Kant, Xunzi and the Artificiality of Manners
AbstractBoth Chinese and Western philosophers have argued for the ethical importance of manners. Their approaches are sometimes criticized on the grounds that manners are artificial. I compare Xunzi’s and Kant’s responses to this claim, and discuss the relevance of both positions for the development of a theory of manners. I show that there is no single artificiality claim, but rather four different claims: the claim that polite behavior lacks spontaneity, the claim that it is insincere, the claim that it goes against human nature, and the claim that it is arbitrary. While Kant is mainly concerned with the insincerity claim, Xunzi focusses on the claim that manners are arbitrary rules. Because of their different understandings of the function of manners both authors only provide a partial answer to the artificiality claim. To arrive at a full account of manners both perspectives must be combined.
Brandt, Reinhard. 1999. Kommentar zu Kants Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Buss, Sarah. 1999. “Appearing Respectful: The Moral Significance of Manners.” Ethics 109: 795–826.
DiCenso, James. 2012. Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eno, Robert. 1990. The Confucian Creation of Heaven: Philosophy and the Defense of Ritual Mastery. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Frierson, Patrick. 2005. “The Moral Importance of Politeness in Kant’s Anthropology.” Kantian Review 9: 105–27.
Graham, A. C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. Chicago, La Salle: Open Court.
Hutton, Eric. 2014. Xunzi: The Complete Text. Princeton University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1968. Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. Kants Werke. Akademie Textausgabe VII. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
–––. 1998. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––. 2003. Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner.
–––. 2006. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated and edited by Robert B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klemme, Heiner. 1999. “Freiheit des Willens und Herrschaft des Bösen: Kants Lehre vom radikalen Bösen zwischen Moral, Religion und Recht.” In Aufklärung und Interpretation: Studien zu Kants Philosophie und ihrem Umkreis, edited by Heiner Klemme, Bernd Ludwig, Michael Pauen, and Werner Stark, 125–51. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
Knoblock, John. 1994. Xunzi. A Translation and Study of the Complete Works Vol. 3. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine. 1986. “The Right to Lie: Kant Dealing with Evil.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (4): 325–49.
Lee, Janghee. 2005. Xunzi and Early Chinese Naturalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Li, Chenyang. 2011. “Xunzi on the Origin of Goodness: A New Interpretation.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy Supplement to Volume 38: 46–63.
Machle, Edward J. 1993. Nature and Heaven in the Xunzi: A Study of the Tian Lun. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Olberding, Amy. 2015. “From Corpses to Courtesy: Xunzi’s Defense of Etiquette.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 49 (1–2): 145–59.
–––. 2016. “Etiquette: A Confucian Contribution to Moral Philosophy.” Ethics 126 (January): 422–46.
Palmquist, Stephen R. 2016. Comprehensive Commentary on Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Bare Reason. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Puett, Michael, and Christine Gross-Loh. 2016. The Path: A New Way to Think About Everything: Viking.
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. 2001. 2nd ed. New York, Toronto, London, Sydney, Auckland: Random House.
Stohr, Karen. 2012. On Manners. New York, Abingdon: Routledge.
Stroud, Scott R. 2010. “Desire and the Project of Moral Cultivation: Kant and Xunzi on the Inclinations.” In Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy, edited by Stephen R. Palmquist, 639–52. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Wood, Allen W. 2014. “The Evil in Human Nature.” In Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Critical Guide, edited by Gordon Michalson, 31–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Copyright (c) 2017 Anja Berninger
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitting article, which will be published (print and online) in journal Asian Studies by Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). Author’s name will be evident in the article in journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in hands of the publisher.
- Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.