Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group
Confucianism posits moral eductaion for nobles who will take office, is the critical point that determines the success of a government and progress of a state. It beilives that nobles who are educated, under this system, will feel a sense of responsibility to their society (Journal of Democracy 11, 2000)
This system believes the art of government and nobles are to correct people and it is fundamental in societies who influenced by Confucinism, "the optimum is what nobles say". The system believes the moral accountability notion maintains NOBLES from any wrong doing (Fukuyama)
Without any value judgment on Confuciosim, it could be said that this system keeps away people from participating in debates. Would it eventually cause to halt the growth as the notion of Critical Thinking would fade away (which is the main value of Freedom and progress)? Does this notion kill curiosity and would lead to the decay of a society?
One may say China, with adopting such a notion, could improve its society and got changes. Will it be sustainable?
Interesting topic what are the main statements of Confucianism? What are the implications for management, organizations and strategy? What are the counterpositions?
ReplyDeleteCarl......doing social-related research in Asia, always offers something thoughtful. In old chinese confucianism, insofar still alive, authorities were educated to feel a sense of responsibility to their society and were counseled by a sophisticated bureaucracy in the art of good satecraft. It quite well worked and still work (China today)
ReplyDeleteToday people tend to look down on political systems whose authorities profess concern for their people but whose power is unchecked by any procedural constraints like rule of law or critical thinking
Humanism is at the core in Confucianism. Confucian philosophy is based on varying levels of honesty, Confucian defines the logic of humanity. In practice, the primary foundation and function of Confucianism is as an ethical philosophy to be practiced by the members of a society. Its ethics is characterized by the promotion of virtues, encompassed by the five virtues are Humaneness, Justice, Propriety, Knowledge, Integrity. There are still many other elements, such as honesty, kindness, shame, judge and sense of right and wrong, bravery), gentle. Sometimes morality is interpreted as the phantom of Humanity and Righteousness
they sound wonderful words, however from liberalism standpoint, the confucianism hierarchical education system is a subject of debate
We should discuss further to get insights and then outlie strategy
Critical Thinking: A skill not taught in many schools, yet vital to analytical and strategic thinking. Societies may not adhere to Confucianism but the philosophy behind it is sound and we should be teaching the next generation its benefits to a balanced viewpoint and as one way of responding to societal norms
ReplyDeleteStephanie......CRITICAL THINKING teaches us to be openmindness....it requires the study of other cultures' values and interpret / translate them on our way
ReplyDeletere: "Confucian philosophy is based on varying levels of honesty" - what does that mean? When do you have to be more more or less honest? To whom?
ReplyDeleteOne of the critical facets of democracy is the ability to freely engage in the exchange of ideas. There is never believed to be a right or wrong answer that cannot be debated, and there are many examples where what may have been right (by consensus) 100 years ago is wrong today, or where right/wrong has to be determined through a cultural lens.
ReplyDeleteMy question about Confucianism, then, is to ask whether it is consistent with this fundamental feature of democratic thought? If not, I believe we have a problem, as we are then relying on the people to take what the leaders say on face value. The issue here is the lack of accountability of the leaders. And we also lose the important aspect of involvement that we get in properly functioning democracies, in that individuals are encouraged to participate in the process.
A fundamental flaw, in my opinion, is that where there is a requirement for Honesty. Unfortunately Human nature means that at some point a dishonest person will come along and abuse the system for their own end. Its a romantic thought that leaders are there for the good of the people they lead, but lets take a realistic look at the collapse of companies such as Enron, the "breaking news" on Olympus...
ReplyDeleteThe thought that leaders have no checks and balances when we see what they do when they have them scares the bejesus out of me!!
Here you are.......what i could summarize from Filial Piety to answer your questions......They are just definitions and do NOT reflect my idea
ReplyDeleteConfucius recognized several levels of honesty fundamental to his ethics. These include:
Li: All actions committed by a person to build the ideal society, aiming at meeting their surface desires of a person in either immediately or one term. In this regard, one is honest because it suits one’s own self interest only.
Yi: Righteousness. Rather than pursuing your own selfish interests, you should do what is right and what is moral-based on reciprocity. At this level, you are honest about your obligations and duties. Even with no one else to keep you honest or relate to directly, a deeply honest person would relate to ancestors as if they were alive and would not act in ways that would shame his family or ancestors.
Ren: This is the highest level of honesty as denoted by Confucius. The word “Ren” is loosely translated to mean benevolence or humanness, or better human – ness…..the essence of being human. The Way of humanness is human interaction and through shared experience, knowing one’s family. In other words, human love and interaction is the source of all humanness, the source of the human self. Noble behavior, or behavior befitting an individual of exemplary humanness is crucial since they are the root of the self. Confucius believed that for true honesty to “be”, this noble behavior must not only be a part of public life, but also private life.
If all three of these levels of honesty are present, then in Confucian thought, one is said to be a superior man or morally superior human being. This is probably best expressed by the Confucian version of the Golden Rule: what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
Confucius' social philosophy largely revolves around the concept of ren, “compassion” or “loving others.” Cultivating or practicing such concern for others involved deprecating oneself. This meant being sure to avoid artful speech or an ingratiating manner that would create a false impression and lead to self-aggrandizement. (Lunyu 1.3) Those who have cultivated ren are, on the contrary, “simple in manner and slow of speech.” (Lunyu 13.27). For Confucius, such concern for others is demonstrated through the practice of forms of the Golden Rule: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others;” “Since you yourself desire standing then help others achieve it, since you yourself desire success then help others attain it.” (Lunyu 12.2, 6.30). He regards devotion to parents and older siblings as the most basic form of promoting the interests of others before one's own and teaches that such altruism can be accomplished only by those who have learned self-discipline.
Peter, your analysis posits a single comprehensive meaning (the importance of critical thinking).
ReplyDeleteAnswer to your question is, INCONSISTENCE, and of course there is a serious problem as you pointed out.BUT, the second part of your argument "accountability.." should not be necessarily a strong case for comparison as history says a mix story of success and shortfalls for both systems
......and brings us nicely back to my earlier comment that in the UK, at least, critical thinking skills are not being taught properly. The current currculum does not allow for it. Perhaps Michael Gove's input will lead to a change in this regard.
ReplyDeleteI read the other day that 3rd class degree from the 1050s or 60's is probably the equivalent of a First today. One of the reasons for this,I believe, is a loss of the ability to think critically and to argue a case, which we all had to do when we were judged on the basis of essay writing. The classic e.g. of this was the question from the finals of microbiology degree in about 1965: "Which is more interesting from a biological point of view, the backside of the moon or the bottom of the sea?" (OWTTE). Time given for the answer was 3 hrs.
The majority of young people today are not taught how to think like this. Therefore we have a generation who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to analyse and criticise efffectively so good ( moral or practical) choices are made.
true..... accountability,rule of law, strong state are pillars in progressive and democratic societies. however there are cases at which societies were led without accountability, and rule of law BUT strong state and could manage corruption-free their progress and stability. Institutions are extremely influenced by contexts and cultures.
ReplyDeleteInevitably this school of thought lacks the element of critical thinking which is inconsistent with our nature. As all cases, there is flip side which offers something is worth time to read and tailor for other systems (maybe,if any)
and that critical thinking process does contain Rationality, Self-awareness, Openmindness, Discipline, Judgment (recognize the relevance or merit of alternative assumptions), Does not it?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! Would that the E U had applied such thinking to the Euro and the bankers to their big bonuses.....
ReplyDeleteYou've captured a dichotomy between the ideal and the real. If the noble are benevolent, moral, educated and perched higher in Maslow's Hierarchy, they will presumably act in a selfless manner. On the other side, the phrase "Question Authority" is a means to keep the noble honest. Humanity needs both perspectives I would think. Great post Shahab
ReplyDeleteBrian, fascinating perspective
ReplyDeletere: Brian's and Ali's perspectives:
ReplyDeleteThink game theory strategies: How about the vulnerability of selfless behavior to selfish behaviors?
As far as game theory is concerned, niether selfless nor selfish bahaviours are matter, where the intersection of reaction curves (cournot game) guides our decision-making progress.
ReplyDeleteFrom Hegelism point of view, selfish behaviours take over selfless ones where the recognition is jeopardized. However it is not a case from the anglo-saxon philosophy standpoint.
From Confucianism lens, selflss behaviours always come first as long as powerful, moral and self-esteem government manages a collective desire which is recognozed by whole (perhaps it is a close interpretation to what this philosophy reads)
Shahab, I believe the critical point about the sustainability of Confucianism is its greater accountability. Any system that relies on all in a position of power to be upright, I contend, is not sustainable - from a purely statistical viewpoint. There will always be a percentage of evil and non-selfless people in any demographic, no matter how small that percentage is. Eventually, someone will come along, and redefine power for their own ends. With no external accountability, the whole system can unwind.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of examples in history. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who moved from freedom fighter to despot, is one such modern tragedy. The historical books in the Christian bible (Chronicles, Kings) document a succession of rulers, and when they were less than upright, there was no corrective mechanism that did not first involve war and oppression.
Of course, there are also examples of benevolence in non-democratic systems. The poster child is possibly Singapore, which is not effectively democratic, but the leadership at least had good intent, as well as being strong. You could argue that today the PRC itself also is equally benevolent,and certainly China has done well in recent times due to strong and appropriate leadership. The worry, of course, is that at some point either of these countries degenrates into a situation akin to George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', where socialism is eventually transformed to despotism.
Perhaps Confucianism has helped both China and Singapore remain relatively benevolent? Unfortunately, history and probability are not on our side, if checks and balances are not put in place. For all its faults, democracy has been the most effective way of doing this.
Peter, True.....Confucianism fails to engage poeple in noble's decision making process and system.
ReplyDeleteIn case an ill-minded ruler takes office, the system lacks, as you rightly pointed out, a mechanism to check and balance the ruler's policies.
Without any doubts, accountability comes along with RULE of law and STATE to make up the three key components of a democraic political system. These components are inteplaying together to balance a potical system. History tells us that the political system, in the west, evolved to its stability when these components were simultaneously in place.
But the political system evolution took different trajectory in the east. Of course the contexts contributed to this difference. In the east, Confucianism greatly emphasized on HOW to screen candidates for offices, HOW to teach them to have sympathy to their societies, HOW to disconnect candidates from their lineages (the foremost struggle in the EAST) and etc.
Not only Singapore, China, even S. Korea and Japan (Meiji) owe their developments to this school of thought (or alike)
An other example occured in the middle east. Rulers adopted differnt strategy to have strong and coheraet states and incorporate law and transformed from tribal to non-lineage states (for example, Ottomon employed eunuch)
Unlike Hegel and Marx who believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, i can see an infinty in this process. But it may end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. For Hegel this was the liberal state, while for Marx it was a communist society (Already proved that is wrong). It meant that there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions. For Confucius it was a strong state.
I, like you peter, am not comfortable with the idea of MORAL man. It may seem that it would be unsustainable, but it could long survive (compare with the idea of enlighenment) and considerable achievments (as the enlightement achieved). It makes me think over and study the Confucianism.
@Shahab: I had evolutionary / biological game theory models in mind, I think they make different, possibly less assumptoions than a Cournot model structure.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely……evolutionary game theory is dynamic and covers irrational agents.
ReplyDeleteHowever in an evolutionarily stable strategy, if all the members of a population adopt the strategy, no mutant strategy can invade. In this case evolutionary game can be approximately modeled by classical game theory framework
In our social case, groups act altruistically against their individual interests, so the selfish actions of individuals may lead to selfless actions by groups.