Daniel Bell

In this article we focus on three key precepts shared by Confucianism and the African ethic of Ubuntu: the central value of community, the desirability of ethical partiality, and the idea that we tend to become morally better as we grow older. For each of these broad similarities, there are key differences underlying them, and we discuss those as well as speculate about the reasons for them. Our aim is not to take sides, but we do suggest ways that Ubuntu and Confucianism might have something to learn from each other and perhaps come closer. We hope that our preliminary reflections can inspire further debate and thinking on a theme – dialogues between long-standing and large-scale non-Western traditions – that is bound to increase in importance as non-Western societies play a greater role in the global system and as the search continues for a 'global ethic'.

A trenchant defense of hierarchy in different spheres of our lives, from the personal to the political All complex and large-scale societies are organized along certain hierarchies, but the concept of hierarchy has become almost taboo in the modern world. Just Hierarchy contends that this stigma is a mistake. In fact, as Daniel Bell and Wang Pei show, it is neither possible nor advisable to do away with social hierarchies. Drawing their arguments from Chinese thought and culture as well as other philosophies and traditions, Bell and Wang ask which forms of hierarchy are justified and how these can serve morally desirable goals. They look at ways of promoting just forms of hierarchy while minimizing the influence of unjust ones, such as those based on race, sex, or caste. Which hierarchical relations are morally justified and why? Bell and Wang argue that it depends on the nature of the social relation and context. Different hierarchical principles ought to govern different kinds of social relations: what justifies hierarchy among intimates is different from what justifies hierarchy among citizens, countries, humans and animals, and humans and intelligent machines. Morally justified hierarchies can and should govern different spheres of our social lives, though these will be very different from the unjust hierarchies that have governed us in the past. A vigorous, systematic defense of hierarchy in the modern world, Just Hierarchy examines how hierarchical social relations can have a useful purpose, not only in personal domains but also in larger political realms.

The rise of China could be the most important political development of the twenty-first century. What will China look like in the future? What should it look like? And what will China's rise mean for the rest of world? This book, written by China's most influential foreign policy thinker, sets out a vision for the coming decades from China's point of view. In the West, Yan Xuetong is often regarded as a hawkish policy advisor and enemy of liberal internationalists. But a very different picture emerges from this book, as Yan examines the lessons of ancient Chinese political thought for the future of China and the development of a "Beijing consensus" in international relations. Yan, it becomes clear, is neither a communist who believes that economic might is the key to national power, nor a neoconservative who believes that China should rely on military might to get its way. Rather, Yan argues, political leadership is the key to national power, and morality is an essential part of political leadership. Economic and military might are important components of national power, but they are secondary to political leaders who act in accordance with moral norms, and the same holds true in determining the hierarchy of the global order. Providing new insights into the thinking of one of China's leading foreign policy figures, this book will be essential reading for anyone interested in China's rise or in international relations

Is liberal democracy a universal ideal? Proponents of "Asian values" argue that it is a distinctive product of the Western experience and that Western powers shouldn't try to push human rights and democracy onto Asian states. Liberal democrats in the West typically counter by questioning the motives of Asian critics, arguing that Asian leaders are merely trying to rationalize human-rights violations and authoritarian rule. In this book--written as a dialogue between an American democrat named Demo and three East Asian critics--Daniel A. Bell attempts to chart a middle ground between the extremes of the international debate on human rights and democracy.Bell criticizes the use of "Asian values" to justify oppression, but also draws on East Asian cultural traditions and contributions by contemporary intellectuals in East Asia to identify some powerful challenges to Western-style liberal democracy. In the first part of the book, Bell makes use of colorful stories and examples to show that there is a need to take into account East Asian perspectives on human rights and democracy. The second part--a fictitious dialogue between Demo and Asian senior statesman Lee Kuan Yew--examines the pros and cons of implementing Western-style democracy in Singapore. The third part of the book is an argument for an as-yet-unrealized Confucian political institution that justifiably differs from Western-style liberal democracy.This is a thought-provoking defense of distinctively East Asian challenges to Western-style liberal democracy that will stimulate interest and debate among students of political theory, Asian studies, and international human rights

For much of the twentieth century, Confucianism was condemned by Westerners and East Asians alike as antithetical to modernity. Internationally renowned philosophers, historians, and social scientists argue otherwise in Confucian Political Ethics. They show how classical Confucian theory--with its emphasis on family ties, self-improvement, education, and the social good--is highly relevant to the most pressing dilemmas confronting us today. Drawing upon in-depth, cross-cultural dialogues, the contributors delve into the relationship of Confucian political ethics to contemporary social issues, exploring Confucian perspectives on civil society, government, territorial boundaries and boundaries of the human body and body politic, and ethical pluralism. They examine how Confucianism, often dismissed as backwardly patriarchal, can in fact find common ground with a range of contemporary feminist values and need not hinder gender equality. And they show how Confucian theories about war and peace were formulated in a context not so different from today's international system, and how they can help us achieve a more peaceful global community. This thought-provoking volume affirms the enduring relevance of Confucian moral and political thinking, and will stimulate important debate among policymakers, researchers, and students of politics, philosophy, applied ethics, and East Asian studies. The contributors are Daniel A. Bell, Joseph Chan, Sin Yee Chan, Chenyang Li, Richard Madsen, Ni Lexiong, Peter Nosco, Michael Nylan, Henry Rosemont, Jr., and Lee H. Yearley

Tout au long de l’histoire de la Chine, les confucéens se sont opposés au contrôle rigoureux du gouvernement légiste et ont mis en garde contre les effets négatifs de l’intervention de l’État dans l’économie. Cela ne s’est toutefois pas traduit par l’approbation d’un régime de droits de propriété privée sans entraves. Du point de vue confucéen, l’État a l’obligation de garantir les conditions du bien-être matériel de base de la population et celle-ci est prioritaire sur la promotion du marché libre, ce qui devrait inspirer un régime justifiable de droits de propriété. Historiquement, les confucéens ont plaidé pour l’abolition des monopoles d’État sur le sel et sur le fer sous la dynastie Han, tandis que le système du « champ de captage » chez Mencius a permis à l’État d’attribuer des terres sur des fondements égalitaires. Ces exemples montrent que l’objectif principal des penseurs confucéens n’est ni un contrôle absolu de l’État sur l’économie, ni une forme de marché libre, mais plutôt un mixte pour le bien-être de la population. De nos jours, une attention particulière est accordée aux valeurs confucéennes dans les régimes de droits de propriété en Asie de l’Est et elle semble inciter les États à redistribuer les ressources de façon égalitaire, par exemple sous la forme d’une portion importante de logements sociaux, à Singapour et à Hong Kong ou, dans le secteur agricole en Chine, de la renaissance moderne du système du « champ de captage » de Mencius sous Deng Xiaoping. Dans ces exemples, l’accès de la population à la terre et au logement sont les garanties de son bien-être matériel basique : c’est ce qui a été privilégié sur un marché immobilier libre (voire libertarien). Une valeur centrale pour la garantie du bien-être matériel de base était le fait Mencius et Confucius, qui considèrent la survie du peuple comme condition préalable nécessaire au bon fonctionnement de tout ordre étatique. Alors que l’idée selon laquelle le confucianisme s’oppose en fait aux droits de propriété privée est largement répandue, cet essai suggère que le confucianisme propose plutôt sa propre théorie de la propriété. Au lieu de contester les droits de propriété en tant que tels, il remet en question les conceptualisations européennes et américaines de ces droits. Fondamentalement, la théorie confucéenne de la propriété considère que les droits de propriété sont « particularistes » et relatifs à d’autres considérations sociales. Par conséquent, ces droits peuvent primer sur les droits individuels, si besoin est. Cette notion confucéenne de la propriété peut non seulement être considérée comme une alternative à la conception libérale occidentale de la propriété, mais elle peut également offrir un point de départ viable pour examiner une multitude de notions de droit façonnées dans un contexte international. S’éloigner d’une notion centrée sur l’Occident et prendre en compte d’autres théories, comme le confucianisme, peut s’avérer crucial non seulement pour l’État chinois dans l’élaboration de ses lois et de ses règlements, mais aussi pour la communauté internationale lors de la rédaction d’accords véritablement internationaux. Cet essai montre comment les droits de propriété de type confucéen ont influencé le fonctionnement des pays d’Asie de l’Est d’héritage confucéen et continuent de le faire. Classification JEL : P14.

Let me first thank the critics for their insightful contributions to the debate. I hesitate to call the three professors “critics” since the areas of agreement may outweigh the areas of disagreement. But I should focus on areas of disagreement to further the debate, and that’s what I’ll try to do here. I’ll begin with a few remarks about methodology, then attempt to clarify my own view regarding democracy with “Confucian characteristics,” and my response will conclude with some reflections on alternative proposals. On Methodology Professor Dallmayr worries that my book is primarily addressed to an East Asian audience and to those who can affect the lives of East Asians. But I wonder why this intent should be viewed as “reinforcing Asian parochialism”?

Let me first express my gratitude for the three detailed and informative critiques of my book The China Model. These critiques are themselves models of Confucian civility, even as they express sharp areas of disagreement. There does seem to be agreement that the ideal of a Confucian-inspired democratic meritocracy is a worthwhile political project, particularly in the Chinese political context, but Huang, Li, and Wang question my book's arguments in defense of this ideal. There are three kinds of critiques: the need to take Confucianism more seriously, the need to take democracy more seriously, and the need to take political meritocracy more seriously. Let me try to respond to each critique in turn.Yong...

Confucianism has made a comeback in mainland China over the last two decades or so. Politically minded Confucian revivalists see Confucianism as the core of national identity that differs from “foreign” traditions such as liberalism and they argue for replacing Marxism with Confucianism as the core ideology of the one-party state. But is the ancient tradition of Confucianism compatible with the modern tradition of nationalism? And is it possible to defend a morally appealing form of “Confucian nationalism”? This essay argues that both questions can be answered affirmatively

A trenchant defense of hierarchy in different spheres of our lives, from the personal to the political All complex and large-scale societies are organized along certain hierarchies, but the concept of hierarchy has become almost taboo in the modern world. Just Hierarchy contends that this stigma is a mistake. In fact, as Daniel Bell and Wang Pei show, it is neither possible nor advisable to do away with social hierarchies. Drawing their arguments from Chinese thought and culture as well as other philosophies and traditions, Bell and Wang ask which forms of hierarchy are justified and how these can serve morally desirable goals. They look at ways of promoting just forms of hierarchy while minimizing the influence of unjust ones, such as those based on race, sex, or caste. Which hierarchical relations are morally justified and why? Bell and Wang argue that it depends on the nature of the social relation and context. Different hierarchical principles ought to govern different kinds of social relations: what justifies hierarchy among intimates is different from what justifies hierarchy among citizens, countries, humans and animals, and humans and intelligent machines. Morally justified hierarchies can and should govern different spheres of our social lives, though these will be very different from the unjust hierarchies that have governed us in the past. A vigorous, systematic defense of hierarchy in the modern world, Just Hierarchy examines how hierarchical social relations can have a useful purpose, not only in personal domains but also in larger political realms.