requestId:684c3e5209a0c3.10254035.
The importance of post-common ethics and Confucian ethics
——Additions of “The Confucian ethics’ concept of post-common ethics” taught by Lin Changze
Author: Chen Yueyue
Source: Author Author Authorized Confucian Internet, original text published by “Ethics” 2019 Issue 1 (General Issue 6)
Baoqing Stories【Abstract】 In the book “The Concept of Confucian Post-Confucian Responsibility Ethics”, Lin Changze taught that he focused on Confucian ethics by using the theoretical field of “Post-Confucian Responsibility Ethics” in the Oriental “Post-Confucian Responsibility Ethics”, and focused on the focus topics in Confucianism such as the theory of mind and nature, the theory of heaven, the theory of kung fu, and the main concepts of human ethics博官网, benevolence, grace, and reputation have made outstanding suggestions, and successfully demonstrated that Confucian ethics is a broad-minded ethics that transcends customs customs, reminded the inspirational concepts within Confucianism and its correction and retreat in the development of history, and understood the ability and conditions of Confucian ethics in contemporary reality. Lin Jie’s emphasis and connotation activated the theoretical potential and depth of Confucian ethics. It is generally excellent and informative, but his detailed explanation of Confucianism’s overall positioning and certain concepts seem to be arguing or perfect in a step. The plan for the social governance of the society it provides is still to be discussed and deserves a deep exploration.
【Keywords】 Lin Changzhe, Confucian ethics, post-common ethics, broad-minded, enlightened, and ruling
Contemporary Oriental Philosophy is good at long-term analysis, creating concepts and ideas, and determining the common theoretical structures and views of various theories, which is very helpful for us to directly discuss a certain issue without having to read the painful works in the history of philosophy. In contrast, Chinese academic practice is weaker than this kind of comprehensive and discriminatory skills in theory and is longer than the combing of “history” and shorter than the emphasis of “thinking”. Therefore, there is a tendency that all humanities subjects are “historical”. As Mr. Chen Shaoming pointed out, the overall trend of Chinese philosophical history research is becoming increasingly irrelevant to philosophy, and Chinese philosophical creation is harder to have any shadows. [1] Although it is said that “Philosophy is the history of philosophy”, for real philosophy research, the comprehensive and analysis of previous thoughts is undoubtedly more cost-effective by focusing on its theoretical structure and concept from the perspective of the theory and practical meaning in modern society. Judging from Confucian ethics, what type of ethics does she have? Is it a statement of meaning or consequence?Or Virtue Ethics? Is it related to ethics or chromophysics? [2] Or we do not use concepts or theories outside to label Confucian ethics and call it “Confucian ethics” or “Confucian ethics science”, but what are the basic temperaments and characteristics of this ethics (study)? Is it a special or a broad sense? Finally, in the world of the Hundred Schools of Life, how did the ancients understand the Confucian ethics with long-lasting traditions? Is it a fierce attack on the principles of “using the middle to the middle” and “using the ancients to the ancients” that even returns to the “family law” that is called “studying” and maintaining the original Confucianism with pictures, and is satisfied with speaking oneself, “hiding into the small building to form a unity, regardless of spring, summer, autumn and winter”; or actively participating in the battle and dialogue, “If you want to be more powerful, you must first understand” (Xu Guangqiu), absorbing various ideological resources, enriching, developing and conscientious thinking? All of this kind are problems that Confucian scholars often encounter and have to think and respond. In this regard, the “Folks of Confucianism” taught by Lin Changze (1956-) of Taiwanese political science. href=”https://twlovecandy520.org/”>Brand the WebmasterThe Concept of Responsible Ethics” (Taipei: Lianhe Book Company Limited, 2017. The following book is quoted only by the text page code, and the text is simply called “Lin Zhu”), in ” In the theoretical field of post-common responsibility ethics, it has made outstanding suggestions and emphasis on Confucian ethics, which has refreshed people’s lines. It can be said that a brand new paradigm has been introduced. Whether it is a discussion of Confucianism, or “doing Chinese philosophy”, and the responsive development trend of Chinese society, it is very educational and inspiring. The author has a lot of benefits from reading, and there is an attention to writing and reviews during the reading process. One can use the writing and reviews to deepen understanding, and the other can also give readers a feast of friends’ thinking.
1. The theory of moral development and the proposal of “post-common responsibility ethics”
Lin Zhu’s discussion of Confucian ethics follows two basic orientations: the first is post-comprehensive research: it discusses the theory that the ancients have set behind the research on Confucianism, and can it fully reach the level of thinking implicated by Confucianism. The second is vision research: it is not intended to discuss what Confucianism is in the past, but to explore what Confucianism can do in the future. It is not difficult to see that after the discussion, I clearly stated my vision. In response to this topic, Lin adopted three methods: (1) a constitutive approach: aiming to emphasize the basic concept of Confucian ethics; (2) a critical approach: propose a civilized pathology diagnosis of the history and concept of Confucian ethics; (3) a constructive approach: Based on the basis of the first two, the ability to solve practical problems in Confucian ethics still exists.
Related to subsequent research, Lin Zhu importantly used the emphasis on Confucian ethics to draw on Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) theory of moral development, along with the feminism of Carol Gilligan (1936) and Nel Noddings (1929) and the communication processing of Karl-Otto Apel (1922) and Jurgen Habermas (1929) etc. According to the development of the concept of Eastern righteousness, Coleberg divided the moral development area into “three levels and six orders”: (1) Preconventional level levels: (1) Punishment and service from the order, (2) Personal interests and buying and selling; (2) Conventional Levels: (3) The order of mutual waiting, relationship and responsiveness; (3) The order of post-conventional level: (5) The order of basic rights and social contracts or benefits, (6) The order of broad moral principles. In the “three levels and six orders”, the higher the order, the higher the ability to express moral knowledge (judgment) is. The activists gradually develop ethics such as self-center, family, country, and human science in the interaction between people and color recognition. In this “Three Levels and Six Orders”, the principles of moral development ultimately focus on Kant’s self-disciplined morality in ethics and Rors’ justification in political philosophy. In order to demonstrate the broadness of the structural structure of the “three layers and six sequences”, Koelberg tested the moral development talents of the subject (both direct long-term follow-up and direct cross-civilization) through two hypothetical situations. However, this theory has been challenged by feminism-related ethics. Relevant ethicist (and Colberg’s assistant) Gilligan pointed out that Colberg’s research focuses on the moral principles of actors in hypothetical reasoning and ignores the responsibility problems of actors in real situations. In reality, there is often a phenomenon of “knowing but not being able to”. In addition to moral judgment, this confession also requires the cultivation of moral action talents. In the face of this challenge, Koelberg admitted that we should take a step forward to thinking. In addition to the moral judgment of “What should be done?” (What should be done?), we should also make the responsibility judgment of “Why me?) in order to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the development of knowledge and action. When Kelberg stepped out of the field of moral judgment and moved towards the field of moral action, he discovered a similarly important problem. This is that in his real life, due to the spread of fate, the virtues and blessings of the actors may not be different. Therefore, we cannot avoid being trapped in the doubt of “Why do I want to do morality?” If we did not retreat to the personal enjoyment theory of desire, we would have to rely on the ultimate concern of religion in order to make moral reality work.Life is an event that is interesting and interesting. Gilligan believes that the study of the responsibility ethics of the seventh order of morality that is higher than self-discipline and righteousness shows that we should go beyond the “postconventional formalism” order of moral judgment and achieve the “postconventional context
發佈留言