Why Be Moral? Learning from the Neo-Confucian Cheng Brothers by Yong Huang
John Bengson,Terence Cuneo,Russ Shafer-Landau
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2016.0077
2016-01-01
Philosophy East and West
Abstract:Reviewed by: Why Be Moral? Learning from the Neo-Confucian Cheng Brothers by Yong Huang Xingming Hu (bio) Why Be Moral? Learning from the Neo-Confucian Cheng Brothers. By Yong Huang. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014. Pp. x + 357. Hardcover $95.00, isbn 978-1-4384-5292-0. Why Be Moral? Learning from the Neo-Confucian Cheng Brothers, by Yong Huang, is a book written for Western philosophers. Professor Huang claims that there are two ways of introducing a Chinese philosopher to Western audiences: first, by showing [End Page 1032] them that the Chinese philosopher’s ideas are ridiculous or inferior compared to the corresponding Western ideas, and second, by showing them that the Chinese philosopher has better answers to some Western philosophical questions than great Western philosophers. Huang thinks the first way is pointless and adopts the second way in this book, which “attempts to show that the Cheng brothers’ neo-Confucian position is superior to the representative views [such as Aristotle’s and Kant’s] in the Western philosophical tradition” (p. 11). If Huang is right, then the philosophy of the Cheng brothers, two leading Chinese philosophers of Neo-Confucianism in the eleventh century, is no less worthy of study than the philosophies of Aristotle and Kant for Western scholars. The book begins with an introduction, which discusses some meta-issues about comparative philosophy and provides a brief biography of the Cheng brothers and an overview of the content of the book. In chapter 1, Huang addresses the question “Why should I be moral?” First, he takes pains to clarify the question, which, in his view, should be understood as “What motivations do or can I have to be moral?” (p. 33). The person who asks the question knows that she should be moral but does not have the motivation to be so. Next, Huang argues that Plato, Hobbes, Hume, and Kant all fail to provide an adequate answer to the question. Huang then offers an interpretation of the Cheng brothers’ view: one should be motivated to be moral because it is a joy to be moral as long as one has genuine moral knowledge, and the joy of being moral is worth pursuing since being moral is a distinguishing mark of being human. Finally, Huang argues that Aristotle’s ethics cannot provide an adequate answer to the question even though it bears some striking similarities to the Cheng brothers’ view. In chapter 2, Huang discusses the view that virtue ethics is self-centered since it recommends that we be concerned with our own virtues. Huang takes this claim to be one of the central objections to virtue ethics. He argues that the Cheng brothers provide a version of virtue ethics that can better respond to the self-centeredness objection than Aristotelian eudaimonistic virtue ethics. Unlike Aristotelian eudaimonism, the Chengs’ Neo-Confucianism holds that the virtuous person must “take care of not only the material well-being but also the character traits of others,” and that one’s own good and the good of others depend on each other (p. 98). In chapter 3, Huang turns to the problem of weakness of the will as a challenge to morality: “If weakness of the will is possible, morality may become impossible, at least for some people” (p. 20). By this Huang seems to mean that if one does X due to the weakness of the will, then one cannot be held morally responsible for doing X. Huang argues that weakness of the will is possible only if “one’s knowledge does not necessarily lead one to action” (p. 105). In light of his interpretation, the Cheng brothers solve the problem of weakness of the will by distinguishing two kinds of knowledge: knowledge merely from one’s intellect, or superficial knowledge, and knowledge from one’s heart, or genuine knowledge. They hold that genuine knowledge, which everyone is able to acquire, necessarily leads one to action. Huang concludes the chapter by arguing that the Cheng brothers’ solution to the problem of weakness of the will is better than Socrates’s and Aristotle’s, for, among other reasons, the former (the Cheng brothers) can explain our common sense...