Confucius, Rawls, and the Sense of Justice

Chapter 1. Methods in Comparative Work

28 c h a p t e r 1 Methods in Comparative Work Although the central argument of this book aims to help readers to more fully understand and appreciate certain aspects of Rawls’s and Kongzi’s thought, it also aims to show why comparative studies are sometimes helpful . In the Introduction I discussed the reasons why a comparative study of Rawlsian and Confucian understandings of a sense of justice is worthwhile. But although the question of why comparative studies are worthwhile varies considerably depending upon what one is comparing, there are also some more general reasons for doing comparative work. In the first part of this chapter, I take up this more general question of why comparative work is worth doing. After examining some influential answers to this question offered by scholars of comparative and Chinese thought in the disciplines of religious studies and philosophy, I focus on reasons for doing comparative work that will be of particular interest to philosophers.1 In the second section of the chapter, I discuss the distinctive challenges that comparativists often face, with the aim of showing that different kinds of issues can pose challenges in comparative work—specifically interpretive, thematic, and procedural issues—and that it can be helpful for comparativists and readers of comparative studies to distinguish between them, both in order Methods in Comparative Work 29 to sort out the reasons why some comparative studies are more successful than others and also to show how comparative studies might be compelling in certain respects but not in others. In the concluding part of the chapter , I argue that an “anti-method” approach to comparative work seems more promising than specific, single methods for doing comparative work. On the view I describe, the comparativist does not embrace a particular method or approach but rather seeks to address the various sorts of challenges one faces in comparative work carefully and consistently, possibly utilizing different approaches to address different types of issues. Why Compare? In recent years the exploration of similarities and differences between Western philosophy and the philosophical traditions of Asia has become the focus of an increasing volume of philosophical work. Within the discipline of philosophy, comparative philosophy is beginning to be accepted by some philosophers as a field of its own, defined by the study of philosophers and texts from non-Western philosophical traditions in comparison and contrast with Anglo-American, European, Greek, and Roman philosophy. But although comparative philosophers have made progress in terms of gaining recognition within the discipline of philosophy, most philosophers still wonder why studying non-Western philosophy is important , and what comparative studies can accomplish. The latter question is also of relevance in the disciplines of religious studies and theology, where scholars of religion continue to raise—and propose answers to—questions about why comparative work is important, and about the nature and possibility of work that aims to put diverse religious, philosophical, and cultural perspectives in dialogue.2 In contrast with the discipline of religious studies, where the study of religions from many parts of the world is seen as important, the discipline of philosophy has been slow to recognize the value of studying philosophical traditions that have roots in other cultures. One reason for this is that unlike fields such as religious studies and theology, where there is widespread acceptance of the fact that there are religious traditions outside those of the West, many philosophers remain skeptical about whether there is, in fact, philosophy outside of the West. Philosophers who do acknowledge that there is philosophy outside of the West often remain skeptical about whether there is anything of substance or value in non-Western philosophy . This is why it remains uncommon for philosophy departments to have 30 Methods in Comparative Work any course offerings in non-Western philosophy (other than perhaps a token survey course in “Eastern” or Asian philosophy), while for almost all other disciplines in the humanities—including history, literature, religious studies, and art history—it is almost unthinkable not to include the study of other cultures and traditions, and to study them extensively and in a specialized way. It is also the reason why those philosophers who specialize in non-Western traditions are regularly pressed on the question of whether the ideas they study are indeed philosophical and, if so, why we ought to study them. In contrast, scholars of religion tend not...