Is there a universal priority in cases of value conflicts? —Reverse engineering Quan 權
When we face a choice between two incompatible actions, is there a universal priority? The early Confucians used the notion of quan 權 to navigate conflicts. On the one hand, quan can be a mean of weighing or assessing. Through quan, agents should be able to recognize the most valuable action and arr...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Carfax
2023
|
| In: |
Asian philosophy
Year: 2023, Volume: 33, Issue: 3, Pages: 281-297 |
| Further subjects: | B
impersonal reasoning
B moral exemplarism B Personal reasoning B reverse engineering B Quan 權 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | When we face a choice between two incompatible actions, is there a universal priority? The early Confucians used the notion of quan 權 to navigate conflicts. On the one hand, quan can be a mean of weighing or assessing. Through quan, agents should be able to recognize the most valuable action and arrive at a universal priority. Thus, quan entails impersonal reasoning. On the other hand, quan means balancing, and its aim is to seek the most appropriate response. What is appropriate depends on each individual’s personal factors. Thus, quan implies personal reasoning. I argue that quan represents a holistic thinking process that includes both impersonal and personal reasoning. But agents cannot engage in these two types of reasoning simultaneously. By reverse engineering how exemplars would implement quan, I show that these two types of reasoning are primarily used in different kinds of value conflicts. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-2961 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Asian philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/09552367.2023.2220245 |