Two controversial cases in Confucian literature present the demands of filial piety as conflicting with those of impartial justice. Let us call them the Case of Concealment (Analects 18.13) and the Case of Evasion (Mencius 7A53). A dogmatic reading of the texts indicates that both Confucius and Mencius give more weight to filial piety than to justice. This essay, however, provides an alternative reading of the cases: the liberal reading. I argue that the Confucian teachers used the cases as moral (...) dilemmas that force Confucian students to learn how to use a cluster of Confucian virtues, including practical wisdom, discretion, and straight determination, under difficult circumstances. The liberal reading views these moral dilemmas as rhetorical tools; they guide Confucian students in meditative exercises and ultimately transform students’ mode of seeing and being. (shrink)

The Confucian tradition is famous for its family value. This tradition emphasizes that, after one's moral sentiments are cultivated in the family, one is capable of caring for people outside the family. However, since the early 2000s, there has been a debate in the Chinese Philosophy community about how to understand the ?the father-covering-son? story in the Analects. The story tells that a father covers for his son's stealing a sheep. This is a puzzle because while Confucius's virtue theory implies (...) that concealing a theft is wrong, Confucius contends that a father's covering is right. In this paper I discuss two arguments, the tree argument and the argument of the whole, implicitly held by the Confucian scholars for the priority of the family love in this debate. I argue that none of the arguments are convincing. (shrink)

Critics of Confucianism have long raised concerns about its focus on filial piety (xiao 孝). This concept entails traditional expectations, such as children dutifully serving parents, demonstrating outward respect, and subordinating personal desires to parental wishes. Critics find this problematic not only as an approach toward parents but also as a broader orientation toward authority figures. In response to such criticism, a common argument asserts that it misunderstands filial piety's true nature. This perspective claims that filial piety requires not only (...) service, respect, and compliance with parents but also the courage to admonish them when they veer from the path of what's right. However, this response is unconvincing. Passages used to support this view suggest admonishment should be light and avoided if it causes bad feelings, which may not be effective with stubborn parents. Other passages within the same texts indicate that admonishment is discouraged, emphasizing parental satisfaction over whether children should remonstrate. The most robust endorsements for admonishment originate from the relatively less influential Xunzi. In conclusion, concerns raised by critics about unquestioning obedience to authority warrant serious consideration. These concerns invite a thorough examination of the intricate dynamics of filial piety and its implications, advocating a thoughtful approach. (shrink)