Kant defines freedom as acting rationally (permoral duty, not desire). Confucius’ Li (propriety) is also rational: it guides conduct via shared moral norms, so Li is a form of "rational freedom" (not suppression).
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
-
-
For Confucius, “propriety” (li) is not a restrictive external rule, but a rational framework that aligns with this Kantian freedom. Confucian li is rooted in “benevolence” (ren), a rational recognition of human interdependence. When one practices li voluntarily , they act on a self-chosen rational principle—just as Kant’s free will acts on self-given moral laws. In short, Confucian li is not the opposite of freedom, but a concrete way to realize rational freedom in social life.
The core of humanity— the ability to set moral ends for oneself, act on universalizable principles , and transcend mere animal instinct. For Kant, this practical rationality is what distinguishes humans from other beings and defines their “dignity.”
Confucianism centers on ren (benevolence) as the highest moral end, guiding people to act on rational principles like “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
Both tie rationality to morality: For Western thought (Kant), reason is the source of moral law; for Confucianism, reason (li) is the expression of moral goodness (ren), linking rational action to ethical living.
Western rationality (Kant) sees moral laws as “self-given” by individual reason. Confucian rationality sees li as rooted in both individual moral consciousness (ren) and shared social traditions , blending personal and collective rationality.
-
Similarities: Both believe that freedom is not doing as one pleases, but actively abiding by rules
Differences ：1.Confucius relies on a kind heart and social norms, while Kant relies on pure reason, emphasising on the automaticity. 2. Confucius aims for individuals to integrate into society and become virtuous persons, while Kant aims to highlight the rational dignity of human beings.
-
To understand the relationship between Confucius's "Li" and Kant's concepts of freedom and rationality, we can see that Kant defines freedom as the autonomy of will, where one acts on self - legislated moral laws via rational capacity—the ability to transcend sensory experience and establish universal principles. Confucius's "Li" is not inhuman; it is an ethical framework rooted in rationality, guiding moral self - consciousness with "Ren". Comparing Western and Confucian rationality, both stress rational self - discipline for moral autonomy, yet Western rationality (Kant) relies on pure reason, while Confucian rationality integrates ethics and social order. Confucianism has shaped Chinese humanity by fostering ethical awareness and social harmony through "Li" and "Ren".
-
Bertrand Russell's critique stems from a liberal, individualistic view of freedom as the absence of external constraint. From this vantage point, Confucian Li looks like social oppression.
However, using Kant's more sophisticated definition of freedom as autonomy, we can mount a powerful defense of Confucius. Both Kant and Confucius argue that surrendering to every emotional instinct is not freedom but a form of slavery. True humanity, for both, is found in the cultivation of our rational and moral capacities.
Therefore, to conclude that Confucius is "inhuman" is to profoundly misunderstand his project. His goal was not to crush the human spirit, but to humanize it—to refine raw instinct into cultured emotion, to transform a selfish individual into a virtuous person embedded in a harmonious community. He sought to create a world where the highest human freedom is found in the spontaneous and joyful performance of one's moral and social duties. This is not inhumanity; it is a different, and deeply communitarian, vision of human excellence.
-
Kant defines freedom (in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:50) as the will’s capacity to act in accordance with self-given moral laws (the Categorical Imperative), rather than being determined by external desires or instincts—it is “autonomy of the will,” not lawless “license.”Confucian “propriety” (li) aligns with this autonomy: it is not rigid external constraint, but a set of norms rooted in “benevolence” (ren, the core of Confucian morality) that individuals internalize. When one follows li, they do not act out of fear of social pressure, but out of a rational recognition of “what is right” (e.g., respecting elders not out of obligation, but out of sincere care for others). This is analogous to Kant’s freedom: both require rational self-governance—Confucius via li as the “external expression of internal benevolence,” Kant via the Categorical Imperative as the “rational moral law.”Kant defines human rational capacity as the ability to transcend sensory desires, form universal moral principles, and guide actions with these principles—it distinguishes humans from animals (who act on instinct) and is the foundation of human dignity.
-
Both Western and Confucian rationality value reason as a guide for self-cultivation. The key difference lies in focus: Western rationality is often abstract and individualistic, centered on the autonomous self. In contrast, Confucian rationality is fundamentally relational, finding its highest expression through one’s duties and roles within the family and community.
-
Kant's concept of freedom: like an ideal legislator. The laws (moral laws) he formulates are completely just and universal, and he himself strictly adheres to them. His freedom lies in "the rules I set for myself, I willingly abide by". Kant's freedom is an inward exploration, establishing human dignity and subjectivity through rational self-criticism; Confucius' "Li" is to learn from the outside and then integrate it inwardly, achieving the perfect unity of the individual and society through self-cultivation in ethical practice. The paths are different, but both point to the eternal pursuit of humanity to transcend animality and achieve higher life value.
-
Li encompasses the entire body of social norms,etiquette, manners, and traditions that govern relationships and conduct within a society.
Kant,freedom is not heliberty to follow one's desires rinclinations.In fact,that is heteronomy (being ruled by an "other," like your impulses). True freedom is autonomy: giving the law to yourself.
-
Kant's freedom is a self-autonomous freedom: it is the rational self that governs yourself or your mind by universal law instead of the sluggishness of yourself; Confucian li is not external but self-cultivated that lets one’s inborn ren act autonomously. Li is not mere empty ritual. Its primary purpose is the cultivation of moral character and a harmonious society. It calls for something value of your inner heart.
-
For Kant, a person who helps others out of reason ("it’s morally right") is free; one who helps only out of guilt or desire is not. For Confucius, practicing li (e.g., proper etiquette in interaction) is free when it comes from inner ren—one chooses to act respectfully because they recognize it as the rational, humane way, not just following tradition blindly.
-
Confucius's "Li" (Propriety): It is an ethical norm based on "Ren" (benevolence). By internalizing morality and regulating interpersonal relationships defined by social roles, it aims to achieve harmony between society and individuals, emphasizing the attainment of moral self-awareness through the practice of human relationships.
Kant's "Freedom": It refers to the autonomy of the will, that is, freeing oneself from sensory desires and acting in accordance with the moral laws formulated by one's own reason, with the "Categorical Imperative" as its rational criterion.
Differences:
Origin: "Li" is rooted in human relationships and the order of the universe, while Kant's freedom is based on a priori reason.
Path: "Li" realizes morality through fulfilling social roles in human relationships, whereas Kant's freedom centers on the individual's reason for formulating moral laws.
-
I think Kant's freedom to some extent have something in common with the Li of Confucius, for they both emphasize self-cultivation, thereby reaching a "following heart without breaking any rule". Therefore, Confucius's idea is true humanity.
When it comes to rationality, I maintain that Confucius add feeling and relationship into the rationality, which is different from the truth-seeking western counterpart.
-
For Kant, freedom is acting not from sensory inclinations but from the categorical imperative—reason self-legislating moral laws, making humans both law-givers and followers. Confucian "propriety (li)" differs: it’s not self-legislated reason but ritualized social norms guiding conduct to uphold harmony. Kant’s freedom is inward, rooted in individual rational autonomy; Confucius’s li is outward, tying behavior to communal order. Yet both reject blind instinct: Kant uses reason to transcend desires, Confucius uses li to refine emotions into virtuous action, though their sources of "law" (self vs. tradition) diverge.
-
1. Freedom and Li
Kant’s freedom is "self-restraint by reason"; Confucius’ Li (propriety) is not oppression, but rational norms guiding behavior to achieve "freedom within order".
2. Rational Capacity and Confucian Influence
Kant’s "rational capacity" means "judging and acting with reason"; Confucianism shapes Chinese people to value moral responsibility and social order via rational ethics, promoting harmony.
3. Western vs. Confucian Rationality
Similarity: Both use reason to restrain instinct, opposing irrational indulgence.
Difference: Western rationality focuses on nature/logic; Confucian rationality centers on human relations and moral order.
Personal View
Kant and Confucius share a core: Reason is the basis of civilization. Only with reason to guide behavior and build order can true freedom and social well-being be achieved, East or West
-
Using Kant's framework, we can see that both he and Confucius, despite vast cultural differences, were engaged in the same fundamental project: defining how human beings, through the use of their rational and moral capacity, can transcend their raw, instinctual nature to achieve a higher state of freedom and humanity.
For Kant, this state is Autonomy: obeying the law you give yourself.
For Confucius, this state is Ren (Humaneness): acting spontaneously in perfect harmony with Li.Therefore, to conclude that Confucius is "in line with inhumanity" is a profound misinterpretation. It is to mistake the path to cultivated humanity for its suppression. The structure of Li is not an end in itself, but the means to cultivate a free and truly humane spirit, much like Kant's moral law is not a restriction, but the very condition for genuine freedom.
-
Kant’s definition of freedom (central to his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals) is not “unrestricted indulgence of desires” (a common misunderstanding of “freedom”). Instead, it is “the will’s property of being a law unto itself” — a “positive freedom” where the will acts in accordance with universal moral principles it sets for itself, rather than being driven by instinctive desires or external coercion.
Kant defines human “rational capacity” as the unique ability to transcend sensory experience and biological instincts, and grasp universal, necessary principles through reason. It has two core dimensions:
- Theoretical reason: Focuses on understanding the laws of the natural world (e.g., through science and logic), answering “what is.”
- Practical reason: Guides moral behavior, answering “what ought to be.” It is the foundation of human dignity, as only humans can act based on self-formulated moral laws, rather than mere instinct (like animals).
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.
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. Kant holds that freedom is the will’s capacity to act in accordance with self-formulated rational laws, free from the control of external desires. Confucius’s "Li" (propriety) is not a rigid constraint, but a rational framework internalized through "Ren" (benevolence), guiding people to act based on shared humanity (e.g., respect). Both regard "reason-guided action" as true freedom.
2. Kant views rational capacity as the unique ability to transcend sensory desires, construct universal moral laws, and achieve autonomy of the will. It is the distinction between humans and animals, and the foundation of human dignity.
3. Confucianism cultivates reason into "social rationality," guiding people to fulfill social roles through "Ren" (benevolence) and "Li" (propriety). Thus, the Chinese concept of humanity emphasizes demonstrating dignity in communal harmony. It aligns with Kant’s core idea that "reason serves morality," but leans more toward communal well-being.
4. Both Chinese and Western rationality deny that "instinct equals reason," rely on universal moral norms, and see reason as the source of dignity. The difference lies in that Western rationality centers on individual will with laws derived from pure reason, while Confucian rationality centers on communal relations with "Li" rooted in human nature and tradition.
-
-
Kant's freedom is rational autonomy, using reason to make and follow moral rules. Confucius's "Li" is a rationally self-observed norm, like greeting elders willingly. It's autonomous freedom, same as Kant's rational self-direction.
Kant's "rational capacity" is using reason to understand nature and make moral rules. Confucianism makes Chinese value moral responsibility via "Ren""Li", similar to Kant's rational autonomy.
They both use reason for moral behavior. Western rationality focuses on universal principles, Confucian rationality on real-life relationships.
-
-
-
-
1. Freedom is autonomy: obeying the moral law your own reason prescribes.
2. "Li" is a practical path to achieve moral autonomy and true freedom by using reason to restrain instinct.
3. It is the ability to act according to universal moral laws you set for yourself.
4. It shaped a Chinese humanity centered on moral reason and social duty.
5. Similar: Both use reason to restrain desires for morality. Different: Western seeks universal laws; Confucian seeks relational harmony. -
Kant ´s freedom is not the "freedom to follow desires" (heteronomy), but the "freedom to act according to self-given rational moral laws" (autonomy). This aligns with Confucius’s "requisites on propriety" (li). Confucian li is not rigid external constraint, but a rational norm rooted in human "benevolence" (ren).
Both take "reason" as the core of human behavior and moral construction.
-
Freedom in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (4:50) is autonomy: obeying a law one gives oneself through pure practical reason, not pathological impulse. Confucius’s li 礼 is the self-disciplined, self-cultivating performance of ren 仁; when internalized, the rites are no heteronomous cage but the form one freely wills for humane relations. Kantian “rational capacity” is the power to universalize maxims; likewise, Confucian li demand constant “shū” 恕 reversal of perspectives. Both traditions make reason the self-legislator of freedom. Difference: Kant seeks universal law abstracted from context; Confucius seeks relational harmony within particular roles. Chinese humanity has thus been less individual-rights, more role-ethics, yet equally rational.
-
-
Kant defines freedom as rational self-governance through moral law rather than impulse. Similarly, Confucius’s “Li” embodies rational conduct rooted in benevolence, guiding individuals to act ethically rather than selfishly. For both, true freedom lies in choosing moral principles over mere desires.
-
In Kant's view, freedom is not the indulgence of impulses but autonomy through rational self-governance according to universal moral laws. Similarly, Confucius’s "Li" (propriety) is not mere ritual constraint but a framework for cultivating moral character and social harmony through disciplined practice. Both philosophies emphasize that true freedom and humanity are realized when individuals transcend selfish desires to align with higher rational or ethical principles. Confucian rationality, like Kant’s, elevates human dignity by guiding innate emotions toward moral refinement, rather than suppressing them. Thus, Confucianism and Western rationality converge in advocating freedom as rational self-mastery for collective and personal good.
-
Kant defines freedom as autonomy, which aligns with “Li”—not repression, but rational self-discipline in conduct. Kant’s “rational capacity” is humans’ ability to independently judge and set behavioral norms. Far from being inhumane, “Li” shapes ethical order via moral rationality, merging discipline with humanism.
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：
--
