Hi. I have left you with this passage the last time.
"We have a man here among us," a certain governor said to Confucius,
"who is known for his uprightness.
When his father stole a sheep,
he reported him to the authorities."
On hearing this, Confucius said,
"Among us, uprightness is defined very differently from yours.
Fathers cover up for their sons,
and sons cover up for their parents.
Uprightness is to be found therein."
So what do you think?
These remarks have attracted much criticism from shortly after Confucius' death to the
present because they seem to suggest that Confucianism advocates favoritism and nepotism,
always protecting one's kin at the expense of justice and truth.
Wouldn't this kind of view undermine the very foundation of government?
Now, what we need to observe here is that Confucius found
the governor's definition of uprightness or integrity to be in inadequate.
The Confucian alternative should not be read obviously as condoning theft.
It does not suggest that it is okay to steal.
The son still has an obligation to dissuade the father from any wrongdoing.
So, why did Confucius find the governor's position to be inadequate?
The governor's statement suggests a standard of morality such as the principle of
loyalty to the state or system of laws independent of human relationships.
On this view, it does not matter who has committed an offense.
The act itself would warrant a legal intervention.
On Confucius' part, the problem of this position is that it would
undermine the family as the most basic moral unit in society.
This entails that for Confucius,
a government based on family values is superior to one based on
either an individual's sense of justice or an impersonal system of law.
So, what is the justification for the Confucian position?
The basic premise seems to be that kinship ties give rise to a strong bond,
which binds society together.
In itself, this is simply a sociological claim.
And it may have been well-established even long before Confucius' time.
What is new is that the family is now understood
to be not only a sociological unit but also,
and more importantly, an ethical ideal in which
familial relationships are defined in terms of
the kind of Xiao reciprocity described earlier.
Filial piety, in this sense,
should be seen as an ethical transformation of family relations and kinship ties.
This perspective, family responsibilities and obligations must be affirmed.
However, now, they are also grounded afresh in ethical considerations.
In other words, the Confucian argument is that you
must recognize the central role of the family.
If you deny that,
the Confucian case will have little meaning.
Having recognized the central role of the family,
one then consider the potential moral difficulties that family bonds may bring.
If we treat the family as a sociological unit alone,
family interests would outweigh all other concerns.
The response to these is not to abandon the family as the root of humanity, rather,
the solution is to redefine the family in ethical terms,
such that family relations and the attendant obligations and
responsibilities are infused with a spirit of Ren and Li.
This will then provide a strong foundation for the extension of
Humanity and Proper Conduct to all social relationships.
In this ideal setting,
justice can be assured.
Covering up for one's father is a strong response with dramatic or rhetorical effect.
But the underlying contrast is between
two very different conceptions of the ideal society.
So the question is,
which of these two offers the better way in establishing a harmonious and just society?
It is not really a debate between kinship and morality.
Well, actually, it seems quite absurd to think that one has to choose
between them when we are trying to construct an ideal case scenario,
rather, the Confucian claim is based on
the recognition that society is constituted by relationships.
The fundamental conviction here is that ethical ideals can be
realized only if they become integral to both self and family.
Put differently, if moral problems are not resolved within oneself and the family,
then it would be difficult to expect that an ideal society
can be realized through the force of legislation and laws.
Laws are obviously necessary in any social organization.
So the issue is not whether laws are necessary, rather,
it is a question of conceptual priority in
thinking about how best we can achieve the desired ethical outcomes.
In Confucian terms, the family remains central,
and it can be rendered an ethical ideal,
which then would form the basis for a harmonious society.
This view has a profound impact on the development of Chinese culture and society.
The emphasis on filial piety also helps to explain
the remarkable cohesion that characterizes the Chinese social system.
As Confucianism developed, more attention was given to the concept of filial piety.
A separate work, known as The Classic of Filial Piety, was composed,
which played an important role in rooting the ideal deeply in the Chinese imagination.
This is not a defense of Confucianism.
No, not at all. We are here only to try to understand it.
If in the end, after careful reflection,
we find the Confucian position to be inadequate, that's perfectly okay.
The question we need to answer is whether there
is a better alternative than taking the family,
not the biological family mind you, but family bonds and relations ethically
defined, as the basis for the good life and a just and harmonious society.
Now, of course, the emphasis on filial piety has also led to abuses.
And, of course, for the Confucian position to work,
it would have to be assumed that the magic of
Ren and Li can indeed transform family relations,
such that they are thoroughly pervaded by filial care and respect.
Here, the point is that ideals should be
evaluated as ideals and compared with other ideals.
An ideal should not be dismissed because of abuses in practice.
For example, turn the other cheek is an ideal.
We would not want to dismiss it simply because of contrary evidence in practice.
To argue that this is not a workable ideal is not the same as
to say that the ideal itself is conceptually flawed.
We have looked at the concept of filial piety in
some detail because it is important to Confucian ethics and
also because we want to show how different virtues
extolled in the Analects form a coherent whole.
Other virtues, such as courage, diligence,
humility and frugality, are also important.
The point to emphasize is that they are interdependent and can be
similarly related to the core concepts of Ren and Li.
One cannot be truly courageous or trustworthy, for example,
if he is not humane,
does not care about rightness and violates the requirements of proper conduct.
Next time when we come back,
we will look at the concept of Learning in Confucian philosophy.
Alan K. L. ChanToh Puan Mahani Idris Daim Chair Professor of Humanities & Social Sciences, Vice President (Alumni and Advancement)
