Twisted
Could philosophical guidelines as to how we should live our lives do more harm than good?
During her seminar, Dr Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye introduced us to Confucius’ ‘The Great Learning’, which includes in it a step-by-step guide as to how to achieve the highest level of human existence and morality. The pathway of the ‘Eight Stages’ that Confucius sets out certainly does appear to provide a workable avenue to a destination of virtue, founded on the appealing notion that human nature is inherently ‘good’. Thus, this could indeed prove a helpful tool in directing individuals towards a more meaningful way of life. Some individuals. In some circumstances. In considering these steps further, it became apparent to me that they could be realised and ‘completed’ in a countless number of ways- which I recognise is an element of flexibility necessary to allow such a model to be applied to each unique individual. However, it also, to me, appears that this could pose the risk of this model being stripped of its purpose and integrity entirely.
The model encourages us to start from bedrock. It does not provide us with a specific destination. It assumes that if we follow these steps, we will simply reach that intended destination; so long as we follow the path, we will all arrive at this same place of virtue. But what happens if my starting point is different to yours? How can we then reach the same place if we follow the same path? Or what if I take these ‘steps’, but my steps go in a different direction, are of a different size, or are of a different nature to yours? How then can we hope to meet in the same location at the end of our journeys? Perhaps we have both succeeded, as we have both completed the stages, and therefore have ‘set the world at peace’. But does it matter that my version of ‘peace’ and ‘virtue’ is wholly different to yours? What if they are at odds?
Therefore, we can see that almost any outcome can be derived from such a model, as the broadness of these steps enables an infinitely wide array of interpretations to be melded to fit within them. The issue is that each of these outcomes then becomes ‘justified’, because it was generated through following the model. This can be dangerous, as it is not difficult to envisage how things such as colonial or extremist views can be framed to be consistent with this model, and can then be promoted as ‘right’ and ‘virtuous’ positions.
Confucius’ ‘Eight Stages’ is simply an example of this issue, as it is arguable that any philosophical model of a comparable nature- be it Stoic principles, or the ‘Ten Commandments’- are plagued by this same flaw. Again, we need only look to the way in which religion is so often used as a justification for heinous acts as validation of this.
Therefore, while I do not deny that Confucius’ teachings in ‘The Great Learning’ raise some useful considerations for us to ponder, I would be hesitant to afford it significantly greater value than that- to denote it as the moral code to live by. While I am unsure that I agree with Confucius’ optimism that humankind is naturally virtuous, I do believe that we are all born with a relatively cohesive measure of what is acceptable and what is not, at a fundamental level. While we may not always abide by this, it is arguable that we all have a rather clear and common perception of this distinction when it comes to basic principles of morality. Therefore, perhaps models like Confucius’ only confuse things, complicate things, and provide us with a way to appease our conscience when we know we are doing something that stems from the roots of ‘wrong’. Perhaps, simply trying to listen to our instincts- even if we do not always want to- is a better way of modelling our behaviour than any profound musing could ever provide.
