What Is Confucius Response To Chi K Ang

All three articles discuss the central issue of what motivates someone to commit a violent act or kill another person. They do this in slightly different ways, and with different context having both Grossman and Leshan discuss violence in the context of war. Grossmans discuss the topics in multifaceted approach and brings up several different reasons why specifically someone would be willing to kill someone such as emotional, cultural, moral, social, and mechanical distance. Leshan mainly discussed the idea that there is a change in the perception of reality during war time which justifies the killing of other people. Finally, is Rai who states and argues that morality is the main motivation the drives people to commit violent acts against others

during the Zhou Dynasty, China was experiencing a great deal of political turmoil. A major part of this era was called the Period of the Warring States. It was a time when there were numerous wars that occurred due to the conflict that existed between seven states. (Watkins, 2013) These warring states were the Han, Wu, Zhao, Chu, Qi, Yan and Jin. According to Jerry H. Bentley and Herbert F. Ziegler of the book Traditions and Encounters, “This period forced some people to reflect on the nature of society, and the roles of humans beings within society.” The authors continued saying that it forced others to “identify principles that would restore political and social order.” (Bentley & Ziegler, 2011) The principles of Confucianism were established and followed in order to help the citizens of China to live and govern their communities more efficiently. Through Confucianism, Confucius helped legitimize China’s rule and bring about order in the mist of turmoil. The effects of Confucius’ principles are still seen and felt today in many aspects of modern day Chinese society. Veritably, there were points throughout Chinese history where Confucianism affected almost every aspect of life in China. Confucius has impacted the development of Chinese thought and culture in various ways from education to politics, to familial relationships.

In the case of military ethics, Killing is justifiable. “From a faithful perspective, while islam accepts war as a fact of life in this world, an armed conflict is also likely to result in human casualties” (Sekar). Therefore, war will have an outcome of death, but not exactly wanting death. “During war our moral duties do not disappear: Actions deliberately contrary

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

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

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.

Within the Analects, one specific line stands out showing Confucius’ stance on a less active government. When asking about what they would do if given a political office, Confucius only agree with the following statement ushered by Tseng His, “In the late spring when the spring dress is ready, I would like to go with five or six grown-ups and six or seven young boys to bathe in the I River, enjoy the breeze on the Rain Dance Altar, and then return home singing” (Chan p. 38). By agreeing, Confucius is noting the preferred method by which an office holder should act, one which amplifies their connection with inner harmony and helps the people enhance their own. This extends into the ruler himself as well, with Confucius noting that “If a ruler sets himself right, he will be followed without his command. If he does not set himself right, even his commands will not be obeyed” (Chan p. 41). Confucius also notes the superiority of filial piety and respect towards one’s family over loyalty to the state, stating that in his (hypothetical) country upright men conceal the misconduct of their children and fathers even when against the law (Chan p. 41). Confucianism in relation to government shows the belief that the inherent goodness in men must be allowed to flourish, even when against

An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would prefer to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because; killing in self-defence is ‘an evil that makes the moral value of the victim’s life less important than our own’. They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence.

We do what we see fit to pursue the good or the better for ourselves. If we put someone to death we do so because we believe it is beneficial. Now if having great power and doing what you see fit are means to get to the ends which is the ultimate good, than by killing someone and inflicting more suffering on them than yourself it is actually an abuse of power by using it without intelligence. If intelligent use of power is always for the good and by putting someone to death it is actually worse, aren't we really doing something that we do not want to do because it is not the better? At the same time we are doing something that we see fit, we are actually not doing what we want to do because the outcome is not the good but the bad. Socrates says that, "Can such a man possibly have great power in that city, if in fact having great power is, as you agree, something good?"

Confucius’ high emphasis on morality instead of profit was one of his major political ideals that he tried to persuade the the rulers of the kingdoms to pursue. However, his failure to convince any of those rulers reflected the prevalent pragmatic political culture at that period. After all, the kingdoms were at war with each other so that Confucius’ idea was inevitably less popular than those battle-winning strategies in favor of “profit.”

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  One of humanity’s most popular ways of getting its point across is through violence.  When words are no longer enough to argue a point, human casualties not only directly solve the problem, but symbolically send a message to all those affected as well.  Just as the American colonies fought against the British for Freedom when their voice was no longer heard, and just as the Islamic extremists used terrorism to send an evil message to America, both V and Chancellor Sutler used violence to gain a voice in a world of chaos.

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.

A great example of this is the two judges known as Hathorne and Danforth. These two men are taking other people’s lives to save their reputation and their own life. They have taken dozens of innocent lives and these men even know that the people that they have slaughtered are innocent. Even after someone has found them out, they still follow through with their nefarious plans to murder the pure. This is how the town of Salem decays in its own

One of the most famous people in ancient China was a wise philosopher named Confucius (circa

     Confucius’s counsel and guidance recorded in The Analects instilled wisdom when they were first recorded and continue to provide a thought provoking analysis of life and the checkpoints that guide it. The Master’s commentary on restraint, diligence, decency, and citizenship are well intended and relevant. Politics and the role of government also come under scrutiny as Confucius offers his insights in bettering the organization of power. His proverb-like admonitions use clear examples of everyday life allowing them to be understood and easily digested. Confucius’s own eagerness and willingness to share goodness he experienced makes it easier to apply and practice in one’s own life.