A Comparative Study of Bishop Joseph Butler and Wang Yang- ming's Conception of Conscience The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Chang, Peter T. 2009. A Comparative Study of Bishop Joseph Butler and Wang Yang-ming's Conception of Conscience. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Divinity School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37367433 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA A Comparative Study of Bishop Joseph Butler’s and Wang Yang-ming’s ( 王王王阳王阳阳阳明明明明) Conception of Conscience A thesis presented by Peter T. C. Chang To The Faculty of Harvard Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology In the subject of Comparative Religion Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts June 2009 @ 2009 Peter T. C. Chang All rights reserved. 1 TIFFare (Uncompressed) neededQuickTime™ to see this decompressorand picture. a 2 Professor David Little Peter T. C. Chang A Comparative Study of Bishop Joseph Butler’s and Wang Yang-ming’s ( 王王王阳王阳阳阳明明明明) Conception of Conscience Abstract This dissertation is a comparative study of the Anglican Bishop Joseph Butler’s (1692–1752 AD) and the Neo-Confucianist Wang Yang-ming’s (王阳明) (1472–1529 AD) conception of conscience (or in Wang’s terminology, liang-chih (良知)). Conscience, for Butler and Wang, is the supreme moral guide, signifying the individual person’s moral autonomy. Yet human remain fallible leading Butler and Wang to warn that unless carefully nurtured, conscience may yet become weakened or even buried. Therefore Butler’s and Wang’s moral appeal is the recurring call to conscientiousness and to exhort their fellow humankind to diligent moral cultivation. In comparing Butler and Wang this study shows they possess complex differences and important similarities. In the first instance there are marked variances, for example, while affirming the supernatural realm they diverge radically in their specific depiction of the transcendent. They also differed in moral cultivation with Butler’s emphasis on ‘cool reflection’ while Wang focus more on the senses. Differences notwithstanding Butler and Wang share important semblances. Their modes of deliberation reveal familiar patterns, 3 e.g., assertions of prima facie truth, decisions guided by consequences, recognition of primary and secondary norms etc. There are also intriguing parallels in their prognosis of erroneous teachings. Butler’s critique of Hobbes and Wang’s repudiation of the Mohists, show their unified concern to defend a sanguine interpretation of human nature. Butler’s refutation of the Deists and Wesley, and Wang’s criticism of Chu Hsi and the Buddhist, underscores their common struggle over the perennial dialectical tension of reason and sense. In addition this dissertation shows that Butler’s and Wang’s conception of conscience, and by extension the moral self, have critical nuances. This is evident specifically in their thicker rendition of human flourishing, i.e., their more intricate view of what constitute the Christian and Chun Tzu . However they also share crucial similarities especially in their thinner account of moral self, i.e., their expectation that humankind ought to conform to a set of basic values. In sum this thesis argues that while Butler and Wang possess critical thick differences they also affirm thin similarities that are equally vital. 4 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction p. 7 A) Overview of the Dissertation Project B) Review of Comparative Religious Ethics (CRE) Methodology Debate C) Appendix: Identifying the Sources Chapter 2: Bishop Joseph Butler’s Conception of Conscience p. 33 A) Moral Vision B) The Christian B1) Conceptual Knowledge B2) Practical Knowledge C) The Moral Anatomy C1) Principle of Self Love and Benevolence, Several Passions and Affections C2) Conscience D) Framework of Moral Knowledge D1) To Know D2) To Do E) Moral Objectivity and Diversity E1) Objective Order E2) Primary and Secondary Orders E3) Maintaining Objectivity in Diversity E4) Basis for Primary and Secondary Orders F) Moral Frailty F1) Conscience Weakened F2) Conscience Asleep F3) The “Lost” Self? G) Moral Cultivation G1) Balanced Emphasis G2) Study and Spiritual Programs G3) Habits G4) Priority: Primary and Secondary H) Butler’s Specific Concerns H1) Hobbes H2) The Deists H3) Wesley Chapter 3: Wang yang-ming’s Conception of Liang-Chih p. 105 A) Moral Vision B) The Chun Tzu B1) Conceptual Knowledge B2) Practical Knowledge C) The Moral Anatomy C1) Hsin C2) Liang -Chih D) Framework of Moral Knowledge D1) To Know 5 D2) To Do E) Moral Objectivity and Diversity E1) Objective Order E2) Conceptual Knowledge E3) Practical Knowledge F) Moral Frailty F1) The Small Self F2) The “Lost” Self? G) Moral Cultivation G1) Institutional Setup G2) Medium of Cultivation G3) Stages and Priority: Primary and Secondary Expectations H) Wang’s Specific Concerns H1) Mo Tzu H2) Chu Hsi H3) The Buddhist Chapter 4: Comparing Butler and Wang p. 176 A) Moral Vision A1) The Transcendent A2) The Goal A3) The Process B) Moral Self B1) The Human Individual B2) Moral Anatomy B3) Human Frailty C) Framework of Moral Knowledge C1) General-Particular, Innate-Extended C2) More and Less Determinate C3) Exception Cases D) Objectivity and Diversity D1) The Vision D2) The Reality E) Moral Cultivation E1) Study and Spiritual Program E2) Institutional E3) Strategies in Cultivation F) Butler’s and Wang’s Specific Concerns F1) Hobbes and Mo Tzu F2) The Deists and Wesley; Chu Hsi and Buddhism G) Butler and Wang: Historical Standing and Personal Experiences Chapter 5: Butler, Wang, and the Contemporary Challenges p. 247 A) Christian-Confucian Relationship A1) Wang’s Assessment of Butler A2) Butler’s Assessment of Wang B) The CRE Methodological Debate B1) Yearly B2) Little and Twiss 6 Chapter 1: Introduction Human communities exist on the basis of accepted rules governing behavior. Yet ascertaining what constitutes the appropriate code of conduct remains a contentious subject for any society. The collective body has to deal with disputed questions ranging from a person’s particular choice of practices (e.g., abortion or polygamy) to general conceptual debates over belief systems (e.g., whether the moral order is predetermined by God). Through the ages, diverse philosophical and religious traditions, such as those of Ancient Egypt and Greece, the Judeo-Christian traditions, as well as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, have sought to discern the values needed to maintain a stable and harmonious communal order. In the earliest parts of their history, the world’s major traditions in the relative isolation of their respective contexts formulated specific moral values considered essential for their particular community’s well-being. While largely oblivious to each other’s efforts, the various traditions did not make their advances in moral formation completely without external influences. Historical studies, textual analysis, and anthropological research have uncovered evidence of lending and borrowing between traditions as they developed their moral ideas. St. Paul’s systemization of Christian theology is a case in point, as Greek philosophical influence is clearly discernible. To be sure, these cross-cultural exchanges in their earliest forms were mostly local interactions between neighboring traditions, e.g., the ancient Egyptians and the Hebrew faith, Christianity and Greek philosophy, Hinduism and Buddhism, and Confucianism and Taoism. Later, however, these interactions began to take on an intercontinental dimension. As the spirit of adventure drove some enterprising humans to 7 traverse greater geographical distances, these pioneers carried their respective moral traditions to new cultural territories. Marco Polo’s odyssey along the Silk Road into Yuan China marked one of the earliest meetings of the Christian West and Confucian East. Merchants of the Arabian Peninsula plowing the trade routes in the Indian Ocean introduced Islam to then predominantly Hindu Southeast Asia. Of course, these initial encounters of the world’s major traditions were not without animosity. Marco Polo had his share of missteps in the Chinese imperial courts, and it took considerable perseverance on his part before the Yuan rulers’ favors were restored. The Buddhist migration across the central Asian plains to China is another interesting episode. After enduring a series of serious setbacks, Buddhism over time assimilated into the Confucian-dominated landscape, transforming itself into a form with indigenous Chinese features distinct from its Indian origins. In today’s age of globalization, the interactions of the world’s major traditions continue apace. These meetings have produced, in some contemporary religious adherents, an expressed commitment to a respectful, pluralistic coexistence. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one embodiment of this aspiration, seeking to unify the global community around a set of common standards. However, not all share such a sanguine outlook, and elements of the contemporary religious order, e.g., sectarians and fundamentalists, have displayed only contempt for others and even stoked up the threat of a clash between civilizations. Today’s reality of globalization