The “Confucian” Ideal Person(ality) and Pacifism

Abstract

So-called Confucianism (rujia 儒家) developed a notion of an ideal person(ality), the junzi 君子, who eschews solving problems or eliminating disagreement by use of force. Instead, guided by principles of humaneness (ren 仁) and righteousness (yi 義), he uses well-founded arguments, and he does this in a becoming way, displaying no show of superiority. Moreover, the junzi highly values human dignity (tianjue 天爵, literally “no­bility of Heaven”), i.e. individual moral autonomy, not giving in to the temptations of power, fame, public reputation, or wealth. Similar ideas were developed in European history. Evidently such ideal persons would be pacifists, but they are individuals, whereas wars concern whole nations and masses of people. So which role does, and can, the ideal individual actually play if it comes to the question of war? Is not there a vast difference between ideal individual character and behaviour on the one side, and an individual’s actual position and options (possibilities) with regard to war on the other? As to Chinese ethics and history: did the notion of junzi have any influence on concepts and occurrences of pacifism and war? And if so, in what respect? And how should we understand the jun­zi’s ideas about punishment and wars led in the name of humaneness?

In short, taking as starting point and focusing on the “Confucian” concept of junzi, I deal with what may be called “individual pacifism”—or more precisely, individual rejection or renunciation of war—and the impact such individual pacifism can and ought to have on decisions about war and peace. In so doing, I also speculate about combining a “rule of virtue” with a “rule of law”, thereby considering the role of individuals in 21st century wars. Finally, I utilize my results to propose a notion of pacifism that sharply contrasts with contemporary arguments in favour of wars, including those for uncompromising wars of defence.