How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei

doi:10.3868/s030-009-020-0003-1

Front. Philos. China

2020, Vol. 15

Issue (1) : 29-35 https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-009-020-0003-1

SPECIAL THEME

How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei

NI Peimin(

)

Department of Philosophy, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA

Download: PDF(242 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Using the opportunity of responding to Wang’s critiques, this short article clarifies a number of important points related to the topic of human dignity. It argues that, only in moving beyond his a priori reasoning by assuming humans to be rational agents can the Kantian theory of dignity be applied to actual humans; only in taking our moral potential as a recommended way of human self-identification can the is-ought dichotomy be resolved; only in respecting human dignity can punishment be justified; and only from its function in shaping our visions and attitudes can a teleological metaphysics be helpful.

Keywords human dignity Confucianism a priori is-ought dichotomy teleological metaphysics

Issue Date: 31 March 2020

Cite this article:

NI Peimin. How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 29-35.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-009-020-0003-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2020/V15/I1/29

[1]	TENG Fei. Joining the Transformation of Nature—The Post-Natural and Confucian Perspective on Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 53-72.
[2]	WANG Xiaowei. Toward a Confucian Notion of Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 7-28.
[3]	Henrique Schneider. Tricking or Benefitting the People? Guanzi on Objective Government and Subjective Preferences[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 363-383.
[4]	Michele Ferrero. *Motivation to Act in Confucianism and Christianity: In Matteo Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven* (Tianzhu Shiyi 天主實義)**[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 226-247.
[5]	Yoshimi Orii. The Limits of a Confrontational Approach: Fabian Fukansai’s Critiques of Neo-Confucianism and Christianity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 181-200.
[6]	XU Keqian. A Contemporary Re-Examination of Confucian Li 禮 and Human Dignity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 449-464.
[7]	NI Peimin. *Toward a Gongfu* Reconstruction of Confucianism —Responses to Comments by Huang Yong, Fan Ruiping, and Wang Qingjie**[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 240-253.
[8]	PENG Guoxiang. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy in the Chinese-Speaking World: An Overview[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 91-119.
[9]	Ady Van Den Stock. The Semantics of Wisdom in the Philosophy of Tang Junyi: Between Transformative Knowledge and Transcendental Reflexivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 39-54.
[10]	Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[11]	TAN Mingran. The Problem of Confucian Moral Cultivation and Its Solution: Using Ritual Propriety to Support Rule by Law[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 88-103.
[12]	LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
[13]	Richard Shusterman. Somaesthetics and Chinese Philosophy: Between Unity and Pragmatist Pluralism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 201-211.
[14]	YAO Xinzhong. An Eco-Ethical Interpretation of Confucian Tianren Heyi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 570-585.
[15]	Jung-Yeup Kim. Confucian Ethical Practice as a Method of Creating and Sustaining Whiteheadian Beauty[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 318-328.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed