Abstract
In his engaging paper entitled, ‘Daoism and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Bioethics’, Bede Bidlack attempts to show that although ‘rights talks is not historically Daoist’, Daoist philosophy could contribute meaningfully to human rights discourse and address certain deficiencies in the Western account. In this paper, I argue that Daoist metaphysics, especially its concept of the impersonal Dao, is unable to provide a sufficiently robust basis for morality. In similar vein, central Daoist concepts like ziran and wu-wei do not offer the moral framework for thinking about human rights. In addition, Daoist anthropology and its aversion to rules and conventions also substantially limit its contribution to the modern human rights discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The evolution of Daoist ethics shows that the shape that it eventually took is in part influenced by other traditions, especially the Buddhist. The early Celestial Priests gleaned from the Tao te Ching a set of moral precepts that would later be given normative status. In the fourth century, a text attributed to the defied Laozi contains 180 precepts that included prohibitions against theft, adultery, killing and intoxication. Scholars believe that these precepts were in part inspired by the rules of the Buddhist community. For example, Livia Kohn concurs with Benjamin Penny that ‘the appearance in China of Buddhist precepts inspired Daoists to write precepts of their own’ (Kohn 2004). The Great Precepts of Self-Observation, dated at the sixth century and based on revelations granted by the medium Yang Xi in the 360s, contains 300 precepts. Perhaps the gradual shaping of an ethical framework (the emergence of norms and conventions?) by borrowing eclectically from other religious and moral traditions may be said to be necessary recourse because the concept of the Dao itself offers very little clear possibilities for ethics.
- 2.
This understanding is derived from the literal combination of zi, which refers to ‘self’ and ran which means ‘so’. Ziran is therefore ‘self-as-it-is-so’.
- 3.
There is a possible ‘political reading’ of the Tao te Ching according to which ziran signifies a refusal to submit to the oppressive totalitarian control of the state that takes a form of civil disobedience. Based on this interpretation and depending on the context, ziran may arguably be said to support human rights. I owe this point to Professor Ellen Zhang.
- 4.
This is seen particularly in the way in which some Daoists have even eschewed the famous Golden Rule, namely, ‘Do unto others what you would have them to do unto you’. They prefer what Yong Huang has called the Copper Rule, which states: ‘Do unto others what they would have us do unto them’ (Yong 2005). The Copper Rule is allegedly established on the notion of ziran.
References
Ames, Roger T. 1994. The Art of rulership: A study of ancient Chinese political thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chung-ying, Cheng. 2008. On environmental ethics of the Tao and the Ch’i. Environmental Ethics 8: 351–370.
Commentary on the Lao Tzu by Wang Pi. 1979. Monograph 6 of the society for Asian and comparative philosophy. Trans. Arianc Rump. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist theory of Chinese thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yong. 2005. A copper rule versus the golden rule: A Daoist-Confucian proposal for global ethics. Philosophy East & West 55 (3): 394–425.
Jochim, C. 1986. Chinese religions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kirkland, R. 2001. Responsible non-Action in a natural world: Perspectives from the Neiye, Zhuangzi and Dao de Jing. In Daoism and ecology: Ways within a cosmic landscape, ed. N.J. Girardot et al., 293–304. Cambridge: Harvard.
Kohn, Livia. 2004. Cosmos and community: The ethical dimension of Daoism. Cambridge: Three Pines Press.
Lai, Karyn. 2007. Ziran and wuwei in the Daodejing: An ethical assessment. Dao 6: 325–337.
Lee, Jung H. 2000. Finely aware and richly responsible: The Daoist imperative. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 (3): 511–536.
Liu, Xiaogan. 2001. Non-action and the environment today: A conceptual and applied study of Laozi’s philosophy. In Daoism and ecology: Ways within a cosmic landscape, ed. N.J. Girardot et al., 315–339. Cambridge: Harvard.
Miller, Richard. 2005. Rules. In The Oxford handbook of theological ethics, ed. Gilbert Meilaender and William Werpehowski, 220–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nagel, Thomas. 2002. Personal rights and the public square. In Concealment and exposure and other essays, 31–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chia, R. (2017). Daoism, Human Rights, and Bioethics. In: Tham, J., Kwan, K., Garcia, A. (eds) Religious Perspectives on Bioethics and Human Rights. Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58431-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58431-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58429-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58431-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)