Confucius lived at a time when China was warring among itself. He was saddened by what he saw happening in China and wanted China to be united and great again. I do not believed Confucius sat out to be one of China’s greatest philosopher. He only wanted to return China to its glory, what he considered to be the golden age of China. Confucius wanted to bring back the upright moral values that the Zhou Dynasty modeled.
In Hubmaier’s article, “On the Sword” from 1527, he explains how the wicked should be slain or uprooted for disrupting the peace among the society. Why is that true? Who gave someone the right to kill another human? He then further describes how it is the magistrate’s civil duty to punish the wicked (122). However, while it is explained that punishing those who have wronged the society is important to keep the peace among the society, it seems to contradict itself because punishing the wicked by torturing or killing them only seems as though it would create for more disruptions among the society. Killing a human based on the discretion of a ruler is a dangerous risk to the society, is unethical in any religion, and creates no sufficive results
Confucianism has been a part of Chinese culture for over a thousand years. Many who have studied Confucianism would say that it is not a religion. It is better described as a philosophy or moral code. The philosophy of Confucianism comes mainly from the speeches and writings of Confucius, a great Chinese thinker and educator. He believed that Humanity, Rite, Neutrality, Virtue, Education, and Cultivation were the basis of human behavior. In addition, Confucius felt that this philosophy was the best way for people to behave and interact with others in society.
As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.
Confucianism teaches that each person should accept his or her role in society. According to document number five, Confucianism became the basis of order and respect in China. It was central in governing China. The teachings of Confucius were even studied for civil service exams. Essentially, Confucius believed that younger people should show respect and obey anyone who was older, so respect your
A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their
Secondly, Confucius viewed rules and laws as harmful. He argued that people led by laws and punishments will try to avoid punishment but lose the sense of shame. If they are led by virtue and guided by propriety, they will preserve their sense of shame and become good citizens5. He saw a country as an extended family and a ruler should take care of his citizens like a father would take care of his children. The ruler as the “father” would need to set a proper example for the right ethics to flow down5.
Confucius’s complimentary behavior not motivated his disciples but also set forth the example of decency and citizenship within society. “I can try a lawsuit as well as other men, but surely the great thing is to bring about that there be no going to law.” (Confucius p. 70) Confucius stresses not only the importance of bearing down society with avoidable lawsuits, but also that the relationships between neighbors should be above petty differences and disputes. He continues to encourage the importance neighbors by counseling his followers about the perspective in which we view others. “The man of noble mind seeks to achieve the good in others and not their evil. The little-minded man is the reverse of this.” (Confucius p. 70) The goodwill of which Confucius wishes to implant in his followers is evident in his statements as he encourages optimism and
Law, rather than making men more just, makes them agents of injustice - for example, soldiers fighting even though they believe it wrong. This turns the men into machines that should command no respect; yet we esteem them as good citizens. This, he says, is not right.
Human beings become devalued due to the uncaring decisions of bureaucratic figures and abusive power of military officials. For example, when Colonel Cathcart offers Yossarian the deal he states, “You'll enjoy a rich, rewarding, luxurious, privileged existence. You'd have to be a food to throw it all away just for a moral principle, and you’re not a fool. Is it a deal?"(Heller 428). The diction of “moral” shows how the colonel acknowledges he has to go against his morals, but does not care for the good of
To show Socrates his rationale, Glaucon proposes an elaborate thought experiment. Consider licensing both a just man and an unjust man to do whatever they please. Both will pursue the same desires of what is best for them, that is, “what any nature naturally pursues as good.” (Republic 359d) For Glaucon, people acting “justly” is the consequence of laws that “pervert” this natural pursuit of the good in order to “honor equality” in society.
This brings up controversy on whether or not war should be considered moral or immoral. Some believe that war is defined as a charade in which it extends well beyond moral judgement. “War is a world apart, where life itself is at stake, where human nature Is decued to its elemental forms, where self-interest and necessity prevail” (Walzer 1). Michael Walzer describes it as a lack of courage of our judgments because he believes that we are uncertain with them when it comes to the topic of war. When it comes to the death of the innocent, we should only react in a moral behavior and understand that war is immoral and there is no reason to engage in increasing the collateral damage that the Rules of Engagement state. David Kilcullen, author of Counterinsurency, argues that the Rules of Engagement should allow for less collateral damage. He states that “even if we are killing the insurgents effectively, if our approach also frightens and harms the local population, or makes people feel unsafe, there is next to no chance that we gain their support”
This is directly reflected in our world today, especially in governments around the world. Most of these infringements are out of self-interests or personal beliefs, and show blatant disregard for others on both small and large scales. As seen with Creon’s abuse of power ending with the deaths of those close to him, the abuses by today’s authorities will certainly only lead to a path of
The chapter also extends on to Confucius learning among the populace and its usage by the government, Confucian learning and its relevance to China’s modernization program, and connections between Confucian teachings and democracy. Essentially, the author’s purpose for chapter 1 is to establish an understanding on the importance of Confucian learning undergoing transformations and adapted to modern times.