Rawls vs. Confucius

Here is a thought-provoking study by Erin Cline that compares the political philosophies of John Rawls and Confucius (Kongzi):

Over the past two decades, a number of studies comparing Chinese and Western views of political philosophy have painted a picture of radically different approaches and theories. Some authors argue that while modern liberal Western theories are focused on rights, justice, equality, and freedom, Chinese Confucians are largely unconcerned with the received topics of Western political philosophy.... They also tend to argue that, while the assumption of atomistic individualism represents a fatal flaw in liberal theory, the Confucian view offers us a superior alternative partly because it takes seriously the view that family and community relationships constitute our identity. These studies have helped to highlight the way that philosophical traditions can provide insight into different cultural and historical concerns, as well as the need to take seriously the role of the family in the basic structure of society. However, some of these studies have neglected the diversity of views represented in both the Confucian and Western liberal traditions. They also tend to leave those who do not think the liberal tradition is fatally flawed wondering what can be gained from comparative studies of Chinese and Western sources.

In this article I aim to show that there is much more to be said about political philosophy in the Confucian and Western liberal traditions, especially when it comes to moral psychology and the development of political virtues.

More HERE. If you think the essay is too long, at least read the two concluding paragraphs below.

It is important to see that, despite the remarkable differences between their accounts, both Rawls and Kongzi exhibit a concern with political philosophy in general and a sense of justice in particular. On both views, having a sense of justice is a part of what makes us human. Rawls says that without a sense of justice, people “would lack certain essential elements of humanity”. In the Analects, Ren 仁 is the fullest realization of one’s capacities as a human being, and as a number of the passages we have examined make clear, Kongzi sees having a sense of justice as part of being Ren (“humane”). Rawls and Kongzi also maintain that parent–child relationships provide the foundation for cultivating a sense of justice, which in turn provides the foundation for a stable and harmonious society. Despite the laudable attempts of feminist ethicists to introduce discussions of the family into political philosophy, the role of the family in the achievement of a just society remains a tangential issue for many liberal theorists. Rawls did not consider it a tangential issue, and I hope this essay goes some way toward reintroducing Rawls’s discussion as a reminder of its importance for liberal thought. 

I also hope this essay begins to show that the Confucian tradition has much to contribute to our ongoing discussion of the relationship between the family and society. Confucian philosophers emphasized the importance of the virtue of filiality in family relationships more than other schools of thought, and they explicitly argued for the distinctive claim that filiality is the root of other ethical sensibilities, including the political virtues. Accordingly, the Confucian tradition should serve as a resource for future discussions of the family in political philosophy. In addition, as we have seen, Confucianism places a great deal of emphasis on self-cultivation and has much to contribute to discussions of moral development and moral psychology. The importance of a sense of justice in the Analects is but one example of capacities that we can learn more about as a result of studying ancient Chinese and contemporary Western accounts comparatively.