3/24 debate - The ONE QUESTION you need to answer...
- This topic has 16 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 24, 2009 at 12:09 pm #4978
Rob_Hugo@PortNW
Keymaster... is this:
"Your father has broken a law. Your father knew what the law was and knew that his action was a violation of that law - a SERIOUS law. YOU KNOW he willfully broke it. AND you know that he knows that you know. The law was broken. The question is this - as a (your philosophical school here) - WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO?"
Please answer the question from the perspective of a philosopher from the Hundred Schools period.
March 24, 2009 at 5:24 pm #28757Anonymous
GuestThis is where I wish I were a Confucian so I could better protect my father by claiming that I owe my loyalty to him. Although I am a Legalist, I will still protect my father, but my defense will be a bit trickier, so please bear with me:
As the famed Legalist Han Fei Zi declares, "When one house has two venerables, its affairs will never prosper. When husband and wife both give orders, the children are at a loss to know which one to obey (43)."
My primary, internal conflict is similar to life in a household with two venerables. As a Legalist, I can only justify protecting my father, if I treat my him as my sovereign before my actual ruler. When this is the case, under the tenets of Legalism I can claim that it is not appropriate for me to report my own father because I owe him allegiance. He is like a ruler to me and therefore:
The ruler must not reveal his desires; for if he reveals his desires his ministers will put on the mask that pleases him. He must not reveal his will; for if he does so his ministers will show a different face (Han Fei Zi, 42).
I must allow that my father may have had a virtuous reason for breaking the law, and owes me no explanation because I am subservient to him. Therefore I cannot report him to Legalist authorities, regardless of what law he has broken.
Although, Master Fei Zi also teaches that, "...powerful families seek only to benefit each other and not to enrich the state...instead of attending to their duties...," In this case, I am merely attending to my personal duties. I do not actually benefit my father; I simply decline to endanger my him.
It is likely that a Legalist ruler might find me guilty of conspiracy and have me mutilated with my father, but hey...it's my dad, so I guess it's worth a shot.
Joe[Edit by="jdavidman on Mar 25, 12:32:43 AM"][/Edit]
[Edit by="jdavidman on Mar 25, 12:54:12 AM"][/Edit]March 25, 2009 at 1:30 am #28758Guestpeople do not need officials to strictly enforce laws upon them! this law was only broken because it was written and articulated. Had the law been left unnamed, people would not seek to break it. therefore the government led my father to commit this atrocious act! shame on the government officials that have corrupted the minds of our people with their plots and schemes!
March 25, 2009 at 1:37 am #28759GuestAs a confucianist, I am obliged to support my father despite his transgression. Perhaps he was not provided an adequate model in his youth that would have reminded him of the folly of his actions. As a parent, I will have to be most vigilant of being extremely scrupulous and law-abiding so that my child will have an excellent model to emulate, and perhaps avoid negative influences.
March 25, 2009 at 3:43 am #28760GuestA Confucian turn in his father? I don't think so... Who am I to judge him? I would acknowledge his action only if asked by him, and not before that. This is somewhat akin to "ignorant bliss" or "plausible denial," but so be it. I may have my inner doubts about his character, but these could never be revealed to the world.
March 25, 2009 at 3:52 am #28761GuestMy father was wrong in doing what he did, but not because he broke a law of man. He is wrong for not following the Dao. My father neither compassionate nor frugal has veered from the Dao, and this is unfortunate, but his journey continues like the wide Yangtze. Even if he is to be imprisoned my man’s jails, he flows on, for this is the law of heaven, and those laws cannot be broken. The fish will not fly to the heavens, the snow will melt by the sun no matter how the emperor threatens punishment. So I will do nothing but acompany my father on his journey, and chuckle with him about man's attempts to stop the river from flooding its banks.
March 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm #28762GuestAs a legalist, I am not in as much of a quandry as those who follow the Confucian or Mohist philosophy. My education has given me great faith in the laws, so the first steps I would take would be to deeply investigate the laws to see if there was a loop hole, or a legitimate path that could be taken to forgive or even pardon my father.
If all my efforts fail, I will not turn him in. The effects on my family would be extreme, and I would probably put myself in peril. I cannot allow my children to bear the burden of his perfidy. If I feel I must bring him to justice, I would arrange for another of his peers to accuse him. He would probably guess who arranged this, but would understand my position.
[Edit by="mseeger on Mar 30, 7:32:11 PM"][/Edit]
March 31, 2009 at 1:44 pm #28763GuestAs A Moist, I must notify the proper authority for the good and the love of all my fellow countrymen and mankind.
GG
April 2, 2009 at 7:56 am #28764GuestAs a Mohist the good of the community and my father are both at odds. Mohists were champions of logical reasoning (possibly the only school of logicians at the time), more so than the other schools. Mohism is in the extreme would follow unconditional love/ inclusive care/universal love, basically the golden rule and then some.
First, I would have a open dicussion of the matter privately with my father and/or with some other stakeholder. As a Mohists we believe in using fa models or paradigms in our argumentation. We would assess the situation according to:
1. Assessing them basing on history
2. Assessing them basing on the experiences of common, average people
3. Assessing their usefulness by applying them in law or politics [3]--from Wikipedia sourceHopefully consensus would be reached. I feel that philosophy of Mohism is similar to Non-violent Communication of Marshall Rosenberg or Alfie Kohn. Punishment might be subvert or discouraged. So my father may never need to turn himself in to the civil authorities but instead to the community and whomever he offended.
April 5, 2009 at 1:06 am #28765GuestAs a Confucian, as others have stated, my loyalty is to my father. It is perhaps the law was faulty and therefore should not exist or the models set before him in his life displayed characteristics that led to disobeying a law from choice. We must further examine who is modeling the behavior for our people and whether they are providing an example worth following.
April 8, 2009 at 10:16 am #28766GuestSince I am a Confucian, my loyalties and dedication would remain with my father regardless of the crime he committed. I would have to reexamine society to see what flaw was demonstrated to him in order for him to lead astray. He would never have acted in such a way had it not been modeled to him.
April 10, 2009 at 9:47 am #28767GuestAs a confucian, my primary loyalty is to my father, therefore I stand by him. In fact, the reason behind his transgression may have been, as Xun Zi believed, that human nature is basically evil. His poor judgement was due to his evil nature and lack of good role models, as my other confucians have scribed. Alas, we must move beyond this issue, and as "gentleman" call attention to the good points in my father, and not call attention to his defects. We are not "small" men, we confucian's are "gentlemen".
April 11, 2009 at 11:21 am #28768GuestWhy do you guys brainwash my father? When did my father start having important values in his head? and he broke a law because of these values. He needs to unlearn these values.
He needs to remember how to follow Dao, and become a real Daoist. We take no action, and order will prevail.
April 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm #28769GuestAs a confucianist, I would have to stand by my father. Even though he and I knows what he did was illegal, I'd have to stand by him. I may however, would try to lightly "persuade" him on how this is against confucious' beliefs and ways...
April 14, 2009 at 4:06 am #28770GuestAs a legalist, I know that instances of people such as my father breaking the rules is the reason we need strict rules and harsh punishments. People are not perfect- they make mistakes, but I cannot let my father off the hook because that would set a bad precedent-- it may lead to unrest, which would cause even more disorder. If I truly believe in my philosophy, I must follow the rules and make sure my father is punished for his actions.
-Karen -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.