Confucian Role Ethics: Issues of Naming, Translation, and Interpretation

S. Mattice
{"title":"Confucian Role Ethics: Issues of Naming, Translation, and Interpretation","authors":"S. Mattice","doi":"10.5040/9781350007222.ch-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"manuscripts and chapters in English concerning Confucian ethics. Some of these have an overtly historical/textual approach, while others are explicitly comparative (often between Confucius 孔子 or Mencius 孟子 and Aristotle), and some seek to put ideas from the classical period into conversation with issues in contemporary ethics. Some projects begin from within a more “analytic” orientation, while still others identify themselves as belonging to the “continental” tradition. Theorists have argued that Confucian ethics is best understood as a species of deontology, as a distinctive form of virtue ethics, and as care ethics, to name a few. The project of trying to figure out the best alreadypresent Western category to use for Confucian ethics is one that has occupied a great deal of time and effort in contemporary circles, and which may, as Stephen Angle has argued, be an example of the “unhealthy hegemony” of Western frameworks in comparative or crosscultural philosophy.1 As I see it, the project of Confucian Role Ethics (CRE), however, is not trying to intervene in that discourse. While Roger Ames and others use CHAPTER ONE","PeriodicalId":246080,"journal":{"name":"The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Early Chinese Ethics and Political Philosophy","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Early Chinese Ethics and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350007222.ch-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

manuscripts and chapters in English concerning Confucian ethics. Some of these have an overtly historical/textual approach, while others are explicitly comparative (often between Confucius 孔子 or Mencius 孟子 and Aristotle), and some seek to put ideas from the classical period into conversation with issues in contemporary ethics. Some projects begin from within a more “analytic” orientation, while still others identify themselves as belonging to the “continental” tradition. Theorists have argued that Confucian ethics is best understood as a species of deontology, as a distinctive form of virtue ethics, and as care ethics, to name a few. The project of trying to figure out the best alreadypresent Western category to use for Confucian ethics is one that has occupied a great deal of time and effort in contemporary circles, and which may, as Stephen Angle has argued, be an example of the “unhealthy hegemony” of Western frameworks in comparative or crosscultural philosophy.1 As I see it, the project of Confucian Role Ethics (CRE), however, is not trying to intervene in that discourse. While Roger Ames and others use CHAPTER ONE
儒家角色伦理:命名、翻译与解释问题
有关儒家伦理的英文手稿和章节。其中一些有明显的历史/文本方法,而另一些则是明确的比较(通常在孔子或孟子与亚里士多德之间进行比较),还有一些试图将古典时期的思想与当代伦理学问题进行对话。一些项目从更“分析”的方向开始,而还有一些项目将自己定位为属于“大陆”传统。理论家们认为,儒家伦理学最好被理解为一种义务论,一种独特形式的美德伦理学,以及关怀伦理学,仅举几例。在当代学界,试图找出儒家伦理学中已经存在的最好的西方范畴已经占据了大量的时间和精力,正如斯蒂芬·安格尔所说,这可能是西方框架在比较或跨文化哲学中的“不健康霸权”的一个例子在我看来,儒家角色伦理学(CRE)项目并没有试图干预这种话语。而罗杰·艾姆斯和其他人用的是第一章
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信