requestId:684c3e3178a4a7.77349053.
The meaning of “private morality” in the late Qing Dynasty and its contemporary revelation
——From the perspective of “uniformity of virtues”
Author: Chen Yuefu (produced by Huadong Teacher Fan Dao Philosophy Department and China Modern Thought Civilization Research Institute)
Source: “Literature, History and Philosophy” 2020 Issue 5
Abstract: Liang Qi It was a pioneer in discussing Chinese social issues and Confucian ethics with “private morality” and “private morality”. Later, thinkingists such as Ma Junwu, Zhang Taiyan, Liu Shipei, Cai Yuanpei and others discussed or responded to this issue. Although their positions were different and everyone had different solutions to the plan, they all trusted that personal morality had a certain unity, and they all emphasized that private morality in personal morality was the most basic and source of all public and private morality. In the later period, Liang Qichao emphasized the division between “the origin of morality” and “the changes in the program”, aiming to explain the generality (super-generationality) of morality and Confucian morality. The construction of morality of contemporary Chinese people should go beyond the misunderstanding of Liang Qichao’s later “On Private Ethics” that “Confucianism values private morality and lightens private morality”, continue his later thoughts, and use Confucianism as an important ideological resource for building morality of the people.
Keywords:Private morality; private morality; moral origin and foundation; program changes; Confucianism; unity of virtue
Liang Qichao, who was the leader of the Chinese thinking world after the transformation of the law in the Wuxu period, launched a “moral reaction”, which opened the precedent for discussing Chinese social issues and Confucian ethical morality based on the concepts of “private morality” and “private morality”. Later, several generations of thinkers, including Ma Junwu, Zhang Taiyan, Liu Shipei, Cai Yuanpei, Liang Shuming, Li Zehou, etc., had made continuous and century-long discussions on this issue. The author once represented the three era thinkers of Liang Qichao, Liang Shuming and Li Zehou to distinguish the differences between their “private morality” and “private morality”, especially the differences in their respective concepts of “private morality”. In other words, Liang Qichao highlights national ethics, Liang Shuming emphasizes public view in the group’s career, and Li Zehou emphasizes the priority of personal rights. [1] The academic community has discussed this issue recently. The old teacher Chen Lai published a long article in “Literature, History and Philosophy”, which has sorted out the meaning of “private morality” in the thinking world since Liang Qichao in detail 大官网 and the moral education guides since the founding of the country have discovered that in modern times, there have been directions and disadvantages of replacing or abolishing personal morality with political private morality, and have correspondingly ignored social private morality. To this end, he suggested that contemporary society should restore the exclusive status and importance of personal morality, and vigorously advocate the guidance of social private morality [2]. Later, Cai Xiangyuan, Ren Liuyi, Xiao Qunzhong and other teachers published negotiations or responded to articles in a unified publication, and expressed their opinions on this issue. In this article, the author introduces the “unity of virtues” in the study of virtue ethics [3] to discuss private morality from the beginning, IThe first thing to do is to explain the “uniformity of virtues”, and then use this theory to focus on relieving the “private morality” in the late Qing Dynasty (Liang Kaichao to the eve of May Fourth Movement). Finally, it responds or calls to the views of the chief teachers, and gives some suggestions for contemporary moral construction.
1. The meaning of “virtue unity”
Can a person’s moral character (or character, quality, etc.) be continuous, related or unified? For example, can a kind man become a coward in some situations, and can a wise man mean that he has a righteous quality? Can people with outstanding private morality also mean that their private morality will not be too bad, or can people with low personal morality and impolite practice private morality and public service well? All of this kind have been thought about this problem for a long time, and the meaning of “private morality” initiated by Liang Qichao in the late Qing Dynasty is also related to this.
Confucius said that “the benevolent must have courage” (“Speech·心·心台”), and said that “How can one get benevolence without knowing (wisdom)” (“Speech·心·心”), which expresses a certain connection between benevolence, wisdom and courage. Zhu Xi regarded “benevolence” as “the whole virtue of the heart” and what he said “benevolence encompasses the four virtues”, which clearly expressed the concept of the unity of virtue. In the East, this question can be traced back to Sucrates, who asked the wise Plotagora: “Is this question about the five verses of cleverness, sanity, heroism, righteousness and piety. Are they a single entity, or are they each one, with their own separate efficacy, and are they also different from each other?” [4] This pursuit and whether virtues can be unified. Sugraz himself trusts that virtue is unitary, “The unity between virtues lies in having complete moral knowledge” [5]. Continuing with Sucrates, Aristotle made a more profound discussion on “virtue unity”. Yasser opposes the idea that “virtues can be separated from each other”. He said: “When it comes to natural virtues, this is possible. But when it comes to the virtues that make a person a good person, this is impossible. Because if a person has wise virtues, he has all virtues.” [6] In other words, Yaser believes that in terms of natural virtues, a person can possess this virtue. In short, natural virtues are not unified; however, in terms of strict moral virtues (virtue virtues), he clearly opposed virtues as separate from each other, and believed that a person possessed any kind of strict moral virtues, he must possess real wisdom (wisdom); and once he had real wisdom, he must possess all virtues.
As well known, for nearly half a century, the deontology and utilitari that have long occupied the dominant position since the Enlightenment of Mongolian Sports (deontology) and utilitariAnism, or consquentialism, has emerged in the East a strong rejuvenation of contemporary virtue ethics. By this day, normative ethics Chinese theory, consequences and moral ethics have emerged. Virtue ethics gives more attention and assessment to two rules and ethics, i.e., rule ethics, and consequences, to neglect morality (virtue). One of the main issues is “virtue (morality and morality) unity” [7]. Some students deny that virtue is unified, which is obviously inconsistent with our moral experience. It is difficult for people to trust that a politician who truly serves the people; however, virtue unity is also questioned by daily moral experience, because we do often see a person having such virtues but not having a different virtue. So, how can we understand the unity of virtue? In this regard, Rosalind, a famous contemporary virtue ethicist After analyzing, Hursthouse compared the view that “infinite unity”: “This view not only recognizes that spiritual wisdom cannot appear evacuated, but is limited to the domain of virtue that it is suitable for, but also recognizes that spiritual wisdom is not something that is either all or nothing. According to In this case, anyone who possesses a certain virtue will possess all other virtues at a certain level, and in some cases they only have other virtues indefinitely. “[8] Hursthouse has learned from the reconstruction of Aristotle’s virtue ethics, and her thoughts on the unity of virtues have continued the tradition of Aristotle’s real wisdom.
In addition, contemporary scholar J.L.Ackrill proposed a virtue unity that does not need to be constructed based on moral knowledge or practical clarity. He said: “The disadvantage of a certain aspect is always that it is easy to hinder the implementation of other aspects of virtue. For example, a greedy person cannot be trustworthy and complete since his greed must be inconsistent with his integrity in a certain situation; a timid man cannot be 100% wide or merciful, because in In a certain situation, fragility is afraid of restraining his vastness or kindness. Therefore, in the theoretical analysis, if we discuss fantasy moral virtues, then virtues must be coordinated with each other to be protected. “[9] We will find that this kind of virtue unity concept that has some kind of correlation between itself without the help of moral knowledge or practical clarity can find more soulmates in Confucian traditions and is more suitable for our moral experience. [10] To put it, “virtue unity” (infinite unity) is such a concept: that there is a certain kind of continuity, coordination, correlation or unity between virtues. If one possesses one virtue, it is beneficial to the induction of other virtues, and the lack of one virtue will also cause the conduct of other virtues.
Since modern times,
發佈留言