A little background on the speaker:
Currently a professor at University of Hawaii's Department of Philosophy, Prof. Roger T. Ames spent many years abroad in China and Japan studying Chinese Philosophy. He has been Visiting Professor at National Taiwan University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Peking University, and has lectured extensively around the world. His publications include 《預見中國-對中國與西方文化的思索與詳述》、《對孔子思想的思索》、《道德经的哲学释义：让生命更有意义》etc.
We all know that China has no predominant religion, and that the term "Philosophy" has its Western origins... However, it may be contended that Confucianism has religious roots, as there is a form of ethical and moral guiding principle behind it. So, how should Confucianism be perceived in the Chinese society? Is it some sort of guiding principle in the Chinese way of life? What exactly is its significance in contemporary China? Are the post-80s and 90s youngsters concerned with Confucianism? Do they even practise any of its teachings?
Throughout the talk, a central takeaway: Instead of viewing China through Western lens, we need to understand China in the Chinese context, via her philosophy, culture and way of thought.
The talk kicked off with one of the most classic quotes from 《論語》:
有子曰：“禮之用，和為貴。先王之道，斯為美。小大由之，有所不行。知和而和，不以禮節之，亦不可行也。”---《論語，學而第一》
He made a comparison between Western and Chinese culture: the classic "Individualism VS Collectivism". Contrary to Western belief of an almighty God, the Chinese adopts a humanistic and more people-oriented approach in their daily personal relations. The "family system" (家庭制度) is highly emphasized, often seen as the root of social harmony (和) and stability.
Next up, it was a debate on Confucius's position toward justice and ethics.
葉公子高問於孔子曰：‘吾黨直躬者，其父攘羊，而子證之。何如？’孔子曰：‘不可。吾黨之直者異於是：父為子隱，子為父隱。’ --- 《邵氏聞見後錄卷十三》
In this case, Confucius believes that from the perspectives of filial piety (with reference to 《孝經》),the son should not testify against the father who stole a lamb. Is this ethical, is it justified? Can we still do this in modern society? Is Confucius's serving principle always just? Apparently, using the notion of "ethics" and "justice", we are viewing Confucianism from a Western lens. In the Chinese context, however, it may be regarded that personal relations form the bedrock of society. When this becomes distorted, perhaps it becomes a convenient excuse to corrupt? We need to note that, at times, Confucianism may seem irrational and unfair because it seems to prioritize personal relations over social justice.
Prof. Ames proceeded to illustrate how absolute principles can become a problem in real life: In the Hawaiian context, a princess of the Kamehameha Dynasty, established Kamehameha schools to educate native Hawaiians in the spirit of cultural preservation. It was intended to benefit indigents and orphans,with preference given to native Hawaiians. It became controversial because there were critics who claim that "everyone should have equal rights to education", and that the Kamehameha schools discriminate against the other races by denying them of a chance to be educated in these schools. Hence, this goes to show that we cannot rely on absolute principles to question these schools in this context. And similarly, China and the western world are vastly different. According to him, we should not be imposing American standards or theories (like Democracy? Human Rights? Freedom?) onto China. True, to a certain extent. But what political model has China adopted thus far? Authoritarian-styled? Pursuing economic development at all costs? The irony is that Chinese society has seemed to embrace Westernization in whole (in terms of expressions of liberalization in the people's way of lives), yet they bemoan and attribute the loss of tradition and culture to Westernization, instead of their own doing --- Cultural Revolution(!)
And when we talk about China, very often, the word "morality" comes into picture. Confucius talks about “恕”(Morality): 設身處地為他人著想 (Putting oneself in another's place and doing one's best (忠).“仁” is seen as a consummate person/conduct. Ethics is viewed as a form of sustaining satisfactory inter-personal relations.
Following which, Prof. Ames continued with a description of "human beings" (western concept - expressed by 2 disjointed sets) --> "human becomings" (chinese concept - the process of becoming humans; expressed by 2 overlapping sets) It is assumed that the growth of relationships justifies relations between people. The example of abortion was used to illustrate the point about "individuality": (1) It's the mother's right to abortion; (2) The fetus has the right to live. In this case, "individuality" as an accomplishment, becomes distinguished in relations.
There was constant emphasis on “仁 = 自愛”；“仁”在這個世界上永遠在“關系”中生長出來．This is manifested in Confucius's “因材施教” --> based on each disciple's personality, Confucius acknowledged each of their answers to “仁”. For instance，子贡：“使人愛己”；颜回：“自愛”（實際是愛別人，珍惜你和周圍人的一切)。
Also, potentiality is not an individual's problem, it's more interlinked with the external environment. Potentiality exists in a process and the importance of the surroundings cannot be more emphasized. Think 孟母三遷 => we can change our environments.
On Prof. Ames' new research: Role Ethics
君子務本，本立而道生。孝弟也者，其為人之本與？
The Question: 先有家庭還是先有人？
=> Roles as concrete "grandmother" him, "brother" him, etc! In role ethics, people base their personal relations on the roles they play. Concrete conduct is viewed as the source of principles and virtues. The "father" and "son" relation appeared simultaneously and is relative to each other.
