Confucius´ & Aristotle's Golden Mean:
In Aristotle’s Rule of the Golden Mean, he discussed that for every polarity, there is a mean which when practiced are good benchmarks for a life of moderation. For example, if on one side of the polarity of food consumption there is gluttony and the other is food deprivation, the golden mean is a balanced diet. If on one side of the polarity of sexuality is consummation of sex and the other side is celibacy, we can deduce that the golden mean is intimacy.
Experience tells us that anything done in excessive doses creates an imbalance – whether it’s consumption or abstinence. In the polarity of consumption and abstinence, the golden mean is moderation. How it is done or practiced is a balance of science and art. If science is the methodical and logical approach and art is the creative and intuitive approach, the golden mean is a balanced, happy and productive life. If we do things in moderation, it is not mathematically computed as zero or the absence of anything all the time but the mean of all the values present or needed to create the desired whole.
Using the principles of the scales, the weight of one side equal to the other side not necessarily in the same volume creates balance. A rock on one side can be balanced by one vale of hay on the other. Good food and sex as an expression of love among other factors contribute to a wholistic meaning to life not harming other beings. When sheer joy is lost in these aspects, life loses its basic harmony. Where there is harmony, there is love in agape -- where people do what they love and love what they do that does not violate human life. Then, people are motivated to do in scientific and creative expression of human faculties balancing the use of natural resources.
And there is sustainable progress balancing commerce and environmental preservation; where the mean is human wellness. Where there is rashness in the midst of adversity in one side and cowardice in the other, the golden mean is courage. In materialism versus spirituality, the golden mean is social responsibility.
The more we see the golden mean in each polarity, the better we find the true benchmarks of a life of wellness.
All of the above material from Aristotle may be taken as compatible with the Confucian Doctrine of the Mean. For example, the Confucian thinker, Hun Tsu, wrote, "Knowledge, humanity, and courage--these three are virtues which apply to all humanity and that by which they are practiced is one." (Theodore DeBary, Sources of Chinese Civilization, p. 134) The wise practice of the virtues of wisdom, courage, and humanity requires that all the virtues be practiced together. First, a person cannot be wise without being courageous in facing dangers to one's search for truth, and a person cannot be wise without loving consideration of ideal humanity in both self and other. Second, a person cannot be courageous without wise consideration of both the dangers one must face and of the true ideal of humanity in both self and other as a value of inherent worth which is more precious than mere physical life. Finally, a person cannot exercise the virtue of true humanity without a wise understanding of the value of wisdom and of autonomy (self-choice/self-guidance) and without a grasp of the inherent value and beauty of courageous actions on behalf of wisdom and true humanity. In summary, wisdom, courage, and humanity, and indeed all other virtues by extension, must be practiced together as one.
Because wisdom, courage, and humanity must all be practiced together and indeed with all other virtues, therefore a wise balancing of all aspects of one's personal and social virtues results in a Golden Mean. See for example. Frost, p. 110:
Superior persons do what is proper to the station in which they find themselves; they do not desire to go beyond this. In a position of wealth and honor, they do what is proper to a position of wealth and honor; in a poor and low position, they do what is proper to a poor and low position; situated among barbarous tribes, they do what is proper to barbarous tribes; in a position of sorrow and difficulty, they do what is proper to a position of sorrow and difficulty. Superior persons can find themselves in no position in which they are not themselves. In a high position they do not treat with contempt their inferiors; in a low situation they do not court the favor of their superiors. They rectify themselves and seek nothing from others so that they have no dissatisfaction.
Just as Aristotle holds that the virtues of temperance, courage, wisdom, justice, and love are based upon the dignity of the human person in oneself and others, so also Confucius holds that jen, true humanity with all the virtues that enhance true humanity, has a basic principle which is never violated and which always helps to create the moral order, yung, that will bring enduring harmony and mutual fulfillment when practiced by all humanity. For Confucius, the objective statement of this principle is shu, reciprocity, and the personal attitude by which one truly relates to the objective principle is cheng, sincerity.
Kant´s Categorical Imperative:
The Categorical Imperative was formulated by Immanuel Kant as an attempt to provide a criteria through which to judge moral law. It is a deontological approach to morality, it relies not on the consequences of an action but on whether an action is right or wrong for it’s own sake. The Categorical Imperative is Kant bases his entire argument on reason, he believed that statements about the moral law were a priori and could be reached through logic alone, independent of experience . This leads Kant to fully explore the rational steps which direct him to his conclusions.
For Kant the only thing in the world which can be considered entirely good is the good will . By this he means that although there are other things which we might consider good, intelligence, wit, courage to name a few, all these could also be bad and hurtful. Kant argues that the good will is not reliant on the consequences of an action but in through its willing alone. To illustrate the point, one could imagine a madman with a gun intent on murdering a random member of the public. If, by chance, his target turns out to be an even more evil individual who was intending to slaughter thousands of innocent children, our first madman who ‘does good’ by shooting him, however there is no doubt that this does not show good will. Kant makes the assumption that a human being is free to chose the good will, without free will we are not free to make moral decisions and any discussion about morality is futile. The good will is the highest task for humankind.
For Kant the most important aim for humankind is the development of the good will. This is achieved through the application of The Categorical Imperative to moral law and moral decision making. Kant’s theory does not rely on the existence of god for it is based entirely on logic and Rationality. For Kant God is served when mankind acts morally toward itself using reason and logic. The theory behind the Categorical Imperative is well developed, based on an intention to develop the good will so that the actions of humankind toward each other become selfless therefore, in theory, creating a Utopian society.
Mills Principle of Utility:
Mill defends the possibility of a strong utilitarian conscience (i.e. a strong feeling of obligation to the general happiness) by showing how such a feeling can develop out of the natural desire we have to be in unity with fellow creatures—a desire that enables us to care what happens to them and to perceive our own interests as linked with theirs. Though Chapter Two showed that we do not need to attend constantly to the general happiness, it is nevertheless a sign of moral progress when the happiness of others, including the happiness of those we don’t know, becomes important to us.
Rawl´s Veil of Ignorance
Rawls says that persons in the veil of ignorance would base their design of society on the maximin rule. The idea is that since a person does not know who they are in the real world, they must be prepared to end up being anyone.
There are a lot of different societies the persons in the original position could design. So each person will want to pick the one society that offers the least bad alternative, ,meaning they will pick the society that has its least fortunate individuals in the least unfortunate situation.
Rawls suggests a super-simple way to understand the original position: two persons have a piece of cake to share between them by cutting it into two pieces. They each like the cake and want as big a piece as possible. They agree that one of them will cut the cake once and the other will get to choose one of the two pieces. This guarantees that the cake will be shared fairly. This is the maximin rule applied to just two persons.
If all this sounds very artificial and contrived, it is! Rawls admits that the whole theory is designed to fit a proper sense of justice. He concludes that the persons in the original position will agree to a society that obeys the Two Basic Principles of Justice: 1.Each person should get an equal guarantee to as many different liberties--and as much of those liberties--as can be guaranteed to everyone else at the same time. 2.Inequalities in society are okay only if they are arranged so that the inequalities actually help out the least fortunate persons in society and the inequalities are connected to positions or offices or jobs in society that everyone has an equal opportunity to attain.
The liberties Rawls is talking about are: political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure.
However, Rawls is not talking about complete liberty to do, to have or to keep absolutely anything.
The inequalities Rawls is talking about are: inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth and inequalities set up by institutions that use differences in authority and responsibility or chains ofcommand.
Rawls says these two principles of justice are ordered: society cannot justify a decrease in liberty by an increase in social and economic advantages.
Agape Principle:
The tradition of agape, or unconditional love, is not exclusive to any one religion. Actually, it is a major underlying principle found in religions worldwide. The concept of altruistic love is one that challenges the spiritual person to "love your enemies," or to "love without thought of return." It is a love that flows out to others in the form of compassion, kindness, tenderness, and charitable giving.
Sources: