| |
This article focuses on a method of moral self-cultivation advocated by the Chinese Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi: deep reading. To Zhu Xi, reading is not only an intellectual activity of learning knowledge, but also a spiritual exercise. Through meticulous, thorough, and unbiased reading, people can gradually cultivate their minds to have three virtues, carefulness (xixin), patience (naixin), and modesty (xuxin). I argue that these three virtues are like the three civic virtues (attentiveness, seriousness and humility) recently proposed by political philosopher Mary (...) Scudder, who argues that these virtues can help people become ‘listening citizens’. Listening citizens are more eager to actively listen to others’ viewpoints and engage in democratic deliberation, which in turn can create a healthy public culture. In sum, while the goal of becoming a sage through deep reading may not be relevant today, Zhu Xi’s teachings highlight the value of deep reading in fostering good citizenship. (shrink) | |
Recently, most of the discussions in Confucian political theory have concentrated on whether Confucianism is compatible with local political practices, such as liberal democracy. The question of how Confucians view global distributive justice has not yet received critical attention. This essay aims to fill this gap. I will first describe a contractualist methodology, which aims at deriving substantial political principles from a formal conception of the person. Then I will discuss what conception of the person Confucianism assumes. Finally, I will (...) use the contractualist methodology to derive three principles of global distributive justice. These three principles form a distinctive conception based on ideas that are usually ignored in the current discussions of global justice, such as virtues, community, and rituals. (shrink) | |
Broadly understood, perfectionism is the view that the state may, or should, promote valuable conceptions of the good life and discourage conceptions that are bad or worthless. This paper distinguishes between two types of perfectionist theory: comprehensive perfectionism and moderate perfectionism. Comprehensive perfectionism claims that perfectionism should be grounded in some comprehensive moral doctrine, while moderate perfectionism claims that perfectionism does not have to be based upon any comprehensive moral doctrine. Moderate perfectionism also contends that in justifying the use of (...) political power, citizens and state officials may appeal to judgments about the good life that are piecemeal, convincing, widely accepted, and not highly controversial. This paper provides some reasons for favoring moderate perfectionism and defends it against criticisms made by Steven Wall and by Collis Tahzib. In addition, this paper clarifies the nature and limits of moderate perfectionism through a discussion of Joseph Chan’s Confucian perfectionism. (shrink) |