Virtue Ethics and Confucius

     A great book review by Jim Holt of Deirdre McCloskey's, The Bourgeois Virtues.  I laughed out loud when I read the last line: "Somewhere within this loose, baggy monster there has to be a slim, cogently argued treatise struggling to get out."  To fully appreciate the humor, you'll have to read the whole thing.

    One of the things that McCloskey is doing is arguing for "virtue ethics," which Holt summarizes as follows:

In the last few decades, however, an alternative to utilitarian and Kantian ethics has emerged, one that harks back to the ancient philosophers. It centers neither on acts nor on their consequences, but on character. According to “virtue ethics,” morality cannot be captured in a universal code; the right thing to do in a particular situation is what a virtuous person would do. And how do we identify a virtuous person? Aristotle defined virtue as a quality of character that makes for a life well lived. Then he characterized the good life as a life lived in accordance with virtue. Circular? Today’s virtue ethicists obviously don’t think so, but they have nevertheless struggled to come up with an account of human nature that would give some definite content to the idea of virtue.

   My first thought here was, yes, this is precisely what a Confucian ethics is about: character - even if Holt, like so many American writers and thinkers, gives no thought to the possibility of a link to the Chinese ancients (and that just confirms me in my work here: we really do need to bring ancient Chinese thought into these sorts of conversations). 

     Confucius, however, goes a step further than Aristotle, and helps escape the potential circularity of virtue ethics. He provides a starting point for understanding how to live a good life.  There is not a single, universal moral code, but there is a "root of humanity," and that is the cultivation of our closest loving relationships.  We must first assure that our duties to our families and friends are fulfilled, before we assume ethical responsibilities for others.  This is not to say that we do not have any duties toward strangers; rather, it is a reminder that our first duties are to those closest to us.  We must have our houses in order, so to speak, before we can turn ourselves wholly to the problems of others.  And that may help answer a question Holt raises:

In taking the question “What sort of person ought I to be?” as fundamental, virtue ethics entails a richer moral psychology than its rivals. Yet it is not very useful in resolving ethical dilemmas. Should I betray my friend or my country? Utilitarianism at least yields an answer (friend). Virtue ethics tells me to do what a virtuous person would do in the circumstances — scant guidance for anyone who lacks the virtuous person’s built-in ethical know-how. And the egoistic emphasis on cultivating one’s virtue can easily lead to a preening moral vanity, not to say self-infatuation. How much more likable the Kantian ideal of doing the irksome thing simply because it’s your duty, damn it.

   When given the choice of friend or country, the presumptive Confucian response would be "friend," which might be overridden but only at a certain threshold of good reasons.  Is Confucianism thus just a version of Kantian duty?  Not quite.  While duty is obviously central to Confucianism, it does not have as strong a universalizing impulse as Kant.  Confucius's moral imperative is more local and intimate and concrete than Kant's.  And, I think, Confucius is more open to situational considerations that might warrant apparent contradiction of universal principles - that is why it is closer to virtue ethics: a morally educated person will be able to find the right solution to particular ethical dilemmas.

    Confucianism is, then, a more focused virtue ethics.  When confronted with moral questions, it tells us to start with a consideration of how our responses will first effect our closest loving relationships.  If those are secure, then we can seek solutions that extend our responsibilities outward to others.  That is how "character" is built.

Comments

[Deirdre McCloskey]

It will not surprise anyone that I found Jim Holt's review in the Sunday Times of my book, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce (University of Chicago Press: inexpensive!), not "great." Amusing, yes; a quick read, sure. But if you have read the book (I have, actually) you realize that the review was pretty silly---though the attention, by the way, seems to have sold mucho books. To see a review by someone who understood the book see the rave by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal a couple of Saturdays ago.

Holt blames me chiefly for having more than one theme related to the big theme. One of the sub-themes (pp. 8, 67, 122, 387-89, 444) was that Confucian ethics discovered virtue ethics a century before Aristotle, and in Mencius related it to "sprouts" of character, that is, to human development.
I guess the point is that before we rush off on the basis of a cute little book review to make Deep Points it's a good idea to, uh, read the book. Otherwise we're just adding to the ideological noise of Fox News and its left-wing analogues. And we couldn't want to do that, would we? (Thus the main point of the book: to get people thinking about capitalism in ways more sensible than ideologies they picked up as sophomores.)

Deirdre McCloskey

[Sam]

Dear Professor McCloskey,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my post about Jim Holt's review of your book. I have not yet read the book, as you point out, but look forward to it. I will especially look for the references to Confucius and Mencius that you mention. My comment about the lack of consideration of ancient Chinese sources was aimed at Holt's discussion, not your text. He missed a perfect opportunity, it seems to me, to bring Chinese thinkers into the conversation. I am, as you might surmise, sympathetic to your project regarding virtue ethics, though I am one of those who will need some convincing that bourgeois culture, in and of itself, is an especially good generator and protector of ethical behavior.

Best,

Sam Crane