UNTIL RECENT YEARS moral traditions have not been an important topic for moral philosophy. With few exceptions, attention has been directed to the problem of moral justification, to the search for universal criteria for the assessment of moral beliefs or judgments regardless of their traditional provenance. Generally, philosophers aspire to formulate "the view from nowhere." Since the publication of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue there has been a revival of interest in the concept of a living, moral tradition, especially among moral (...) philosophers concerned with the possibility of an ethics of virtue or character as a viable alternative to the ethics of principle or, say, to deontological, utilitarian, or contractarian ethics. We must observe here that in the three decades prior to 1981, some moral philosophers displayed similar concern with tradition, although terms other than "tradition" were used, for example, "forms of life," "ways of life," "moral practices," and "moral community." Rawls's conception of reflective equilibrium is also developed with an eye on the notion of tradition. Indeed, Rawls has been quite explicit about his tradition-oriented approach to moral theory: "What justifies a conception of justice is not its being true to an order antecedent to and given to us, but its congruence with our deeper understanding of ourselves and our aspirations, and our realization that, given our history and the traditions embedded in our public life, it is the most reasonable doctrine.". (shrink)

HSÜN Tzu's essay on "Rectifying Terms" is justly considered a work of "great logical interest." For in this essay, one finds a remarkably modern concern with such topics as the rationale for having terms; the empirical and pragmatic bases for the classification of terms; the formation of generic and specific terms; the importance of observing established linguistic practices; the necessity of complying with proper standards for the institution, ratification, and regulation of the uses of language ; the nature of argumentative (...) discourse ; and the problems inherent in successful linguistic communication. A careful examination of some passages in other essays also suggests an awareness of the distinction between deductive, inductive, and analogical inferences, though Hsün Tzu provides us no explicit discussion of the nature of reasoning and its validating rules. (shrink)

THIS ESSAY PRESENTS A CONFUCIAN PERSPECTIVE ON LI. My main concern is the question, “How can a Confucian moral philosopher move from the ethical to the religious dimension of li?” Section 1 provides an analysis of the scope, evolution, functions, and a brief discussion of the question of justification of li. Section 2 deals with the inner aspect of the foundation of conduct, the motivational aspect of li-performance. Section 3 discusses the outer aspect of the foundation of li, focusing on (...) Hsün Tzu’s vision of the triad of t’ien, earth, and humanity, an interpretation of his use of t’ien, shen and shen-ming as expressing a respect for established linguistic, religious practice without an endorsement of associated popular religious beliefs. This interpretation leaves open the question of the validity of reasoned religious beliefs, while presuming the religious dimension of li as extension of Confucian ethics. Section 4 centers on the ethical significance of the li of mourning and sacrifice and the more general question on the efficacy of li, and concludes with some remarks on the transformative significance of the religious dimension of li. (shrink)

Perhaps the best approach to the Chinese conception of reason is to focus on the concept li, commonly translated as “principle,” “pattern,” or sometimes “reason.” While these translations in context are perhaps the best, having an explication of the uses of li is desirable and instructive for understanding some main problems of Chinese philosophy. Because there is no literary English equivalent, one cannot assume that li has a single, easily comprehensible use in Chinese discourse. This assumption is especially problematic when (...) it comes to appreciating the basic concerns of Confucian ethics. A closer examination of the uses of li and “principle” reveals a complexity that cannot be captured by a simple formula. Apart from the question whether li and “principle” are functionally equivalent, one may also ask whether li in Confucian ethics can be properly considered a context‐independent notion in the way that “principle” can. For a contemporary Confucian moral philosopher, Confucian ethics is more plausibly viewed as a form of virtue ethics. Absent an explanation of the uses of li, the translation of li as “principle” unavoidably leads to such misleading questions as: “What are the principles of Chinese or Confucian ethics?” “If such principles exist, do they serve as premises for the derivation of moral rules?” “Are Confucian principles universal or relative?” While these questions are fundamental in Western moral theory, their importance for Confucian ethics depends on a prior consideration of the status of principles in Confucian ethics. (shrink)