Chinese ethical thought has a long history; it philosophy, and have uniquely defined and

goes back to the time of Confucius characterized the tradition as a

(551–479 BCE), which was around the time whole. In other words, this will not be a
of Socrates (469–399 BCE). In a brief historian’s, but rather a philosopher’s,
take on the history of Chinese ethical
chapter like this, it is obviously impossible to thought.
do justice to the richness, com- In this chapter I use terms such as “Chinese
plexity, and heterogeneity of such a long philosophy,” “Chinese philosophers,”
tradition. Instead of trying to cover all and “Chinese ethics,” which some scholars
may find problematic. There has
the aspects of it, I focus on the early period been an ongoing debate about whether
(551–221 BCE), which is the founding there is “Chinese philosophy” (Defoort
era of Chinese philosophy. More specifically, 2001 and 2006). Some scholars have
I focus on the four main schools argued that Confucianism is not a
of thought and their founding texts: “philosophy”
Confucianism (the Analects, the Mencius, (Eno 1990), that there is no such thing as
and the Xunzi), Mohism (the Mozi), Daoism “Chinese ethics” (Mollgaard 2005), and that
(the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi),
and Legalism (the Book of Lord Shang). Confucius is not a “philosopher of ethics”
There are two reasons for this choice. and has no “normative ethical theory”
First, Chinese philosophers from later (Hansen 1992). This is obviously a
periods often had to present their own complicated issue. The reality is that in
thoughts in the guise of commentaries on
these founding texts; they spoke about China we can find both normative ethical
them as well as through them. Second, this theory and ethical practices such as self-
choice reflects the fact that early cultivation through spiritual exercise. In what
China is still the most scrutinized period of follows, I first address the unique
the history of Chinese philosophy by
scholars in the English-speaking world, and problem of style in Chinese ethics; I then
that most of the important texts discuss the structure of the normative
from this period have been translated into ethical theories of the four main schools of
English. thought. I end with a discussion of
It must be borne in mind that the early the idea of philosophy as spiritual exercise,
period lasted for about 300 years, as well as a brief conclusion.
which may still be too long for such a brief
chapter to cover. My goal is not to The problem of style in Chinese ethical
provide an encyclopedic coverage or thought
standard chronological account of ethical
thought in early China. Rather, I want to One main reason that Chinese philosophical
identify important and revealing texts are difficult to understand is
common features and themes of the our unfamiliarity with their styles. For
content, style, and structure of ethical example, when a contemporary reader
thought in this period that have reverberated picks up a copy of the Analects, she might
throughout the history of Chinese find it very easy to understand the
literal meaning of Confucius’ short, philosophy (Hsu 1965; Lewis 1990; Pines
aphorism-like utterances; however, she 2002; Lloyd and Sivin 2002; von
might still be baffled because she does not
know what Confucius is doing with Falkenhausen 2006); the most important
his utterances. aspect might be that the early philoso-
In his theory of interpretation, Davidson phers were primarily trying to solve practical
argues that an utterance always has at problems in the real world that

least three dimensions. Besides its “literal seemed to be governed only by force and
meaning,” which is given by a truth- violence. To get a concrete sense of
conditional semantics, it also has its “force”
(what the speaker is doing with it, how extremely violent their time was, here
are some revealing statistics. Con-
whether the speaker intends it to be an fucius, the most important Confucian
assertion, a joke, a warning, an instruc- philosopher, lived around the end of the
tion, and so on), as well as its “ulterior
non-linguistic purpose” (why the speaker Spring and Autumn period (722–464 BCE);
during the 258 years of the period,
is saying what he says, what effects the there were 1,219 wars, with only 38
speaker wants to have on what audience, peaceful years in between (Hsu 1965: 66).
and so on) (Davidson 1984a, b, 1993). We All
may say that the literal meaning is the of the other philosophers discussed in this
“content” of an utterance, and the force and chapter lived during the Warring
purpose are the “style” of the
utterance. This theory might help us
understand that whenever we do not SOCRATES AND PLATO
understand an early Chinese text it is often
not because the author is an “oriental Richard Kraut

mystic,” but rather because we do not know Socrates and Plato distinguished
enough about the historical back-
ground to understand what the author is The dialogues of Plato, composed nearly
trying to do. We as scholars often 2,400 years ago, fill more than 1,600
pages in the most recent English edition of
misunderstand Chinese philosophers his complete writings, and many of
because of our projected expectations the works in his oeuvre are devoted to
about what they must have been trying to fundamental ethical and political
accomplish; as Bernard Williams puts matters – questions about how any human
it, “a stylistic problem in the deepest sense being should live, and how we, as
of ‘style’ ... is to discover what you
are really trying to do” (Williams 1993: members of political communities, should
xviii–xix). live together. No previous philoso-
We now know a great deal about the pher in the West had examined ethics and
historical background of early Chinese politics so deeply and comprehen-
sively, and so he is rightly regarded as the is presented in Plato’s Apology of Socrates,
founder of systematic moral and which purports to be the speech
Socrates gave in court when he was
political philosophy. His writings reveal his accused of having acted impiously by not
engagement with the issues that faced
Athens (of which he was a citizen) in the believing in the gods of the city, but
fifth and fourth centuries BC, but the introducing new gods, and thereby cor-
rupting the young. (In Greek, apologia
questions he raises continue to resonate means “defense” – Socrates was not
over the centuries, and Western philo-
sophy has produced no author who has apologizing for anything.) Socrates’ defense
matched his ability to dramatize abstract was unsuccessful: he was convicted

ethical questions in works of enduring Early, middle, and late dialogues

literary value.
He approached philosophical questions in We can make some educated guesses
the medium of a literary form – the about the order in which Plato composed
dialogue – that is meant to signal to readers his dialogues, and it is best to pay attention
that face-to-face discussion should to that order, because we should
be the principal tool by which philosophy, be open to the possibility that his ideas
including moral philosophy, is to be developed as he worked them out. One
learned. Although Plato’s dialogues are common device used by students of Plato is
devices by which he advocated his own to divide his works into three
point of view, they are also meant to convey groups: early, middle, and late dialogues.
his conviction that we cannot gain The Laws can be safely taken to have
been written late in his career, and it shares
greater ethical understanding by uncritically many stylistic affinities to several
reading books and accepting what- other dialogues: Sophist, Statesman,
ever they have to teach. We must take up Philebus, Timaeus, and Critias. So these six
the issues of moral philosophy by are
generally regarded as belonging to his late
exposing our own ideas, in conversation, to period.
the cross-examination of others.

Plato intends his dialogues to be focal Ethical thought in the middle and late
points of such conversations, not sub- dialogues
stitutes for them.
In the Phaedo, Socrates offers several
The principal interlocutor of many of the arguments for the immortality of the soul,
dialogues is Socrates, who did not and portrays the body as a prison in which
himself write anything, but occupied himself the soul has temporarily taken up
with ethical questions solely by residence. The soul is not itself made out of
means of conversations in small groups. A any material, and is therefore not
vivid portrait of Socrates’ way of life
SOCRATES AND PLATO the promise of a better world, but while we
are embodied we have to learn how
37 to make the best possible use of our sexual
desires, our social emotions, and our
vulnerable to decay or decomposition. Its deliberative skills. In our worldly existence,
incorporeal nature marks its kinship we can achieve some degree of
understanding of the forms, and in fact
to another kind of entity that now comes to doing so will give us a chance to make
play a central role in Plato’s think- our embodied condition and our political
ing: what he calls forms or ideas. His community vastly more livable.
positing of forms arises from a distinction
Someone who can grasp what the forms of
drawn in the Euthyphro between the many justice, beauty, and goodness are will
things that are pious and piety itself. be far better able to see what must be done
Piety is a property; pious people and actions to enhance the justice, beauty, and
have that property, but are not goodness of the everyday world. That is the
identical to it. Forms are simply properties. thought that underlies much of
The Socrates of the Phaedo conceives the moral philosophy of the middle and late
of them as eternal, changeless, incorporeal dialogues. It is most fully developed
objects that can be grasped by the in the Republic, a dialogue that depicts an
soul but not the body. In fact, the soul would ideal society ruled by philosophers in
be better able to arrive at a full the light of their understanding of the most
understanding of these properties if it were important form of all – the form
not hindered by the body. That is of the good.
why death is not an evil; it is instead an Unlike many of the early dialogues, which
opportunity for the soul to escape its fail to find satisfactory definitions
confinement and thereby improve its of the virtues, the Republic, beginning with
understanding of the forms. Book 2 (it is divided into ten books),
A later tradition of Platonists, sometimes claims success. (Book 1, by contrast,
called “Neoplatonists,” who took refutes several proposed definitions but
their lead from the writings of the does not offer a positive account of what
third-century AD philosopher, Plotinus, looks justice is.) One of the key steps that
leads to a successful outcome is the thesis
to this other-worldly component of the that the human soul is not inherently
middle and late dialogues as the foun- unitary but is composed of three parts –
dation of ethics. But the Platonic dialogues, reason, spirit, and appetite – that will be
including those written in his middle at war with one another unless each is
trained to play its proper role in relation
and late periods, are as attentive to our to the others. Reason is the part that is
social responsibilities and current emo- capable of looking after the good of the
tional needs as they are to the soul’s whole soul, and so it should govern the rest.
eventual release from the body. Death holds Spirit, which houses our propensity
to seek social distinction (victory, honor,
angry domination), must be trained to
become an ally of reason. The third part of divisive tendencies of human nature. What it
the soul, by virtue of which we seek is for a city to be a good city, in
food, drink, sex, and the means for their fact, is precisely this unification of its parts.
satiation (including and especially The best division of labor, Socrates
wealth), must be tamed in a way that makes says, would put philosophically trained
us healthy, vigorous, and restrained. lovers of the common good in charge of
In the Phaedrus, the tripartite nature of the decision-making. A second group of citizens
human personality is depicted by would be specially trained to defend
the city against enemies; and a third would
RICHARD KRAUT be devoted to the production of
material resources. That threefold division
38 of the ideal social world corresponds
to the tripartite structure of the human soul.
means of the image of a charioteer trying to As a city is just when its three parts
control two horses, one manageable are unified, each doing its own, so too is the
(spirit) and the other unruly (appetite). As human soul: justice precisely is each
this image suggests, reason, though doing its own.
not inherently inert, can get nowhere on its
own; to move ahead, it needs to
enlist the massive energies of our emotional ARISTOTLE
and appetitive nature. And yet it eudaimonia as sought for its own sake
must have its own notion of where to go – it and self-
cannot simply take its directional sufficient seems to point towards the
cues from the two horses. Implicit in this inclusive conception,formal conception
analogy is the thesis that our lives
cannot be lived well unless our highest Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.)
aspirations are recommended to us not
by their emotional appeal or the pleasures Born: Stagira, Macedonia 384 BCE
of their fulfillment but because reason
shows them to be good. Died: Chalcis, Euboea, Macedonia
Where does justice fit into this picture? 322 BCE
Socrates prepares the way for
answering this question by portraying an A polymath: works and influences on
ideal society in which each citizen natural sciences, philosophy,
contributes as best he can to the common linguistics, economics, politics,
good, receiving in turn the care that psychology and the arts.

other citizens can best give him. A perfectly At the age of 17 or 18, he joined
just city would be one bound to- Plato’s Academy in Athens
gether by these ties of reciprocity, and each
citizen’s recognition of his indebt- The founder of the Peripatetic school
edness to others would foster a sense of of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens
unity sufficient to overcome all of the
He left Athens for Macedonia and
became the tutor of Alexander the be self-sufficient” (NE pp. 1097b8).
Great in 343 BC. “It makes life desirable and deficient in
nothing” (NE pp. 1097b15).
Though Aristotle wrote many
elegant treatises and Happiness and Virtue
dialogues for publication,
only around a third of his Happiness requires virtue (NE pp.
original output has survived, 1098a16)
none of it intended for
publication. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the
soul in conformity with virtue” (NE pp.
The Four Ultimate 1099b26).
Causes
…happy are only those who participate in
The material cause this sort of activity. (NE pp. 1099a5).

The formal cause Virtue as

Moderation
The efficient cause
Virtue is likened by an archer to hit a target
The final cause or proper mark while
excesses and deficiency of action and
emotion is missing it (NE pp.

1106b25).
Two sorts of ends
Virtue is the mean, as it aims at the median
The end we pursue for the (NE pp. 1993,
sake of something else.
pp. 1106b25).
The end we pursue never
for the sake of something “If it is too high that means you are going
else. beyond your human
limitations, if it is too low it means you are
Eudaimonia not living up to the
(doing well, fulfilment of who you are.” (Scanlon,
living well, Thomas HC: GM-GG)
happiness)
The highest good Virtue as
The end of all ends Moderation
The ultimate purpose of human
existence “...the man who shuns
The proper function of man and fears everything and
“...the final and perfect good seems to never stands his ground
becomes a coward,
whereas a man who
knows no fear at all and
goes to meet every
danger becomes
reckless” (NE pp.
1104a20).

Virtue requires
Rationality

Happiness requires virtue (NE

1098a16) and rational principle (NE
pp.

1098a7).

The Faculties of the Human Soul

Rational

Irrational – Sensitive

Irrational - Vegetative

Virtue requires Rationality

“We are right, then, when we call

neither a horse or an ox nor any other
animals happy, for none of them is
capable of participating in an activity of
this kind” (NE pp. 1100a1-5).

Virtue as Character
(NE pp.1103a5-10; 1106a10-15)

“Moral Virtue is formed by habit”

(NE pp. 1103a15).

Moral Excellence