Aristotle And Confucius: Philosophical Differences

By

Deirdre Roby
 My aim in this essay is to compare Aristotle's conception of virtue with

Confucius' key notion of ren--which has also been interpreted as "virtue". The issue is

of current interest given the distinction between ethics and morality in the

contemporary revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics. Confucius has been interpreted as a

thinker who concentrated on ethics or moral philosophy. Now, with regard

to the distinction between ethics and morality, we may ask on which side Confucius

lies. Is ren, understood as a virtue, the sort of virtue that should be treated as standing

in contrast to morality? I hope that the following synoptic comparison of these two

complex notions will be helpful not only in achieving a mutual illumination but also in

bringing Confucius' thinking into the framework of contemporary virtue ethics.

Confucius believed that the most important virtue a person could have was a respect

for the rules of propriety, the rules governing the attitudes of society. In The Analects,

he said that “Respectfulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes laborious bustle;

carefulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes timidity; boldness, without the

rules of propriety, becomes insubordination; straightforwardness, without the rules of

propriety, becomes rudeness.” He believed that without these rules, society would

cease to function as a body. He said that it was through strictly following this set of

specific rules that men in society would become upright citizens. Key to the rules of

propriety was the idea of filial piety, the support and respect of one. Aristotle once

said, “Man is by nature a political animal.” While this may be true, men are by no
means bound to agree with one another regarding politics.

They had so many commons, such as the identical virtues with more common

than difference, or the resembled virtues with half common and half difference. We

can also find their specificities, such as opposite virtue with more differences than

common and their respective unique ethical virtues. However, all above ethical virtues,

no matter how different they were, Aristotle and Confucian saw them virtues of mean.

They thought the virtues were important but must be moderate to avoid extremes, and

the norm was "should" for Aristotle but "going too far is as bad as not going far

enough" for Confucius.

Confucius sometimes viewed ren as a particular quality, along with being clever,

trustworthy, forthright, courageous, unbending, and so on. The distinction between

ren as exclusive and inclusive is well recognized. Question, is there a unified notion to

cover all these aspects?

Aristotle made several efforts to explain how moral conduct contributes to the

good life for human agents. The aim of Aristotle's logical treatises was to develop a

universal method of reasoning by means of which it would be possible to learn

everything there is to know about reality.  Aristotle's distinction between intellectual

virtue and ethical virtue is hence not only based on the two parts of the soul, but

corresponds to the dual dimensions of a person's human nature as a purely rational

animal and as a social animal. There are various debates regarding how to reconcile

these. In Aristotle's ethics, they lead to two seemingly incompatible notions of

eudemonia (happiness). Eudemonia is the activity that expresses virtue. On the other

 hand, eudemonia as the most desirable sort of life needs to include all intrinsically

worthwhile activities and, in addition, external goods. The issue that is more essential

to our current purpose is this: is ethical virtue determined more fundamentally by

the established habits and customs of the particular cultural and historical context into

which one happens to be thrown, or by human rationality, which belongs to any self-

determining agency? Intellectual virtue includes theoretical wisdom, and practical

wisdom. While theoretical wisdom does not involve action, practical wisdom is

"concerned with action about what is good or bad for a human being"

Citations:
Moore, B. N. & Bruder, K. (2005). Philosophy: The power of ideas (6th ed.). Boston:

McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Ellis, John (ed.), 1992. Ancient Minds, Spindel Conference, October 1992 (The
Southern Journal of Philosophy, 31, supplement).

Online English Translation of the Analects, the Internet Classics Archive (MIT)