Selfhood and Morality: East Asian and Western Dimensions

  • Geir Sigurðsson
Chapter

Abstract

Chapter  6 proposes that contrasting views of selfhood and its role in social human life account for the most important differences between the East Asian and Western ethical traditions. A comparison of these views is helpful to flesh out the different perceptions of morality. It is proposed that Western thinking is characterized by a strong focus on the self, and that while Western ethical thinkers and schools certainly seek to reduce self-centeredness, such endeavors generally proceed through an augmentation of the role of human reason and thus an intense and even tormenting self-consciousness. A clear reflection of this tendency is the ethical approach to moral issues qua issues associated with individual action and rational choice. The East Asian approach differs in that it seeks to balance excessive introspection with a cultivated sense of identification with the whole, be it society or the natural realm. While this approach, it seems, largely succeeds in preventing an existential kind of agony, it nevertheless suffers from some other serious weaknessess. Hence each tradition, it is argued, has something to offer the other. Chapter  6 offers a brief outline of the two approaches that may, one hopes, act as a first step toward that purpose.

References

  1. Ames, Roger T. 2011. Confucian Role Ethics. A Vocabulary. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  2. The Analects of Confucius. A Philosophical Translation. 1998. Translated by Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chuang Tzu [Zhuangzi]. 1998. Wandering on the Way. Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu. Translated by Victor H. Mair. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cioran, Emil. Tears and Saints. 1995. Translated by Ilinca Zarifopol-Johnston. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Freud, Sigmund. 1940. “Das Ich und das Es.” In Gesammelte Werke. Vol. XIII. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Galtung, Johan, Carl G. Jacobsen and Kai Frithjof Brand Jacobsen. 2000. Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kant, Immanuel. 1968a. Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. In Akademie Textausgabe. Vol. VII. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, Immanuel. 1968b. Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Akademie Textausgabe. Vol. V. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Köller, Wilhelm. 2004. Perspektivität und Sprache. Zur Struktur von Objektivierungsformen in Bildern, im Denken und in der Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Lieh-Tzu [Liezi]. 1991. The Book of Lieh-Tzu. A Classic of Tao. Translated by A.C. Graham. London: Mandala.Google Scholar
  12. Metzinger, Thomas. 2003. Being No One. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mill, John Stuart. 2006a. “Bentham.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 10. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc. pp. 75–115.Google Scholar
  14. Mill, John Stuart. 2006b. “Utilitarianism.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 10. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc. pp. 203–259.Google Scholar
  15. Plato. 1961. Charmides. In Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Edited by Judy Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rosemont Jr., Henry. 2015. Against Individualism. A Confucian Rethinking of the Foundations of Morality, Politics, Family, and Religion. Lanhan et al.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  17. Scheler, Max. 1954. Philosophische Weltanschauung. München: Lehnen Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Sigurðsson, Geir. 2010. “In Praise of Illusions. Giacomo Leopardi’s Ultraphilosophy.” Nordicum-Mediterraneum. Vol. 5, no. 1. http://nome.unak.is/wordpress/05-1/articles51/in-praise-of-illusions-giacomo-leopardis-ultraphilosophy/
  19. Sigurðsson, Geir. 2016. “Creating Meaning: A Daoist Response to Existential Nihilism.” International Communication of Chinese Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-016-0061-2
  20. Stirner, Max. 1927. Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Leipzig: Zenith Verlag/Erich Stolpe.Google Scholar
  21. Sun-Tzu [Sunzi]. 1993. The Art of Warfare. Translated by Roger T. Ames. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  22. Tao Te Ching [Daodejing]. 1989. Translated by D.C. Lau. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wohlfart, Günter. 2005. Die Kunst des Lebens und andere Künste. Skurrile Skizzen zu einem euro-daoistischen Ethos ohne Moral. Berlin: Parerga.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geir Sigurðsson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IcelandReykjavikIceland

Personalised recommendations