Qingjuan Sun

Current studies of anti/‐natalism have been carried out mainly in the context of western philosophy. In this article, we offer a pro‐natalist view based on Confucian and Afro‐communitarian philosophy (Sino‐African ethics). Grounded in this Sino‐African perspective, we uphold that there is, at least, one reason to believe that not only is it morally permissible to procreate, but also that on some occasions, procreating is what morality prescribes. Specifically, we contend that, from a Sino‐African perspective, procreating sometimes is the best way to fulfil duties of reciprocity and care towards our parents.

By introducing Confucian relational ethics, this essay engages critically with Metz’s deontological relational moral theory from a comparative perspective. It first points out the similarities that Confucianism and Metz’s African ethics share in emphasizing relationality and harmony. Then, this essay reveals the theoretical deficiency in Metz’s relational moral theory compared to Confucianism; that is, the former lacks the concern for solitary cultivation which is essential for one’s cultivation and development. This essay is also less optimistic about a universal ethical system as suggested by Metzian African harmony; instead, it proposes a method for the harmonious coexistence of multi-ethical systems inspired by the Chinese Confucian-Daoist complementarity model.

The internal-external issue of ren 仁 and yi 義 concerning whether ren and yi are internal or external is traceable to the Warring States period. One of the most famous recorded debates happened between Gaozi and Mengzi in Mengzi 6A:4. In the existing literature it is generally believed that Gaozi holds that ren is "nei" 內 and yi is "wai" 外, whereas Mengzi contends that both ren and yi are "nei."1 However, this assertion has two problems that I aim to address in the present essay.First, it is not well founded to predicate that Mengzi considers ren and yi, as well as li 禮 and zhi 智, completely...