requestId:68518618125d69.16216328.
The cosmic theory of rules and the unity of virtue in Xunzi’s speech
Author: Mao Chaoxie (Dynasty of Philosophy in Zhongshan (Zhongshan))
Source: Author authorized by Confucian Network, original published by “Ethics Research” No. 6, 2021
Abstract: Can morals of virtues form an independent legal theory of ethics? This is a major dispute that existed in the field of Eastern Virtue Ethics for a long time. Confucians generally believe that rules and virtue ethics have their own fields, but rules and virtue are unified. The three Confucian scholars, Chen Lai, Liu Yuli and Song Jian, gave two intrinsic theories and one intrinsic theory certificate based on Confucius’s praise. Through the commentary on Xunzi’s gift, this article proves that in Xunzi’s gift, rules and virtues are the unity of natural humanity and social structure, “heaven” and “man”, “nature” and “swer”, theory and reality. This unity was laid by Xunzi’s cosmic theory. The “uniformity” mentioned here refers to the two requirements of the rules and virtues that combine to form Xunzi’s concept of “goodness”, and are constructed by each other and cannot be restored to each other. This remark of Xunzi’s praise provides a cosmic theory for the unity of rules and virtues in Confucian ethics. In this process, the independence of the moral theory in the realm is also proved.
Can Virtue ethics (or translated as “virtue ethics”) be a kind of independent normative ethics theory? This is a major dispute that existed in the long term in the field of Eastern Virtue Ethics [1](P7-13). As far as Confucian ethics is concerned, moral rules are concentrated in Confucianism’s praise. In the past ten years, Confucian scholars have participated in the independent discussion of virtue ethics in the Chinese community. Chen Lai and Liu Yuli pointed out that Confucian ethics has two aspects: virtue and rules, and it also recognizes the unity of virtue and rules (1). Song Jian believed that Confucian ethics can be used as a bridge for the communication between virtue and rules [2]. Except for Liu Yuli who traced Zhou Rong, the three scholars’ arguments about the relationship between benevolence and kindness and Confucian virtues and ethics are generally based on Confucius. But it should be ignored that after Confucius, Xunzi wrote “Travels”, establishing a more complete Confucian teaching system of tribute[3]. This article uses Xunzi’s praise as the middle, analyzes how virtue and rules achieve unity, and uses Xunzi’s perspective to criticize the two theoretical shortcomings of ethics, providing a kind of ability to prove the independence of ethics.
I. Are rules and virtues independent?Cultivation software?
In the field of Eastern virtue ethics, there are three important opinions on the independence of virtue ethics:
The first perspective believes that virtue ethics is not independent. The representative figures of this view include Francisco. Every topic of the heroine has achieved good results, and the lowest-achieving Ye Thukna, John Rawls, Gilbert Harman, etc. Francon believes that rules and virtues are the difference between being and doing, or to be and to do. The two are not completely opposite, but have the difference between the main and the last. In fact, he believed that “being at most contains the trial of doing”Bao Haimei[4](P66). This means that the rules contain virtues and have a more basic ethical position. Rors also believes that virtue is relatively important in terms of rules. He declared: “Virtue is emotion, it is the personality traits and orientations arranged by higher-level wishes. In this case, virtue is a wish that acts out of corresponding moral rules.” [5](P167) This means that virtue is just a derivative of utilitarian or voluntary rules. The reason why virtue is called virtue is based on utilitarian or voluntary rules. Harman’s vision from the perspective of social thinking: “There is no such thing as morality, nor does it exist in any character trait that people think exist, nor does it exist in any virtue or evil that they say.”[6] He believed that the element of determining personality traits is the moral situation, and he no longer recognizes the reality of virtue itself, nor does he recognize the independence of virtue ethics.
The second view believes that virtue ethics is a unique and justified ethics. This viewpoint is different from the advanced version and the gentle version. Representative figures of the advanced version include G.E.M.Anscombe, Alasdair MacIntyre, or translated as “McKental” and “McKental” and Taylor. This aggressive viewpoint believes that: “The misconduct, meaning, etc. of the behavior of (regular ethics) is either inconsistent or harmless, and should be completely neglected by ethics theory.” [7](P194) The representatives of the temperate version include Harold Alderman and Phillip Montague. Eidman declares: “Virtue is a basic type of morality, which cannot be reduced to or based on certain rules or concepts that are relegated to goodness.” [7](P162) Moreover, nor can it be avoided from virtue.The subject and specific morality are understood. Montage’s explanation is similar to Edman, who points out: “The moral assessment of behavior is a legal field of ethics research, but needs to be explained through more basic personality assessment.” [7](P194) This means that the rules are second order for virtue.
The third view believes that virtue ethics and rule ethics have their own fields. Representative figures of this view include Robert B. Louden, Walter E. Schaller, Michael Slote, etc. It is located in a diverse ethics perspective, criticizing moral ethics cannot solve the problem of moral problems such as moral doubts, tragic humans, impatient behavior, personality changes, and moral decline. In the real judgment of morality, virtues and rules are basic ethical resources and cannot be restored to each other. To this end, “we need to position each of the unrealized virtues and unrealized moral plans” [7] (P191). Xie Le’s view of Franconia indicates that not all virtues can be reduced to rules. On the contrary, at most some virtues cannot be expressed as mental orientations that comply with rules [8]. Slott believed that virtue ethics is not a rating that excludes moral behavior, and ethics evaluation cannot be obtained completely and strictly from the evaluation of personality and personality traits. He pointed out: “The ethical position of behavior cannot be fully published by temperament (virtue), motor or individual (personality). As long as the temperament (virtue) and individual (personality) are important concerns in ethics.” [9](P89)
Although there are the above disputes in the field of virtue ethics, there are also some basic commonalities. Virtue ethics students do not deny the basic influence in the evaluation of personality ratings of outsiders. Their distinction is just a distinction between aggressive initiative and gentle initiative. In this meaning, the common sense of virtue ethics is generally considered to be “focus on personality and treat people as a whole” [10](P110). As far as personality is concerned, the basic problem of moral ethics can be said to be “why should I be like a person”, which is undoubtedly a significant difference from the rules of moral ethics that use moral behavior as the basic problem (3). More specifically, Gregory Trianosky differentiates the basic consensus of virtue ethics into two elements: first, the divisional judgment of at most personality traits is independent of the judgment of short-term behavior; second, virtue precedes the explanation of the correctness of behavior [11].
In comparison, the ideological approach and fundamental problems of the rule ethics are therefore prominent. For differences with the subjects of moral ethics, the subjects of moral ethics are the subjects of moral ethics.Rule (rule)(4). Among them, the important rule of the theory of justice is the concept of right, and the important rule of the utilitarianism is the concept of good. Accordingly, the basic problem of rule ethics is “What should I do (be good)” [12](P17). Regarding this problem, Kant’s conjecture is to abide by a preexisting internal rule – moral law, and the conjecture of utilitarianism is to abide by a preexisting internal rule – “the happiest of most people”. Although there are differences in the bottom line, both rules of ethics have tried to be moral legislation.
From the above, it can be seen that the key to judging the problem of independence of virtue ethics is to determine the logical relationship between rules and virtue. If rules can be completely reduced to virtue, then rules ethics are not independent, and virtue ethics is the unique ethics; on the contrary, if virtue can be completely reduced to rules, then virtue ethics is not independent, and rules ethics is the unique ethics; in addition, there is a third ability, that is, virtue and rules are independent and cannot be completely restored to each other, then rules ethics and virtue ethics are only independent.
Chen Lai, The amount of money for nourishmentLiu Yuli and Song Jian all tend to the third solution in this issue, that is, the proactive virtues and rules cannot be restored to each other in a complete manner.
發佈留言