Skip to main content
Log in

Role Ethics or Ethics of Role-Play? A Comparative Critical Analysis of the Ethics of Confucianism and the Bhagavad Gītā

  • Published:
Dao Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Both Confucianism and the Bhagavad Gītā emphasize the moral authority of social roles. But how deep does the likeness between these ethical philosophies run? In this essay I focus upon two significant points of comparison between the role-based ethics of Confucianism and the Gītā: (1) the interrelation between formalized social roles and family feeling, and (2) the religious dimension of moral action. How is it that Confucians ground their social roles in family feeling, while the Gītā emphasizes rupture between role and sentiment? Furthermore, are we to understand Confucianism as presenting a social philosophy that eschews religious concerns, whereas the Gītā denies the moral significance of family feeling in lieu of obtaining soteriological freedom? Examining the aesthetic and religious dimensions of the ethics of Confucianism and the Gītā clarifies a key distinction that both views implicitly make, albeit for divergent reasons: the difference between living one’s roles and playing one’s roles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adarkar, Aditya. 2001. “Karna in the Mahābhārata.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

  • Ames, Roger T. 2011. Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____, and Henry Rosemont, Jr., trans. 1999. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group.

  • Ashton, Geoffrey R. 2013. “The Soteriology of Role-Play in the Bhagavad Gītā.” Asian Philosophy 23: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodde, Derk. 1953. “Harmony and Conflict in Chinese Philosophy.” In Studies in Chinese Thought, edited by Arthur Wright. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Cahill, James F. 1975. “Confucian Elements in the Theory of Painting.” In Confucianism and Chinese Civilization, edited by Arthur Wright. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Gitomer, David. 1992. “King Duryodhana: The Mahābhārata Discourse of Sinning and Virtue in Epic and Drama.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112: 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legge, James, trans. 1861. The Chinese Classics, vol. I. London: Trubner and Co.

  • Patton, Laurie, trans. 2008. The Bhagavad Gītā. London: Penguin.

  • Potter, Karl. 1992. Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, and Charles Moore. 1957. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont, Jr., Henry, and Roger T. Ames, trans. 2009. The Chinese Classic of Family Reverence: A Philosophical Translation of the Xiaojing. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geoffrey Ashton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashton, G. Role Ethics or Ethics of Role-Play? A Comparative Critical Analysis of the Ethics of Confucianism and the Bhagavad Gītā . Dao 13, 1–21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-013-9354-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-013-9354-x

Keywords

Navigation