Vytis Silius

The 四海为学 “Collaborative Learning” is an online academic forum that hosts a range of lectures, book discussions and roundtables each year, creating a space for collaboration, as well as bringing different opinions into a conversation. The roundtable on “Environmentalism” aligned with the forum's aims, bringing together three prominent scholars into a conversation that was rich in shared insights yet divergent in opinions. Yumi Suzuki opened the discussion by challenging the common tendency in Chinese philosophy to address environmental issues through Daoism, exploring what Confucianism has to offer instead. As a philosophy concerned with social issues, Confucianism sought productive ways of working with nature without excessively limiting human progress. Jean‐Yves Heurtebise offered a contrasting view, provocatively suggesting that early Chinese philosophy has little to offer in addressing today's environmental concerns, which he sees as transcultural and beyond the scope of cultural particularities. Marion Hourdequin, however, emphasized that while ecological issues are global, different cultures “foreground” different values, highlighting social relations and collective responsibility in the Analects. Although Confucius is often seen as conservative, Hourdequin notes that the Analects is all about social change. Rather than retreating into tradition, we might, like Confucius, “stay with the trouble”—facing current environmental challenges while drawing from ancient philosophies. This article synthesizes the key points of the roundtable discussion and concludes by highlighting central insights that situate Confucian thought within broader efforts to rethink ecological degradation and strategies for addressing it.

People across cultures consider everyday choices in the context of perceived various external life-determining forces: such as fate and gods (two teleological forces) and such notions as luck and chance (two non-teleological forces). There is little cross-cultural evidence (except for a belief in gods) showing how people relate these salient notions of life-determining forces to prosociality and a sense of well-being. The current paper provides preliminary cross-cultural data to address this gap. Results indicate that choice is the most important life-determining factor. Regression analyses indicate that choice and belief in gods and fate emerged as significant predictors of prosociality towards strangers. Moreover, luck was a significant predictor of decreased prosociality. A relation between life-determining forces and life satisfaction followed the same pattern: choice, gods, and fate emerged as significant predictors of greater life satisfaction, whereas luck was associated with decreased life satisfaction. The overall pattern of results indicates that participants across different cultures might sense being bounded to share or not to care depending on the perceived intentional agency and meaning in the external forces.

The article proposes to see Confucian role ethics as a philosophical project that puts forward metaethical and metaphilosophical arguments regarding the nature of ethics and the concept of human beings, instead of concentrating on its interpretational work in explicating the nature of early Confucian ethics. Thus, a more fitting context for evaluating the core claims of role ethics is suggested, one that is comprised of different positions, coming from a wide range of philosophical and cultural backgrounds, as well as different disciplines, all of which criticize individualism or formulate a non-individualistic concept of person. Role ethics concept of person, as a totality of one’s lived roles and relations, is discussed by concentrating on the specificity of two key notions in this position, that is, “relation” and “role”. The article ends with a suggestion that the deeper and fuller investigation and exposition of normativity, as stemming from the specific and concrete role-relationships, is the most needed and promising direction of further development of role ethics.

It has been argued that belief in free will is socially consequential and psychologically universal. In this paper we look at the folk concept of free will and its critical assessment in the context of recent psychological research. Is there a widespread consensus about the conceptual content of free will? We compared English “free will” with its lexical equivalents in Lithuanian, Hindi, Chinese and Mongolian languages and found that unlike Lithuanian, Chinese, Hindi and Mongolian lexical expressions of “free will” do not refer to the same concept free will. What kind people have been studied so far? A review of papers indicate that, overall, 91% of participants in studies on belief in free will were WEIRD. Thus, given that free will has no cross-culturally universal conceptual content and that most of the reviewed studies were based on WEIRD samples, belief in free will is not a psychological universal.

In contemporary Western moral philosophy literature that discusses the Chinese ethical tradition, it is a commonplace practice to use the Chinese term daode 道德 as a technical translation of the English term moral. The present study provides some empirical evidence showing a discrepancy between the terms moral and daode. There is a much more pronounced difference between prototypically immoral and prototypically uncultured behaviors in English (USA) than between prototypically bu daode 不道德 and prototypically bu wenming 不文明 behaviors in Mandarin Chinese (Mainland China). If the Western concept of immorality is defined in contraposition to things that are matters of etiquette or conventional norms and thus tied to a more or less tangible moral / conventional distinction, then we are dealing with a different structure in Mandarin Chinese – the prototypically bu daode and bu wenming behaviors seem to largely overlap. We also discuss whether bu lunli 不倫理 and bu hefa 不合法 can be considered adequate candidates for translation of immorality and we answer in the negative.