ISCWP Homepage

(December 27-30, 2005; New York City)

(updated version / May 2005)

PANEL ONE

Topic: On Constructive-Engagement Methodological Strategy in Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy

Chair: Xianglong Zhang (Peking University, China)

Speakers: Manyul Im (California State University at Los Angeles, USA)

“Engaging with the Dead: Classical Confucianism, Historicism, and the Viability of Ethical Options”

Xiaofei Tu (Syracuse University, USA)

“New Confucians and the Kyoto Philosophers as “Comparativists”: The Cases of Mou Zongsan and Nishitani”

Bo Mou (San Jose State University, USA)

“On Some Methodological Issues Involved Constructive-Engagement of Chinese and Western Philosophy”

Discussant: Weimin Sun (California State University at Northridge, USA)

Panel Abstract

The constructive-engagement strategy in comparative studies of Chinese and Western philosophy is one characteristic approach taken by the ISCWP in fulfilling its missions. This kind of comparative strategy as a general philosophical approach consists in reflective inquiry into how, via reflective criticism and self-criticism, distinct modes of thinking, methodological approaches or points of view in different philosophical traditions or within (the complex array of different approaches of) the same tradition can learn from each other (if any) and make joint contribution to the common philosophical enterprise in view of common concerns and issues. It is widely agreed among many philosophers who are familiar with both Chinese and Western philosophies that Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy (including its mainstream traditions) are not essentially alien to one another: they have common concerns with a series of fundamental issues and have taken their characteristic approaches to them. They thus could learn from each other and jointly contribute to the common philosophical enterprise through constructive engagement. Now the issue of how the constructive engagement of Chinese and Western philosophy is possible is no longer a mere theoretic issue; the constructive engagement of Chinese and Western philosophy has already been an effective and productive philosophical practice through various philosophically interesting ways, as evidenced by a series of conferences, workshops and panels organized by the ISCWP in the past three years since its establishment.

The proposed panel is intended to have an in-depth methodological reflection on the constructive-engagement strategy in Comparative Studies of Chinese and Western Philosophy to enhance our understanding of some involved methodological issues in the constructive-engagement-oriented comparative studies.

The first speaker, Manyul Im, will discusses problems with at least one way of engaging in “comparative philosophy,” that of promoting the adoption of ethical concepts, virtues, and forms of justification that are not genuine options for just about anyone in the contemporary world. They are not options for reasons that have to do largely with what I shall refer to as practical incommensurability. This applies, he will argue, to contemporary attempts to promote the adoption of aspects of Classical Confucianism.

The second speaker, Xiaofei Tu, will discuss how the critics of the “comparativist” straits of New Confucians and the Kyoto philosophers of the Buddhist tradition lack sensitivity to the unique reference systems, argumentation, and standards of rigor of the two schools that are drastically distinct from those adopted in modern, Western, and analytic traditions. He intends to explore the negotiations between Western philosophy and indigenous Asian tradition by showcasing the references to Kant by Mou Zongsan and Heidegger by Nishitani.

The third speaker, Bo Mou, will discuss to what extent the constructive-engagement-oriented comparative studies can transcend the issue of incommensurability that largely emerges in the historical-description-oriented comparative studies and how to look at the relation among the historical concern, the interpretative concern and the constructive-engagement concern in a constructive-engagement-oriented comparative studies. His discussion will combine a meta-philosophical analysis and some case analyses.

PANEL TWO

Topic: Double Effect or Beyond: Comparing Double Effect, Quan, and Upaya

Chair: Manyul Im (California State University at Los Angeles, USA)

Speaker: Professor Josef Boyle (University of Toronto, Canada), “Double Effect and Western Morality”

Professor Jinfen Yan (University of Toronto, Canada), “Intention in Catholic Double Effect, Confucian Quan and Mahayana Upaya”

Professor Dan Goldstick (University of Toronto, Canada), "Double Effect and Terrorism",

Discussant: Xiaomei Yang (Temple University, USA)

Panel Abstract:

Roman Catholic moral teaching involves a concept of “double effect,” according to which certain objectives are illicit though it may be licit to take actions, otherwise directed, of which they are the foreseeable or even forseen results. One kind of Mahayana “skillful means/upaya” allows moral agents-in-training a slight degree of latitude in respect of minor offences, while the Confucian principle of quan (to weigh occurring events) makes it permissible to break moral rules if the moral agents act with sincerity for the good. The stress on purity of intention looks like a common element in all three teachings, but there are significant dissimilarities. Debate will be joined on what is involved as a constraint upon the imperative to do good, and whether any such constraint requires justification by reference to its good consequences. The discussion will explore the relation borne, on the one hand, to common sense morality and, on the other hand, to the current issue of defining “terrorism” as conduct to reprehend. The discussion has the potential to uncover parallels and differences between Eastern and Western ethical approaches.

The first paper will suggest that attention to the roots of double effect in the Roman Catholic moral tradition may point to a more satisfactory assessment of its role in morality than appeals to variable intuitions as to its soundness and application.

The second paper considers the relation between terrorism and the doctrine of double effect, and offers a utilitarian justification for a deontological principle.

The third paper discusses the relations among intentions and moral agency in the three teachings (Catholic tradition, Confucian tradition, and Mahayana Buddhist tradition).