Confucius, Rawls, and the Sense of Justice

Abstract

This work examines and compares the role of a sense of justice in the ethical and political thought of Confucius (Kongzi) and John Rawls, and presents an argument concerning why comparative studies are worthwhile. Several scholars of Confucianism have suggested that there are such stark differences between the structure and content of the work of modern liberal philosophers like Rawls and the work of classical Confucian philosophers that it is reasonable to doubt that there is any value in trying to compare them. Against these claims, this book argues that the central concerns of the Analects (the most influential record of Confucius’ thought) and Rawls's work intersect in their emphasis on the importance of developing a sense of justice, and that despite deep and important differences between their two accounts of a sense of justice, these views on the relationship between moral psychology and political philosophy a source of significant philosophical agreement. This study also offers a larger argument concerning the reasons why comparative work is worthwhile, the distinctive challenges comparative studies face and approaches to resolving those difficulties, and how comparative work can accomplish distinctive and significant ends—which is a necessity for and sheds light upon the central argument of the book. This work argues that a comparative study of the capacity for a sense of justice in Confucius and Rawls can not only help us to better understand each of their views, but also helps us to see new ways to apply their insights, especially with respect to the contemporary relevance of their accounts.