KANT, CONFUCIUS AND THE BUDDHA : A COMPARISON OF THEIR VIEWS ON FREEDOM

Abstract

Through a discussion of the paradox of determinism and freedom, the thesis begins by establishing that Kant, Confucius and the Buddha believe in universal causation. Chapter Three argues that Kant, Confucius and the Buddha subscribe to a form psychological determinism of actions which however, denies that external events or innate characteristics beyond a person's control, whether together or separately, directly or indirectly, could ever provide the sufficient condition for action. They insist on the possibility of self-determination. It is the self which determines whether and which external events or innate characteristics are effective determinants of actions. This self-determination, which is the power of alternative action, is philosophical freedom of action. 2. The writer argues that a discussion of philosophical freedom lacks significance and even relevance if it is not seen as the basis of views on social (including political) freedom. Kant, Confucius and the Buddha are concerned with the social aspects of life to different extent and they have different views of the nature and value of man's sociability. In Chapter Eight, the writer compares the way each thinker portrays the relationship of morality and social existence, and the consequences of that relationship for freedom. 3. Morality involves principles for treatment of others, within a structure of social relations. The differences and similarities of the three thinkers' views with regard to this structure, and the implications on their views of freedom, are discussed in Chapter Nine. All three thinkers agree that moral principles must constrain our behaviour in recognition and consideration of others' humanity. Chapter Ten considers the constraints on personal freedom imposed by morality. The conclusion stresses that Kant, the Buddha and Confucius agree that morality's constraints on personal freedom must always be self-imposed. Instead of being incompatible, morality and freedom must be combined for a meaningful existence. 4. Kant, the Buddha and Confucius, though not always explicitly, recognise that ordinary human beings often fall short of their moral potential. A person does not always impose constraints on himself according to the dictates of his conscience. Hence there is a need for external controls to facilitate social interaction; this is addressed in Chapter Eleven. Chapters Twelve to Fourteen compare the three thinkers' treatment of external control on human actions, based on three basic questions regarding political freedom: the individual's freedom in choosing who commands the apparatus of government, the conditions under which the individual has the right to resist the commands of those in government and the areas in which the state's interference is justified.