Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 is well known for his Kantian interpretation of Confucianism, while his understanding of Kant’s ethics is itself colored very much by Confucianism. Mou not only coined the idea “heteronomous morality” ; he also maintained that Kant’s ethics actually espouses heteronomous morality. In this essay, I will first analyze Mou’s idea of heteronomy and his criticism of heteronomous morality and point out that, characterizing Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 philosophy as ethics of heteronomy, Mou gives up a fundamental element in (...) Kant’s idea of heteronomy, according to which heteronomous principles are all principles of self-love. I will then expound Mou’s ideas of moral feelings and moral acts presupposed in his idea of heteronomy and criticism of heteronomous morality and contrast my interpretation with two important interpretations, those of Lee Ming-huei 李明輝 and Sébastien Billioud. (shrink)

It is well known that the Neo-Confucian thinker Zhu Xi particularly emphasizes the role of emotions in human life. This paper shows that the four ‘moral emotions’ are central to Zhu's thinking, insofar as only their genuine actualization enables the individual to achieve spiritual freedom. Moreover, I discuss the crucial notions of ‘awareness’/‘perception’ and ‘knowledge’/‘wisdom’, in order to reveal the complex dynamic that moral emotions are said to create in the moral agent. I also analyse two important passages from the (...) Mencius and examine how Zhu Xi, in his exegetical glosses, defines the conditions of virtuous agency as based on the moral emotions. Finally, I explain the reasons why Neo-Confucians like Zhu Xi have sometimes been described as Kantian thinkers avant la lettre. (shrink)

Are Confucian and Buddhist ethical views closer to Kantian, Consequentialist, or Virtue Ethical ones? And how can such comparisons shed light on the unique aspects of Confucian and Buddhist views? This essay (i) provides a historically grounded framework for distinguishing western views, (ii) identifies a series of questions that we can ask in order to clarify the philosophic accounts of ethical motivation embedded in the Buddhist and Confucian traditions, and (iii) then critiques Lee Ming-huei’s claim that Confucianism is closer to (...) Kantianism than virtue ethics and Charles Goodman’s claim that Buddhism is closer to Consequentialism than virtue ethics. (shrink)

Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 contends that Confucianism is an ethics of autonomy. It is maintained that Mou’s version of ethics of autonomy differs from Kant’s in that Mou comprehends subjectivity differently than Kant in such a way that he, unlike Kant, locates the ethical a priori in moral feelings instead of reason. This paper will explore Mou’s metaphysical grounding of morality to show that Kant’s notions of autonomy and subjectivity undergo more radical modifications in Mou’s contention.

The Confucian revival, which manifests itself in the modern Confucian current, belongs to the most influential and important streams of thought in contemporary Chinese philosophy and represents a crucial part of the new prevailing ideologies in P. R. China. Although many books and articles on this topic are available in Chinese, academic studies in Western languages are still few and far between. The present article aims to introduce this stream of thought which is grounded in the conviction that traditional Confucianism, (...) understood as a specifically Chinese social, political, and moral system of thought can, if renewed and adapted to meet the conditions of the modern era, serve as the foundation for an ethically meaningful modern life. Simultaneously, modern Confucian philosophers also aim to provide a spiritual antidote to the alienation which is seen by them as a collateral effect of the capitalistic glorification of competition and the single-minded pursuit of profit. The scholars belonging to this stream sought to reconcile ‘Western’ and ‘traditional Chinese’ values, in order to create a theoretical model of modernization that would not be confused or equated with ‘Westernization’. (shrink)

Discusses the conditions of possibility for intercultural and comparative philosophy, and for crosscultural communication at large. This innovative book explores the preconditions necessary for intercultural and comparative philosophy. Philosophical practices that involve at least two different traditions with no common heritage and whose languages have very different grammatical structure, such as Indo-Germanic languages and classical Chinese, are a particular focus. Lin Ma and Jaap van Brakel look at the necessary and not-so-necessary conditions of possibility of interpretation, comparison, and other forms (...) of interaction and how we can speak of similarities and differences in this context. The authors posit that it is necessary to dissolve the question of universalism versus relativism by replacing the ideal language paradigm with a paradigm of family resemblances and that it is not necessary to share a common language to engage in comparison. Numerous case studies are presented, including many comparisons of Western and Chinese concepts. (shrink)