The subjectivity and Universality of virtues—An investigation based on Confucius’ and Aristotle’s views

Research Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Philosophers today are inclined to propose virtues are either something subjective or something universal. However, Confucius and Aristotle, who made the most profound investigations into virtues, did not develop such theses. The deep-seated reason lies in their belief that there is always a possibility for a human being to become a man of practice, which cancels the need of proposing subjectivity thesis. The reason for their not raising the universality thesis of virtues is that they do not think that virtues are directly universal to all contemporarily existing minds. Rather, in their view, virtues involve a possible universality that may present in a virtuous mind. We can summarize Aristotle’s view into the concept of possible universality of virtue understood in terms of the perfect state of mind, since he explains the perfect state of mind in terms of perfect state of activity, and makes his investigations with an eye to the interactions between people with similar states of virtues. The view of Confucius can be summarized into the concept of possible universality of virtue understood in terms of the history of mind, since his investigations are made from the point of view of the states of mind reached through virtuous practices, i.e., a historical process of human life in which one’s pre-dispositions and feelings gradually reach some state of natural harmony and gains continual enrichment, and with an eye to the interactions between virtuous people and common people. From that similarly expressed view we can reasonably infer that virtues do possess the character called by today’s philosophers as universality, but it is a possible universality whose possibility is based on practice and on the development of virtuous minds.

Keywords

virtue virtuous mind practice subjectivity of virtues universality of virtues 

References

  1. Aristotle (2003). The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Liao Shenbai. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu GuanGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayer, A. J. (1990). Language, Truth and Logic. England: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Kant, I. (2000). Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Han Shuifa. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu GuanGoogle Scholar
  4. Kant, I. (2002). The Groundwork for the Metaphyics of Morals, trans. by Miao Litian. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin ChubansheGoogle Scholar
  5. Kant, I. (2007). “The Metaphysics of Morals.” In: Kant’s Collected Works, trans. by Li Qiuling, Vol. 6. Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue ChubansheGoogle Scholar
  6. Li Bingnan. Lunyu Jiangyao 论语讲要 (Discussing The Analects), part of the material for a course in Chinese culture at Guilin Normal UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Liao Shenbai (2009). “Zhi ‘Dao’ de Liangzhi, dui Mengzi Liangzhilun de Shijian Lizhi de Chanshi” 知“道”的良知: 对孟子良知论的实践理智的阐释 (“Knowing the Intrinsic Goodness of ‘Dao’: Practical Wisdom in Mencius’ Concept of Intrinsic Goodness”), Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Xuebao, (3): 89–96Google Scholar
  8. Ning Chang (1981). Sishu Tongshi 四书通释 (Notes on the Four Books). Taipei: Taibei Lunli Wenhua Ziyuan Kaifa Youxian GongsiGoogle Scholar
  9. Stevenson, C. L. (1945). Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Yang Bojun (1980). Lunyu Yizhu 论语译注 (Annotations to The Analects). Beijing: Zhonghua ShujuGoogle Scholar
  11. Yang Shuda (2007). Lunyu Shuzhu 论语疏注 (Notes to The Analects). Nanchang: Jiangxi Renmin ChubansheGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Philosophy & SociologyBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations