ARISTOTLE & CONFUCIUS

Aristotle and Confucius

Abstract

Comparing ethics of Aristotle and Confucius, both illustrate a virtue ethics, it is shown that they are not vulnerable to the alterations opposing to them when contrasted with non-virtue theories of ethics such as deontology and utilitarian. It is charged that virtual ethics lack global principles. In addition, they fail to offer moral behaviors. Moreover, they do not consider behaviors in morality assessment. For practices of human rights and commencing with social justice, virtual ethics do not offer resources. On the contrary, these two philosophers demonstrate social and political rights for first-generation and for second generation social, economic and cultural rights (Swanton, 2009,, 230).

Introduction4

Discussion4

Conclusion8

References9

Philosophy of Aristotle and Confucius

Introduction

The association among human rights and social justice practice to global principles which present obligations and responsibilities, critics of ethics hold that they lack of global principles and absence deontic notion and their exercise like 'right' and 'responsibilities' create societal human rights and social practices challenging for ethics. In the history of world Aristotle and Confucius are the pivotal; nonetheless, Eastern and Western cultures have in updated ages greatly unrestricted the awareness of these philosophies.

Comparing Confucius and Aristotle's ethics, both represent ethics of virtue. Both the theories are compared on Nicomachean Ethics which includes arete (virtue) and eudaimonia (happiness), ren (benevolenceandde (virtue); in general character of humankind, Confucius and Aristotle in opponent with Socrates; xing (nature) contrast with ergon (function), the mean as internal and external; archery and disposition; ethos (habit) and li (ritual); the relational self in Confucius compared with the political animal in Aristotle; the interaction between cultivation and human nature; politics and family role; phronesis (useful astuteness) in contrast with yi (suitability); the application of customary morals; unity of virtue and the plurality; self-love and forms of individuality, God or Heaven(the highest good) with external goods also the more practical change (self-completion)versus theories (contemplation).

Discussion

Form the perspective of Confusisasm and Aristotle is to imply 'mirror' for each other. Aristotle describes it as: when one wishes to look at himself/herself, it is done by watching morror, in the same way when one wants to know oneself one gets that knowledge by looking at his or her friends. So it can be stated that friends are one's second self (p.4).

Confucius states it as: Confucius responds to this aspect as, Aristotle's eudaimonia in the logic that each refers to the maximum good” (p. 25). “The succeeding pace on both sides is visibly alike: unambiguously, to highlight on virtue” (p. 28).

For Confucius thats is de and ren whereas arete for Aristotle. In the East and West Aristotle and Confucius creators of influencing ethical traditions, display specific but superficial likeness in their policy: focusing on excellence of specific personality and on discovering a mean in among the two limits. May Sim (2010) compare tshe two masters. In order to bridge the historical, linguistic and cultural distances are frightening but Sim investigates sensibly and sensitively beyond the outwardly and demonstrated realignments that focus subtle likeness and important ...