Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

論文

Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

NIU Geping ＊Introduction: why compare liberalism and Confucianism?
Liberalism and Confucianism are two traditions of political thinking which are originally unrelated. The
foundations of liberalism are to be found in the writings of 17th and 18th century authors such as Hobbes, Locke,or Rousseau. Many of its basic concepts, such as individual rights, democracy, constitutional state, the rule oflaw, have become to some extent common sense in the Western world. Confucianism, one of the major schools ofChinese political thinking, appeared during the Warring State Period, and was adopted as the state ideology forthe following 2000 years imperial China. Its central propositions concerning human virtues, benevolent
governance, the system of rites, etc. have become the core of traditional Chinese political culture.
These two independent traditions came into contact when China started its modernization process in thelatter half of the 19th century. Forced to face the invasion of mostly Western major powers, but including rapidly
modernizing Japan, China realized that its political ideology was strikingly different from the political thinking
in the West. At first, efforts were made to modernize the country while remaining within its old politicaltradition, but they mostly failed. Confucianism increasingly became regarded as the obstacle to Chinaʼs
modernization process. In the New Culture Movement of the late 1910s, leading Chinese intellectuals openly
claimed that China should reject Confucianism and turn to Western ideas such as democracy and science. It canbe said that Confucianism ceased to be the state ideology with the end of Chinaʼs pre-modern imperial history.
However, as a major traditional political thinking it continued to be an important concern throughout thehistory of modern China, even though its actual fate was dramatically fickle, being alternatively criticized or
praised depending on the vicissitudes of Chinaʼs political situation. On the other hand, liberalism has always
been a major source of aspiration for Chinaʼs modern political movements. Almost all governments in Chinaʼs
modern history claimed to be committed to democracy and to Chinaʼs political modernization. Major Westernpolitical concepts such as human rights, peopleʼs sovereignty, etc. are clearly inscribed in Chinaʼs constitution.
However, it must also be acknowledged that liberalism never completely succeeded to take root either in thethought of Chinese people, or in Chinaʼs political system.
This paper will compare these two major sources of political thinking in modern China, and explore theirdifferences and similarities. The purpose of this study, however, is not to argue which tradition is better for
Chinaʼs political reform. Liberalism is the dominant political thinking of modern western nation states, whichconstitutes the exemplar or target for Chinaʼs modernization, Confucianism fashioned the ancient Chinesestate, which is the object to be transformed, this comparison therefore may reveal some essential aspects of the

キーワード：リベラリズム、儒教、権利、道徳、国家＊立命館大学大学院先端総合学術研究科

2007年度入学

共生領域

235

Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

difficulty and complexity of Chinaʼs political modernization. Further, it might throw some light on anotherimportant question: to what extent can the conceptual resources of those two traditions be made to converge?
Since both liberalism and Confucianism are important traditions with long histories and much internal
differentiation and disagreements, it is impossible to compare them in an exhaustive manner. This research
paper will restrict its ambition to the examination of the most basic and general concepts of both as found insome classical texts from each. In the case of liberalism, I will mainly resort to the writings of Hobbes andLocke, and in the case of Confucianism, to those of early or pre-Qin（先秦）scholars, especially Confucius and
Mencius. After a short discussion on the different starting points of these two traditions, I will focus on two
points: first, a comparison of individual rights, a core concept in liberalism, and of human virtues, a central
concern in Confucianism; second, a comparison of the liberal constitutional state and the Confucian benevolent
state, the state theories of liberalism and of Confucianism respectively.

I The state of nature and ancient sage kings
One apparent difference between liberalism and Confucianism is that liberalism views itself as a newtheoretical creation, a break from previous traditions of Western political thinking, while Confucianism claims
that it is not an innovation, but an explanation of the good politics found in the past. １
A frequent starting point for liberal authors is ʻthe state of nature.ʼ For most authors, the state of nature isbasically a theoretical hypothesis, which is described as a pre-political state, i.e. the situation prior to theexistence of political power. According to Hobbes ２, individualsʼ pursuit of their own interests in the state ofnature will lead to a war of everyone against everyone. Thus, the state of nature is a state of anarchy, whereindividuals are living in constant fear and dangers. In order to escape this brutish condition, a ʻLeviathanʼ orsovereign state should be established. Liberalism thus views itself as a form of political thinking which answers
the question of how to construct a state starting from the state of nature, which constitutes the original
condition of humankind.
Confucianism for its part claims that its ideal political system is not a theoretical innovation, but has models
in antiquity, in the rule of ancient sage kings such as Yao/ 尧 , Shun/ 舜 , Yu/ 禹 , Tang/ 汤 , Wen/ 文 , Wu/ 武 .
Confucius/ 孔子 describes himself as, ʻa transmitter and not a maker, believing in and loving the ancients.ʼ ３ The
proclaimed goal of Confucianism is to restore the good system of governance of the antiquity. However in
Confucian classics, we also find descriptions of the situation in ʻremote antiquityʼ（上古）which to some extent
resemble ʻthe state of natureʼ. In Liji（『礼記』）there is a paragraph saying:
Formerly the ancient kings had no houses. In winter they lived in caves which they had excavated, and insummer in nests which they had framed. They knew not yet the transforming power of fire, but ate thefruits of plants and trees, and the flesh of birds and beasts, drinking their blood, and swallowing (also)
the hair and feathers. They knew not yet the use of flax and silk, but clothed themselves with feathers
and skins. The later sages then arose, and men (learned) to take advantage of the benefits of fire. They
molded the metals and fashioned clay, so as to rear towers with structures on them, and houses withwindows and doors. They toasted, grilled, boiled, and roasted. They produced must and sauces. They dealt
with the flax and silk so as to form linen and silken fabrics. They were thus able to nourish the living,
and to make offerings to the dead; to serve the spirits of the departed and God. In all these things wefollow the example of that early time. ４Thus, Confucianism is more concerned with the primitive living conditions or the technological backwardnessof ʻthe state of natureʼ. As the above description mentions ʻearly kingsʼ, this early state is not necessarily a prepolitical state as is the case with the state of nature of liberalism. Moreover, according to Confucianism, the236

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

sage kings who ended this ʻstate of natureʼ in remote antiquity and began the civilized period of antiquity not
only developed means for living, cooking, and clothing to improve the welfare of people, but also invented thesystem of li/ 礼 (rites) to organize and harmonize the society, which is the theme of the chapter Liyun in Liji.
Later on, with the death of the sage kings and the rise of tyrants, the system of rites were abused or abolished,and society fell into disorder.
Thus, for liberalism, the theory of the state of nature is a first and indispensible step in its theoreticalconstruction. It is a hypothetical description of the original condition of human beings. The focus is on how tobuild a state out of this pre-political state of nature. Confucianism believes, to the contrary, that ʻthe state ofnatureʼ actually existed in remote antiquity and was not pre-political. For Confucianism, ʻthe state of natureʼ is
not an important theoretical concern. Its focus is on how to restore the good system of the antiquity that isposterior to the existence of that early condition of humankind.

II Individual rights and human virtues
This part compares individual rights and human virtues, the core concepts of liberalism and Confucianism
respectively. The comparison focuses on three points: the underlying conceptions of equality, reciprocity, andfreedom found in both traditions.

2.1 equality
Individual rights constitute a fundamental claim in liberalism. Rights are something given, to which every
individual is equally entitled. In other words, human beings are regarded as morally equal as far as individual
rights are concerned. On the other hand, Confucianism is primarily concerned with human virtues, such as ren/
仁 (human heartedness) ,yi/ 義 (righteousness), li/ 礼 (propriety), zhi/ 智 (wisdom), xin/ 信 (faithfulness), etc.
According to Confucianism, virtues have to be cultivated and those who acquire more virtues become morally
superior to those who have acquire less. Hence, there is no equality as far as human virtues are concerned.
However, we cannot simply draw the conclusion that there is room for social equality only in liberalism, but
not in Confucianism. Actually both liberalism and Confucianism justify their claims concerning rights andvirtues with reference to the concept of nature. Both consider that equality constitutes a fundamental
dimension of human nature, though for liberalism it is to be found in the state of nature, while it is directly
present in ʻhuman natureʼ according to Confucianism. For Hobbes, in the state of nature, the capacity of bodyand mind of every individual should be regarded as equal inasmuch as the weakest one can kill the strongest.
Given that the most powerful human passion is the fear of violent death or the desire for self-preservation, it isa fundamental moral conclusion that in the state of nature each individual should have an equal right to selfpreservation. As time goes by, the list of individual rights in liberal tradition will get expanded. Already in
Locke, apart from the right to self-preservation, the right to property also constitutes a primary individual rightin the state of nature, which is justified by individualsʼ desire to pursue the means of happiness.
Mencius/ 孟子 , the most famous Confucian theorist after Confucius, provides the justification of humanvirtues by relating them to human nature. Mencius argues that human nature is essentially good. Every
human being equally has in his nature the beginnings or sprouts of those human virtues advocated in
Confucianism. Mencius says ʻThe sense of concern for others (or sympathy) is the starting point of Humaneness.
The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Rightness. The sense of humility and deference is thestarting point of Propriety and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom.ʼ ５ According to
Mencius, if these four beginnings are allowed to reach their complete development, one will become a sage.
Thus, in liberalism, equal rights draw their justification directly from the ʻequalʼ condition of all individuals

237

Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

in the state of nature, that is, a largely equal capacity in mind and body, and the same passion of fear of violent
death and desire for good life. More generally in liberalism, and not only in Hobbes, there is a kind of prepolitical equality which is preserved when men enter the political order and that is central for its construction.
In Confucianism, human virtues are said to have their foundation in human nature, which endowed every one
equally. It is a primary proposition of Confucianism that everyone has the possibility or potentiality to develop
his virtues and to become a sage. If we raise here Senʼs question: ʻthe equality of what?ʼ we find that, in
liberalism, the answer is the equality of rights, while in Confucianism, it is the equality in the foundation ofvirtues, that is to say, the good of human nature. Equality in both liberalism and Confucianism is essentiallyapplied in the same level, that of human nature. ６
It is true that according to Confucianism virtues must be cultivated with effort. Thus the resulting degree ofdifferent individualsʼ virtues may be different and those who have acquired a higher degree of virtues are
regarded as superior to those who acquired less. In this sense equality is absent here. Yet, it should be
remembered that in liberalism, even if equality is a central characteristic of individual rights, equal rights do
not entail equality in all aspects of human society. For example, in the case of property right, as far as the right
per se is concerned, all individuals are equal, but the freedom to accumulate as much property as one can will
inevitably lead to economic inequality. Liberal individual rights in this case rather constitute a justification of
economic inequality. In consequence, both Confucianism and liberalism similarly justify certain forms of social
inequality by reference to difference in the agentsʼ effort and wisdom, as they proceed from an original positionof equality.

2.2 Reciprocity
Another obvious difference between these two traditions is that liberalism proposes individualism while
Confucianism is essentially against it. In liberalism human beings live as solitary individuals in the state ofnature that exists prior to civil society. It follows that the rights with which all individuals are naturally
endowed are essentially subjective rights. These are ultimate and inalienable and the state and civil society are
constructed on this individualist basis, i.e. state power is derived from individual rights, and the role of thestate is to guarantee individual rights.
In contradiction, in Confucianism human virtues are defined as essentially social. The most importantconcept in Confuciusʼ The Analects/『論語』is Ren/ 仁 , which is usually translated as ʻthe perfect virtue,ʼ ʻhumanheartedness,ʼ ʻhumaneness,ʼ or ʻhumanity.ʼ The Chinese character ren/ 仁 is composed of two characters, onemeans human/ 人 , and the other means two/ 二 . Confucius uses this concept to define the complete or perfectvirtue of humans in relations to each other. Another important concept in Confucianism is li / 礼 . In the case ofindividual cultivation, li, propriety, refers to the proper manners and conduct of a person in his relationshipwith others. The relationship between Ren and li is somewhat like the relation between essence and form. On
the one hand, without propriety, human virtues can become faults. Confucius says in Analects that,ʻRespectfulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes laborious bustle; carefulness, without the rules ofpropriety, becomes timidity; boldness, without the rules of propriety, becomes insubordination;straightforwardness, without the rules of propriety, becomes rudeness.ʼ ７ On the other hand, without being
sincere or truly virtuous, proper manners tend to be hypocritical and meaningless. Confucius says: ʻIf a man bewithout the virtues proper to humanity, what has he to do with the rites of propriety?ʼ ８ ʻFine words, aninsinuating appearance, and excessive respect - Zuo Qiu Ming was ashamed of them. I also am ashamed ofthem. To conceal resentment against a person, and appear friendly with him - Zuo Qiu Ming was ashamed ofsuch conduct. I also am ashamed of it.ʼ ９
Thus rights in liberalism are inalienable properties of individuals, while in Confucianism human beings can

238

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

only acquire and practice their virtues in their social relationships. However, both individual rights and humanvirtues are essentially dealing with the same problem: to define the basic principle of human relationship. Bothof them similarly propose something like reciprocity as the fundamental principle of social relations.
In liberalism, though rights are endowed to individuals independently of their social relations, individual
rights nonetheless constitute a framework which limits and constraints possible social relationships. The
general concept of individual rights implies that others have a duty to respect, or not to violate a personʼsrights. And though the concept of rights is absent from Confucianism, it is not difficult to discern behind oneʼs
moral obligations to others something that is close to rights when viewed from the position of those ʻothersʼ. For
example, the moral obligation of a son to be filial（孝）to his father implies that the father is entitled to enjoy
his sonʼs filial piety, or that the father has the ʻrightʼ to expect his son to be filial in his relation towards him.
Moreover, corresponding to the sonʼs obligation to be filial, a father should be kind（慈）to his son, which also
implies that the son has the ʻrightʼ to his fatherʼs kindness. As Theodore de Bary points out, ʻthe root of filial
piety lies in the parentsʼ solicitude for the child, and what the child is to do for them comes as a natural
response to their prior love, concern, and care.ʼ10
Thus, in liberalism, rights imply duties, while in Confucianism, duties also imply ʻrightsʼ or reasonable
expectations that form the basis for a personʼs justified claim. Further, behind both rights and virtues is asimilar principle of reciprocity. When his disciple Zigong asked him whether there is one word which may serve
as a rule of practice for all oneʼs life, Confucius answers, ʻIs not reciprocity such a word? What you do not wantdone to yourself, do not do to others.ʼ This answer is exactly the same as Hobbesʼ description of the sum of thelaws of nature: ʻnot to treat others as you do not wish them to treat youʼ. When Kant discusses the formal rulesof moral practice, he proposes the first formulation of the categorical imperative as that your maxim of action
could become a universal law. This is very similar to the Confucian concept shu/ 恕 , which means you should
put your self in the position of others.11

2.3 freedom
Another difference between liberalism and Confucianism concerns their understanding of freedom. In
liberalism, closely related to individual rights is the concept of freedom/liberty. In classical liberalism,
individual rights are interpreted as liberty; if a person has a right to do something, then he is free to do it.
According to Hobbes, the right of self-preservation in the state of nature means that an individual is free to do
whatever he thinks fit for his self-preservation. As Hobbes says, ʻThe right of nature… is the liberty each man
hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own
life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be theaptest means thereunto.ʼ12
Though later liberal authors interpret the meaning of liberty in a different context, i.e. the context of civilsociety, their ways of understanding it are not essentially different from that of early authors. According to John
Stuart Mill, freedom means that you can do whatever you want to do as long as you do no threat othersʼ liberty.
Mill says, ʻThe only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns
others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his
own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.ʼ13 Isaiah Berlin argues that the concept of liberty or freedom inliberalism is that of negative freedom in the sense that it does not say what a person should do, but simply
what he or she cannot; within the framework of laws individuals should be able to pursue different ends
without interference by others.
Unlike individual rights, human virtues in Confucianism define what a person should be, and thus appear
somewhat as the opposite of freedom. Furthermore, in liberalism, individuals are free to develop among

239

Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

themselves whatever social relations they see fit as long as they respect each otherʼs rights, while in
Confucianism, virtues define not only what a complete human being should be, but also what a good society
should be.
However, we cannot draw the conclusion that in Confucianism obligations toward society take precedence inrelation to individual values. Confucian virtues just like liberal rights are subjective. That is, they are qualitiesof human being considered as a subjective agent. An individual person can have or acquire them on the solebasis that he or she is a human being. In Confucianism, to cultivate oneʼs virtues equals to the pursuit of thecompleteness of oneʼs humanity, something that may be described as a form of positive freedom, in the sense of
Berlin.14
It is actually the belief of Confucius that the perfect virtue of ren should constitute the ultimate and lifelong
pursuit of human beings, and he sees it as the call of the Heaven/ 天 . Confucius says that ʻThe determined
scholar and the man of virtue will not seek to live at the expense of injuring their virtue. They will evensacrifice their lives to preserve their virtue complete.ʼ15 Mencius inherited Confucius concept of Heaven andapplied it to his theory on human nature. According to Mencius, nature is what the Heaven has given to us. To
try to understand this and to make great effort to nourish oneʼs nature and to cultivate the perfect humanvirtue with single-mindedness is the way toward self-realization and the fulfillment of the calling of heaven.16
If we relate the problem of freedom with that of equality as it was discussed in former section, we can saythat in liberalism economic and other inequalities are the result of individualsʼ exercise of his negative freedom,
while in Confucianism, social hierarchy and inequalities are justified in relation to the different efforts incultivating Confucian virtues as the pursuit of a positive freedom.
In short, if as far their core concepts are concerned, liberalism and Confucianism appear to be very different
from each other, i.e. rights are equally given to every one while persons are ʻunequalʼ in virtuousness; rights
independently belong to individuals while virtues are socially defined; rights are directly related to the freedomof individual while virtues define what a person should do. However, it is also possible to find some essential
similarities between these two traditions. For the justification of rights and virtues, both liberalism andConfucianism resort to human nature, and both also argue in favor of a certain natural equality of all humanbeings. Further, both rights and virtues similarly refer to the principle of reciprocity in the management ofsocial interactions. Finally, both rights and virtues are related to human self-realization and freedom, thoughliberalism interprets freedom negatively while Confucianism argues in favor something like positive freedom.
As we will now see, these differences and similarities of individual rights and human virtues have important
implications for the state theories of liberalism and of Confucianism that will be examined in the following part.

III The liberal constitutional state and the Confucian benevolent state
Though Confucianism is often regarded as essentially a form of moral teaching, while liberalism is not, as isclearly shown by their respective emphasis on moral virtues and rights/freedom, both liberalism andConfucianism are essentially political philosophies, whose major concern is state power. We compare liberalism
and Confucianism in relation to the two following issues: first, the necessity and the way to establish the state,and second, the form and function of the state.

3.1 why a state?
Both liberalism and Confucianism argue that there should be a form of centralized political power, the state,
to govern the society, though they have different understanding of this fundamental claim and explanation of
its necessity. For liberalism, state power is necessary to guarantee individual rights. According to Hobbes, in the240

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

state of nature, every individual has the absolute right of self-preservation. However, this very right, where
there is no common power to assure its proper application, leads to the situation of war of every one against
every one. As a result individuals live in poor and dangerous circumstances, and the goal for which this rightexists, self-preservation, cannot be realized. In a sense, it is not only the goal, but the right itself that cannot berealized, and, in that sense, does not exist. In order to get out of this miserable situation, a unified politicalpower or state that will guarantee the security and order of society needs to be established.17
In the case of Confucianism, the government is needed to promote human virtues. As mentioned earlier, thevirtues advocated by Confucianism are essentially socially defined. Confucius says, ʻNow the man of perfectvirtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks
also to enlarge others.ʼ18 In order to pursue the perfect virtue himself, a person must try to promote the virtuesof others as well. And the most important way to do this is through the state. When Yanyuan, one of his best
disciples, asked him about ren (the perfect human virtue), Confucius answered that ren is to take upon yourself
the mission of restoring the system of li (rites). Here, li is interpreted as the ideal social and politicalinstitutions of Zhou dynasty.19
Thus, if now we consider individual rights and human virtues as the way in which liberalism andConfucianism understand humanity, we can discern in each a similar dialectical relationship between humanity
and state power In both liberalism and Confucianism, the primary and ultimate principle is humanity, either inthe form of rights or of virtues. However, since neither rights nor virtues can be “realized” without a central
power, both liberalism and Confucianism consider that the centralized power of the state is crucial to guarantee
or promote humanity understood either as rights or as virtues.
As we discussed above in section 2.2, notwithstanding all the differences, individual rights and human virtues
essentially imply the same principle in social relationships, i.e., the principle of reciprocity, or more exactly themoral rule of ʻnot to treat others as you do not wish them to treat youʼ. Rights imply duty in liberalism, whileobligations imply something similar to rights in Confucianism. However, we must emphasize the word ʻimplyʼ
here. For liberalism, the duty to respect othersʼ rights is derived from the more primary principle of individual
rights. In the state of nature, this duty is only a ʻmoralʼ one, which could be, and actually are, easily ignored. It
is only after the establishment of state power that this duty becomes ʻlegalʼ and enforceable. Similarly inConfucianism, it is only in a well governed society where social rules and customs are generally observed, aperson can have a legitimate expectation of something similar to ʻrightsʼ implied by others obligations. In otherwords, it is the state that make the principle of reciprocity behind rights and virtues be really applied in society.

3.2 how to establish the state?
In liberalism, the way to establish a common wealth is theoretically through a social contract, in which every
individual forsakes his right to use violence and transfers it to the state. Hobbes defines a common wealth asʻone person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves
every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, fortheir peace and common defense.ʼ20 A central idea behind social contract theory is that subjects should be theauthors of the laws to which they are subjected.
The establishment of the state constitutes the transformation from the pre-political state of nature to thepolitical unity of all individuals. While in the state of nature every individual could use violence to protect his
own person, there now is a stateʼs monopoly of legitimate violence. Thus, the state constitutes in a way thenegation of the state of nature and the sovereign power imposes essential restrictions on the way individuals
can maintain their rights. However, according to social contract theory, the legitimacy of the state is based on
the agreements of all individuals, which implies that its sovereignty is essentially derived from individual241

Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

rights. Unlike Hobbes, who argues that once a Leviathan is established, subjects loose all right to revolt or
rebel,21 Locke argues that the social contract also allows subjects to overthrow a tyrannical government. It later
on became common sense within liberalism that citizens have equal political rights and that the legitimacy ofthe state should periodically be reconfirmed through democratic elections.22
In Confucianism, it is the responsibility of morally superior men ( 君子 ) to serve the sate and to promote thewelfare and order of society. Zilu, one of Confucius disciples, says, ʻNot to take office is not righteous…A superior
man takes office, and performs the righteous duties belonging to it.ʼ23 And Zixia, another disciple of Confucius,says, ʻThe officer, having discharged all his duties, should devote his leisure to learning. The student, having
completed his learning, should apply himself to be an officer.ʼ24 Actually, many of Confuciusʼ outstanding
disciples went to serve the governments. And Confucius himself spent many years traveling from one state toanother, persuading rulers to adopt his political thinking.
According to Confucianism, the ideal king should be a sage, a person who is perfectly virtuous and wise. The
sage king should have the sovereign power to rule the society. On the other hand, Confucianism acknowledges
that in reality the ruler might not be a sage but a tyrant. In this case, it is argued that the tyrant ruler can be
replaced. Revolution/ 革命 is an important concept in Confucianism. According to Mencius, the state power isgiven to the ruler by the Heaven, depending on whether he can gain the heart of the people. Should a ʻso-calledrulerʼ fail to gain the people, he will lose that which makes him a ruler and become a ʻmere fellowʼ and be
displaced by the Heaven.
Thus, since rights are equally given to every individual while virtues need to be cultivated with effort and inconsequence cannot be ʻequalʼ among all, political equality constitutes a primary principle of liberal state theory
while it is absent from Confucianism. In the social contract theory, it is fundamental for every individual toagree with the terms establishing the central power. Or more generally, in liberal democracy, every citizen in
principle has an equal political right to participate in electing the stateʼs leader. In Confucianism, to thecontrary, it is the responsibility of morally superior men to pursue state officialdom and to run government.
Morally inferior people, who are also designated as ʻsmall menʼ/ 小人 , do not have any say in state affairs. Thus,
in comparison to a democratic liberal state, the Confucian state might be better defined as the rule of the elite.
Since the end of state power is to promote rather than harm humanity, the state power must be founded onhumanity. In liberalism, in order for the state to guarantee individual rights, the state must be establishedthrough social contract that is based on individual rights. While for Confucianism, in order for the state topromote human virtues, it must be run by those who have acquired higher virtues. As mentioned earlier, in
Confucianism, though the virtues become different through cultivation, the ultimate foundation of humanvirtues, i.e. the good human nature, is bestowed on every human being equally. Hence, it is also a principle ofConfucianism, or at least implicitly assumed, that every one could cultivate his virtue, and correspondingly, be
responsible for the government of the state. On the other hand, though the ideal state should be run by a sage
ruler and virtuous official, in reality the ruler may not be a sage and is urged to follow the teaching ofConfucianism. Thus, according to Confucianism, though the ruler is politically super to his subjects, he is not
morally superior to the people as a whole, especially to excellent Confucian scholars. Furthermore, whene state
power falls into the hand of a tyrant, he can be overturned by the people as a whole.

3.3 the form of the state
The liberal state is essentially a constitutional state. The power of the state and the structure of thegovernment are constitutionally defined. As discussed above, in liberalism individual rights are ultimate; they
constitute not only the origin but also the limits of state power. Liberalism is in consequence much concernedwith threats to individual rights and freedom that come from the public authority. Constitutional safeguards

242

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

are intended to protect individual liberty. The focus of liberal state theory then is to build institutions that will
make it difficult, if not impossible, for public powers to violate the fundamental rights of individuals.
One major principle underlying these institutions is the separation and balance of power, which was famously
expounded by Montesquieu. In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu points out that there can be no liberty if all thepowers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistrates. Accordingly, he proposed that thelegislative, executive and judicial power should be exercised by various branches of government. These andother constitutional restraints of state power are designed to solve the problem that the government, which is
supposed to guarantee individual rights, might constitute a threat to individual rights and liberty.
In liberalism, even if all individuals have an equal political right to elect the government, they are notexpected to directly participate in running the state. The sovereign power is to be held by theirrepresentative(s). Benjamin Constant, in his The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns,
criticizes the concept of peopleʼs sovereignty advocated by Rousseau. Constant points out that collective notionof liberty related to direct democracy belongs to an ancient time; the liberty of the moderns, as it exists in acommercial society, he argues, is essentially an individual notion. It requires representative democracy andliberal constitutional state to allow individuals to freely pursue their private ends. ʻWhen you establish that thesovereignty of the people is unlimited,ʼ writes Constant, ʻyou creates and tosses at random into human society a
degree of power which is too large in itself, and which is bound to constitute an evil, in whatever hands it is beplaced.ʼ25
Compared to liberalism which is centrally concerned with the institutional structure of the state,
Confucianism is mostly concerned with the morality of the ruler. Mencius explicitly proposes the concept of
benevolent governance ( 仁政 ), which means to rule with ren/ 仁 (the perfect virtue) and yi/ 義 (righteousness).
According to Mencius, only if the policies promulgated by the king are on behalf of the people, will his subjects
delight in obeying him, in consequence more people will come to live in his kingdom, and the state will become
powerful and will be able to avoid destruction from other strong states. There is one famous saying in Mengzi:
ʻThe people are the most important element in a nation; the spirits of the land and grain are the next; thesovereign is the lightest. Therefore to gain the peasantry is the way to become sovereign…ʼ26
However, notwithstanding these different points of emphasis, the purpose of both is to ensure that the state
will serve, rather than harm, the interest of the people. As mentioned earlier, since Confucianism understands
humanity as the cultivation of human virtues, a state whose end is to promote human virtues must necessarily
be a benevolent state. If the common people are to try to pursue the perfect virtue of ren and to behave with li/
propriety, it must be the case that the sage ruler should rule with benevolence (the political application of ren),and in accordance with the system of li /rites. For liberalism, everyone is assumed to be equally endowed withequal rights, independently of any virtues which they may otherwise acquire. Correspondingly, there is a kind of
separation or discontinuity between individual virtues and political order. Hence, in order to guarantee
individual rights, liberalism does not appeal to individual morality or to the virtues of the ruler, but rather
resorts to constitutional restraints to make sure that those who rule will not use their power to harm thecitizens.

3.4 the function of the state
For liberalism, the primary function of the state is to safeguard individual rights and freedom through therule of law. As Bobbio points out, through the rule of law, individual rights are transformed from a system ofrights in the weak sense, that is to say, natural rights in the state of nature, to a system of rights in the strong
sense, legal rights guaranteed by the stateʼs power.27
However, which rights should individuals have and should the state guarantee is an open question. Generally

243Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

speaking, as T.H. Marshall points out, individual rights in history have slowly expanded from civil and politicalrights to social rights.28 Originally, liberalism was concerned mainly with civil rights, such as the right to life,
the right to property, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc. This is in agreement with the fundamental
liberal idea of the autonomy of civil society and of noninterference on the part of the state. The role of the stateis only to guarantee the basic conditions of civil society through the rule of laws.
The concept of social rights and the institution of welfare state are a later development in liberalism. It is
now generally agreed that the state has a responsibility to provide a minimum level of social security to all of
its citizens, including education, medical care, etc. However, since the guarantee of social rights requires stateinterference and redistribution of resources, the position of liberalism towards social rights remains ambiguous.
Some conservative liberal authors, such as Hayek, see the concept of social right as exterior and contradictory
to liberalism. Others, like Marshall and Rawls, regard social rights as the natural consequence of civil andpolitical rights, and thus as an integral part of liberalism.
On the other hand, the major role of the Confucian state is to promote the moral order of society through thesystem of rites. According to Confucius, the king should rule with virtues/ 徳 and according to li/ 礼 (propriety
or rites). Confucius argues that the rule of virtues and rites is essentially superior to ruling with punitive laws.
The system of laws can only be a supplement to the system of rites. Punishing the people without firsteducating them is tyranny. Confucius says, ʻIf the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given themby punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, anduniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover
will become good.ʼ29
At the same time, Confucianism argues that that cultivation of human virtues is possible only when thepeople enjoy moderately comfortable living conditions. Thus, before educating its people and promoting theirsocial morality, the benevolent state must first of all guarantee their basic subsistence through equal
distribution of lands and proper management of the economy.
Thus, as far as the function of the state is concerned, the primary concern of liberalism is to guarantee
individual rights and liberty through the rule of laws. The state is not supposed to interfere with the autonomyof civil society. It is only later on that liberalism began to acknowledge that the state should provide a minimalsocial security to its citizens. To the contrary, the primary role of the Confucian state is to promote humanvirtues with the system of li/rites. And in order to do this the Confucian state must first of all directly interferewith the economy to guarantee a good living to all its subjects.
In spite of these differences, for both liberalism and Confucianism, the role of the state is to serve the society
through guaranteeing or promoting humanity, though they have different understanding of what constitutes
humanity, and accordingly what the relation of state and society should be. An autonomous civil society cannot
exist outside a liberal constitutional state and without a Confucian benevolent state a Confucian society cannot
prosper. In both liberalism (modern) and Confucianism, the state has to provide minimal social welfare, such as
the means to subsistence, education, etc., but the relative importance of this function of the state is quite
different in the two political traditions. In liberalism, basic social welfare is a condition necessary for
individuals to really be able to enjoy the rights and liberty to which they are entitled. In Confucianism, a goodliving is a precondition for cultivating human virtues.

Conclusion
The different state theories of liberalism and Confucianism can thus be related to their respective claims
concerning individual rights and human virtues. Liberalism argues in favor of a constitutional state which

244

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues

guarantees the basic conditions of an autonomous civil society; Confucianism insists on the need of a benevolent
state, which promotes the well-being and moral order of society. Notwithstanding these differences, bothliberalism and Confucianism similarly provide a justification of centralized state power which is defined inrelation to their normative understanding of humanity. For both of them, the state role is to serve society
through guaranteeing or promoting humanity (understood in each traditionʼs own way).
This comparison might help us to explain the tangling of these two political traditions in the history ofmodern China. When China failed to prevent modern statesʼ invasion and was forced to start modernizing, what
was first noticed were the striking differences between Chinaʼs traditional political thinking and thedominating western political thinking. Thus at the beginning of 20th century, the New Culture Movement
strongly criticized Confucianism and promoted Western liberal concepts of rights, freedom, equality, anddemocracy.
However, under the imperial system of modern states, a small number of scholars and studentsʼ adopting
western political thinking were not able to change China into a modern state.30 China finally succeeded its
independence (and partially its modernization) by turning to communism, which was originally a criticism ofliberalism, and somewhat resembles the vague Confucian utopian ideal of the Grand Union/ 大同社会 . But
actually, the complete state control of economy and society in communist China (in the pre-reform period)
actually openly denied both liberal rights/freedom and Confucian virtues. This is because, in both liberalism
and Confucianism, the role of the state is to serve the society, to guarantee or promote either the negative or the
positive freedom of the individuals, while in communist China, the state was dominating the society;individuals lost their subjectivity and were turned into components of the state machinery.
With the fading of the communist ideology in the last quarter of 20th century, it seems that liberalism, its
Western ideological rival, is gaining an important audience in China. At the same time, last two decades also
saw a resurgence of Confucianism, which is now regarded as the representative of traditional Chinese culture.
However, it seems that neither liberalism nor Confucianism are really understood and applied in present day
China. The recourse to liberalism relates more to economic reform, with the purpose of justifying the reductionof social welfare, while Confucianism is implicitly used to justify the ʻnon-Western-style-democraticʼ character ofChinaʼs political system. However, liberalismʼs ambiguous attitude toward social rights is based on its moreessential claim concerning individual rights and its fear of the arbitrary use of state power. Further,notwithstanding controversies concerning social rights, modern liberalism in the West has largely managed toincorporate social rights into its system, as shown by the growth of the welfare state. Thus, the emphasis of thenoninterference principle of liberalism in todayʼs China largely ignored liberalismʼs primary concern for
individual rights and democracy as well as the welfare function of modern liberal states. On the other hand, it
is true that constitutional restraints of state power are lacking in Confucianism, but this is related to its
emphasis on the cultivation of human virtues and correspondingly on the benevolence of the ruler. In
consequence, it is clear that the rampant corruption that results in China from the lack of constitutional limiton the power of state officials certainly could not be approved by Confucianism.
Not surprisingly discussions concerning the difference or similarity of these two forms of political thinking
also revived. Unlike the intellectuals of the New Culture Movement who saw Confucianism as the obstacle to
Chinaʼs modernization process, it seems that most present day scholars are reinterpreting Confucianism tomake it more compatible to liberal political thinking.31 But there are also some scholars, for example, Jiang
Qing, who insists that Confucian political thinking is essentially different from and even superior to liberalism
in many of its aspects, and who argue that China should reform its political system essentially on the basis ofConfucian political thinking, and, if necessary, adopt Western methods but only as means and not as ends.32
In conclusion, this comparison of liberalism and Confucianism brings out the essential differences and245

Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

similarities in their understandings of humanity, equality, freedom, society, as well as the form and function of
the state. As the dominating forms of political thinking in modern West and in ancient China respectively,
liberalism and Confucianism constitute two major resources of political thinking in todayʼs China, the politicalmodernization of which is still an ongoing process. This study indicates some possible convergence in these twoconceptual resources, which might facilitate the creation of a new moral and political philosophy that is needed
for Chinaʼs political modernization.

NOTES
１

However, we should not entirely believe those claims. As many authors have pointed out, liberalismʼs debt to previous traditionsof Western political thinking is much greater than it tends to admit, and Confucianism actually constitutes a much more novel
political thinking than it pretends.

２

Hobbes is regarded as one of the founding farther of liberalism, though Hobbes himself is usually not regarded as a liberal andhis Leviathan is clearly a non-democratic state.

３

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1088&if=en The Analects 7/1. Most of the quotations of the English translation ofConfucian classics in this paper are from the website of Chinese Text Project http://ctext.org (on March, 3, 2011), mainly for theconvenience of the readers. The quotations in this paper provided in the website are all from the works of James Legge.
４

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=9871&if=en Liji, the chapter of Liyun.

５

http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/mencius.html#div-4#ixzz0qRyWsBse (on March, 3, 2011) Mengzi, 2/A/6.

６

Amartya Sen, Inequality Reexamined, ʻEquality of What?ʼ Oxford University Press, 1992.

７

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1089&if=en The Analects, 8/2.

８

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1084&if=en The Analects, 3/3.

９

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1086&if=en The Analects, 5/25.

10

Wm. Theodore de Bary. The Trouble with Confucianism. p. 33. Harvard University Press. 1996.

11

For detailed comparison of Kantʼs moral philosophy and Confucian moral philosophy, see the works of MOU Zongsan ( 牟宗三 ).

12Thomas Hobbes Leviathan volume two, p. 104.

13

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays. p. 14. Oxford University Press. 2008.

14

A core principle of Kantʼs moral philosophy is that individual gives his own laws, which is based on, and is the indication of, thefreedom of the person. Understood in this way, freedom seems to be more than ʻnegativeʼ.
15

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1096&if=en The Analects, 15/9.

16

Unlike Mencius who speaks of an ethical Heaven, Xunzi/ 荀子 , the most important figure in Confucian school after Mencius,regards heaven as an expression of a mechanistic nature. And he argues that human nature is evil, and goodness is only acquired
training. According to Xunzi, if natural desires are given free rein, the result will be inevitably undesirable; hence desires need to be
kept in proper restraint by the mind through its power of cogitation. And if one tries to develop his mind with sincerity and to
pursue human virtues and practice righteousness with unswerving singleness of purpose, one will be transformed to a sage. Not
withstanding the difference between their opinions on human nature, both Mencius and Xunzi assert that human being shouldcultivate virtues, and they try to justify the cultivation of human virtues in relation to human nature. The general Confucian
understanding after virtues is actually a compromise between these two opposing opinions, though in appearance it follows
Menciusʼ proposition that human nature is good.
17

Lockeʼs version of the state of nature is less dark than that of Hobbes. For Locke, a central political power is needed in order to get

out of the ʻinconveniencyʼ of the state of nature. Notwithstanding this difference, the logic of these two authors is basically the same.
18

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1087&if=en The Analects, 6/30. 夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲達而達人。

19

The Analects, 12/1. 克己復禮為仁。There are different understandings as to the meaning of this sentence. Here, I takes LIU Yongjiʼs interpretation. A different translation is ʻTo subdue one's self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue.ʼ See http://chinese.
dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1093&if=en

20

Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes Leviathan; volume two. p. 137. Continuum international publishing group, 2005.

21

It is true that Hobbes recognizes that a criminal about to be executed has the right to resist. However, there is a difference
between the individualʼs right to ptotect his or her own life and a political right to rebellion, something which Hobbes rejects.

246

NIU Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues
22

The problem of democracy is surely more complicated. It is true that both Hobbes and Locke argue that social contract iscompatible to not only the state form of democracy but also to that of monarchy and oligarchy. But the general conception of
democracy is now more related to the process of choosing government through universal elections. Democracy understood in thisway is clearly related to and can be justified by the social contract theory, which might to some extent explain why democracy has
become a central claim of modern liberal political thinking, though it is not so important in the early writings of liberalism.

23

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1099&if=en The Analects, 18/7.

24

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1100&if=en The Analects, 19/13.

25

Benjamin Constant, Political Writings, trans. and ed. by Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p.
176.

26

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1840&if=en Menzi, 7/60.

27

Noberto Bobbio, The Age of Rights, translated by Allan Cameron, Polity Press, 1996, p. 47-60.

28

T. H. Marshall. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press, 1992.

29

http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=1083&if=en The Analects, 2/3.

30

Liberalism is essentially the political principle applied within modern nation state, and it is different from the principles
regulating relationship among modern states and the principles which deal with countries which are not turned into modern nation
states. I will not discuss this issue in this paper.

31

As for a discussion from the perspective of Confucianism, see Confucius and Modern China/『孔子与当代中国』陈来，甘䧈主编。

生活读书新知三联书店，2008 年 7 月。
32

蒋庆，『政治儒学』(Political Confucianism) 台湾：養正堂文化。2002 年。

Selected references
Berlin, Isaiah. Four essays on liberty. Oxford : Oxford Univ.Pr. , 1979.
Bobbio, Noberto, The Age of Rights, translated by Allan Cameron, Polity Press, 1996.
Constant, Benjamin, Political Writings, trans. and ed. by Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
de Bary, Wm. Theodore. The Trouble with Confucianism. p. 33. Harvard University Press. 1996.
de Montesquieu, Baron, The spirit of laws. New York : Hafner Press, 1949.
Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, translated by Derk Bodde. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas, Thomas Hobbes Leviathan; volume two. Continuum international publishing group, 2005.
Liu Xiusheng, Mencius, Hume and the Foundations of Ethics, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Dover publication. New edition. 2002.
Marshall, T. H. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto Press. 1992.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford University Press. 2008.
Rawls, John, A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Sen, Amartya, Inequality Reexamined, Oxford University Press, 1992.
Shu, Henry, Basic Rights, Princeton University Press, 1996.
Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History, the University of Chicago Press, 1959.
蒋庆，『政治儒学』(Political Confucianism) 台湾：養正堂文化。2002 年。
『孔子与当代中国』(Confucius and Modern China) 陈来，甘䧈主编。生活读书新知三联书店，2008 年 7 月。
勇永佶 ,『中国官文化批判』（A Critique of Chinese Bureaucratic Culture）。北京：中国经济出版社，2000。
牟宗三，『中国哲学的特质』（The Characteristics of Chinese Philosophy）上海：上海古籍出版社，2007。
Chinese Text Project http://ctext.org

247Core Ethics Vol. 7（2011）

Liberalism and Confucianism: Rights and Virtues
NIU Geping
Abstract:
This paper compares liberalism, the dominant political thinking of the modern Western nation state (whichconstitutes the exemplar of Chinaʼs modernization), and Confucianism, which fashioned the ancient Chinesestate (the object to be transformed). After a short discussion on the different starting points of these two
traditions, the paper draws two main comparisons: first, that of individual rights, a core concept in liberalism,and human virtues, a central concern in Confucianism; second, that of the liberal constitutional state and theConfucian benevolent state. In particular, the paper finds that the different state theories of liberalism andConfucianism are related to their respective claims concerning individual rights and human virtues. Morespecifically, liberalism argues in favor of a constitutional state which guarantees the basic conditions of anautonomous civil society, while Confucianism insists on the need of a benevolent state which promotes the wellbeing and moral order of society. Notwithstanding these differences, both liberalism and Confucianism provide
a justification of centralized state power which is defined in relation to their normative understanding of
humanity, based on either individual rights or human virtues, respectively. Also, for both of them, the state role
is to serve society through guaranteeing or promoting humanity understood in each traditionʼs own way.

Keywords: liberalism, Confucianism, rights, virtues, state

リベラリズムと儒教―権利と道徳―

牛

革

平

要旨：
本論文はリベラリズムと儒教を比較する。前者は中国の近代化の模範とされている近代西洋国民国家における支配的な政治思想であり、後者は変革の対象としての古代中国のイデオロギーである。二つの理論の異なる出発点について簡略に検討した上で、以下の二点において比較を行った。第一に、両者の核心概念としての権利と道徳との比較であり、第二にリベラル的な立憲国家と儒教的な仁政国家との比較である。比較した結果は、リベラリズムと儒教の異なった国家理論がそれぞれの個人権利や人間道徳に対する主張において関連をもっていることを明らかにした。すなわち、リベラリズムは自律的な市民社会の基本条件を保証する立憲国家を主張するのに対して、儒教は社会福祉や道徳秩序を促進する仁政国家を主張するのである。そうであるにもかかわらず、両者は同様に集権国家を正当化し、権利や道徳によって、人間性に対して規範的な理解によって国家を定義し、国家の機能は人間性の保証によって社会を促進することにあると主張する。

248