instrumentally.
Difference：
Kant： Individual autonomy and universal moral laws (abstract).
Confucius：Relational harmony and concrete social roles (e.g.ruler-subject, parent-child).
For me,I prefer to agree with Confucius's idea about freedom.
-
Kant saw freedom as “autonomy,” which mirrors Confucian “Li.” “Li” isn’t suppression but the natural expression of inner benevolence, just as your love for your daughter guides your most appropriate actions. Confucianism cultivates the “rational capacity” Kant described: extending love for family into social responsibility. It’s not inhumane; it elevates natural affection into universal care. Western rationality starts with the abstract individual, seeking universal laws. Confucian rationality starts with concrete emotions, extending care “from near to far.” Different paths, but both aim for the elevation of humanity.
-
Kant held that freedom is rational autonomy—that is, the will is not governed by desires but only obeys the moral laws formulated by reason. Confucius' "Li" refers to concrete norms of moral reason; it enables people to free themselves from selfish desires through "restraining oneself and conforming to Li," thereby achieving rational control over their actions. Both define freedom based on "rational dominance" rather than the indulgence of instincts.
2. Kant's "Rational Capacity" and Confucian Influence
Kant divided "rational capacity" into two categories: first, "theoretical reason" for understanding nature; second, "practical reason" for formulating moral laws (the core of human nature). Through the virtues of "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and integrity," Confucianism strengthens the cultivation of "practical reason," guiding people to handle relationships with moral reason (e.g., "expressing emotions in accordance with Li"). This has shaped the Chinese orientation of "governing emotions with reason."
3. Similarities and Differences Between Chinese and Western Rationality
• Similarities: Both use reason to restrain instincts, pursue order in behavior, and oppose the indulgence of selfish desires.
• Differences: Western rationality (especially in modern times) balances "theoretical reason (science)" and "practical reason (morality)," with its laws derived from individual reason; Confucian rationality focuses more on "practical reason (ethics)," with its norms rooted in traditional ethical consensus
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：
--
