Class 3 - Sheep, Wayward Fathers and the Role of Argument in Moral Life

Welcome back

Today, we’re going to be talking about argument in different traditions. When I first designed this course, I called it “the arts of argument”. This name has changed over time, but I still believe that there is no one kind of argument, and no single art of argument. There are many different ways of arguing, and many different arts that go with these. So we’re going to explore these today.

Before we do this, let’s do the register, and then check in with some quick breakout groups.

Thinking between China and Greece

For your homework, you were asked to reflect on a very short passage (very short) from Confucius’s Analects, and then read a longer paper by Karyn Lai called ‘Understanding Confucian Ethics: Reflections on Moral Development.’ Lai’s paper explores Confucius’s text, and compares it with Plato’s Euthyphro.

Reading the text in context

Last time, I only gave you a small section of Confucius’s text. Then I gave you Lai’s paper to explore what this mysterious section might mean. But in this session, we will look at a larger section of the text. We’ll read this together.

The version quoted by Lai is a translation by Rosemont and Ames. We’re going to read a different translation, by Burton Watson — although the differences are neither huge nor significant. We’ll read chapter 13, verses 1-6 and 16 - 19.

Extract from Confucius’s Analects, translated Burton Watson.

1    Zilu asked about government. The Master said, Do it by leading, and by rewarding. Anything further, may I ask? The Master said, Never be neglectful.

2    Zhonggong, who was serving as steward to the Ji family, asked about government. The Master said, Your first concern should be the officers in your employ. Excuse minor shortcomings, and promote those of outstanding talent. How can I know those of outstanding talent in order to promote them? The Master said, Promote those you know to be worthy. As for those you don’t know, will others fail to mention them?

3    Zilu said, If the ruler of Wei were waiting for you, Master, to take charge of government affairs, what would you do first? The Master said, If I had to name my first action, I would rectify names. Zilu said, There—that’s why people say you are out of touch with reality! The Master said, How boorish you are, You (Zilu)! When a gentleman is confronted with something he does not understand, he should adopt a respectful attitude!

If names are not rectified, then speech will not function properly, and if speech does not function properly, then undertakings will not succeed. If undertakings do not succeed, then rites and music will not flourish. If rites and music do not flourish, then punishments and penalties will not be justly administered. And if punishments and penalties are not justly administered, then the common people will not know where to place their hands and feet.

Therefore, when the gentleman names a thing, that naming can be conveyed in speech, and if it is conveyed in speech, then it can surely be put into action. When the gentleman speaks, there is nothing arbitrary in the way he does so.

4    Fan Chi wanted to study how to grow grain. The Master said, In that line, I’d be less use to you than an old farmer. Fan Chi then wanted to study how to grow vegetables. The Master said, In that line, I’d be less use to you than an old vegetable grower.

After Fan Chi had left, the Master said, What a petty man, Fan Xu (Fan Chi)! If those in higher positions love ritual, then none of the common people will venture to be disrespectful. If those in higher positions love rightness, then none of the common people will venture to be disobedient. If those in higher positions love trustworthiness, then none of the common people will venture to act insincerely. And if such a condition prevails, then the people from the four lands adjacent, bearing their little children strapped to their backs, will gather around. What need to study grain growing?

5    The Master said, A man may be able to recite all three hundred odes, but if you assign him as an envoy to some neighboring state and he can’t give his answers unassisted, then no matter how many odes he might know, what good is he?

6    The Master said, If the person himself is correct, then although you do not order him to do so, he will act. But if the person himself is not correct, then although you order him, he will not obey.

[…]

16  The lord of She asked about government. The Master said, When those close by are happy, those from far away gather around.

17  When Zixia became steward of Jufu, he asked about government. The Master said, Don’t try to hurry things; don’t go after petty gain. Try to hurry, and you accomplish nothing. Go after petty gain, and the big undertakings won’t succeed.

18  Talking with Confucius, the lord of She said, In our district there’s a fellow called Honest Body. When his father stole a sheep, the son testified against him.

Confucius said, In our district the honest people are different from that. A father covers up for his son; a son covers up for his father. There’s honesty in that, too.

19  Fan Chi asked about humaneness. The Master said, In private life, be courteous; in handling affairs, respectful; in dealings with others, loyal. Even if you go among the Yi or Di tribes, these rules can never be put aside.

20  Zigong asked, How should one conduct himself in order to be called a man of station?

Here, there are four questions I want you to discuss:

1. How does this text hang together (if at all)?
2. How is the construction of the text different from the construction of the Euthyphro?
3. What kind of arguments are there in the text (if there are any at all)?
4. From your reading of Confucius, is Kant fair in his assessment that “a concept of virtue and morality never entered the heads of the Chinese”? What does he mean by “concept” here, and why does it matter?

Break

In the second half, we’re going to think about argument in different traditions.

Thinking about Argument Across Traditions

The reason I am sharing the Confucius text alongside the Euthyphro is not just because I want to explore the central question of whether we should all be taking our parents to court (!), but because — as we see in Lai’s paper — there are here not only very similar kinds of subject-matter, but also very different approaches to exploring this subject matter. There are questions here about different forms of argument, about how central argument should be to ethical life, and about what it means to engage in moral reasoning.

1. Socrates asks for definitions, not examples. What are the differences between these two things?
2. Confucius’s approach to giving moral advice is contextual: he will give different advice to different people. How is this different from Socrates’s approach?
3. Do we need definitions or underlying principles for moral decision making, or can we make moral decisions simply by accumulating an understanding of the decisions made by others?
4. What role does (or should) argument play in moral life or moral decision making more generally?
5. What are the arts of argument in the context of the communities of which you are a part.

Homework for the next session

By the end of this session, we should have seen that there are very different ways of going about argumentation. We are going to explore some more formal approaches next week.

The homework for the next session is to read Amartya Sen’s paper on the global roots of democracy. This is a fascinating paper that argues that democracy is not a matter of voting every four or five years, but a much deeper and more universal process of the public use of reason to reach collective agreement.

When you have read the paper, respond on the discussion board.