A few days ago, over at Crooked Timber, Kieran Healy commented on an article by Leon Kass, in which the esteemed bio-ethicist argues that contemporary courtship has been ruined by a host of modernizing influences. Kass longs for a return to the good old days of upright morality and locked zippers. Healy suggests various genies cannot be put back into their bottles. On the same site yesterday, John Holbo takes up the theme in an engaging post on past marriage practices (in particular the old taboo against marrying a deceased wife's sister - I know, it sounds odd, but Holbo makes quite a go of it) to show that even in the good old days there were anxieties that everything was going to hell in a hand basket. Was there ever a "good old days?"
The desire to look back and construct an idea of a golden era is common to many countries in many times. It is certainly a method used by people opposed to gay marriage in the US. But it is also a primary tactic of Confucian thinking, at least in its classical form. And it may be something we have to jettison if we want to make Confucius relevant to our (post)modern condition.
The references to the morally superior times of the sage-kings in Confucius and Mencius are too numerous to list. Perhaps this passage captures the general idea; it is a reflection by Confucius on his own social role:
The Master said: "Transmitting insight, but never creating insight, standing by my words and devoted to the ancients: perhaps I'm a bit like that old sage, P'eng (7.1)
He did not see himself as adding anything new to the wisdom of the ancients, just transmitting their thoughts and practices. This reflects his belief that the best models for ethical behavior are to be found in the past. The ancient sage-kings were better than we can ever hope to be; the best we can do is model our behavior on their goodness and hope we come close.
Various modern commentators reject Confucius's own self-image, arguing that he was, actually, quite innovative. He allowed for variation in the details of certain rituals to allow for the best expression of personal commitment to social relationships. He understood that key principles would sometimes conflict and that a creative and perceptive mind was needed to reach the best outcome. One of the main themes of the Hall and Ames magnum opus is the creativity required by a fully engaged Confucian morality.
But looking back for models of moral perfection,whether done by Confucius or modern conservatives, always runs into the same problem: the past, upon closer inspection, never turns out to be as good as we want it to be. Perhaps Confucius knew this, and he made a strategic decision to create a past better than his present as a tool to try to improve his world. Or maybe he truly believed the ancients really were the best. Whatever the case, it seems that once serious historical research is brought to bear, the past turns out to be as complex a combination of good and bad as the present.
I don't buy into a notion of definite moral progress (i.e. that things are better now than they have ever been and they are getting better still). Horrendous man-made tragedies still occur, whether they be the acceptance of torture by a supposedly mature democratic society (US) or the perpetuation of genocide in a poor country (Sudan). People are still quite capable of morally bad behavior. I think we just have to accept something else that Confucius urged on us: that we are moral agents; we must always ask ourselves what is right to do in a particular situation, and hope that we can create the best outcomes possible. Whether that is better or worse than the past is really immaterial. We have enough of a challenge getting things right in the present.
Comments