Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shu-Considerateness and Ren-Humaneness: The Confucian Silver Rule and Golden Rule

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See mainly H. T. D. Rost, The Golden Rule: A Universal Ethic (Oxford: George Ronald, 1986); Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel, eds., A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions (New York: Continuum, 1993); Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Andrew H. Plaks, “Shining Ideal and Uncertain Reality: Commentaries on the ‘Golden Rule’ in Confucianism and Other Traditions,” Journal of Chinese Humanities 1 (2015): 231–40.

  2. See mainly Wing-tsit Chan, “The Evolution of the Confucian Concept of Ren,” Philosophy East & West 4 (1955): 295–320; H. G. Creel, Confucius and the Chinese Way (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 131–32; Herbert Fingarette, “Following the ‘One Thread’ of the Analects,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion: Thematic Issue 47.3 (1979): 387–91; Philip J. Ivanhoe, “Reweaving the ‘One Thread’ of the Analects,” Philosophy East and West 40.1 (1990): 17–33; Küng and Kuschel, Global Ethic; David S. Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments in Chinese Moral Philosophy,” in The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy, ed. Bryan W. Van Norden (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), 59–76; Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule, 15–26; Qingjie J. Wang, “The Golden Rule and Interpersonal Care: From a Confucian Perspective,” Philosophy East and West 49.4 (1999): 415–38;

    Bo Mou, “A Reexamination of the Structure and Content of Confucius’ Version of the Golden Rule,” Philosophy East and West 54.2 (2004): 218–48.

  3. See mainly James Legge, The Chinese Classics (1861; reprint, Taipei: SMC Publishing, 1994), 177; Zhao Dunhua 趙敦華, “Zhishi jinguize ma: Ping zongjiao duihua de yige wuqu” 只是金規則嗎: 評宗教對話的一個誤區 (Is There only the Golden Rule? On a Misunderstanding in Religious Dialogues), Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰線 (Social Science Front) 2 (2008): 32–36.

  4. See mainly Robert E. Allinson, “Confucian Golden Rule: A Negative Formulation,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 12.3 (1985): 305–15; Allinson, “The Golden Rule as the Core Value in Confucianism & Christianity: Ethical Similarities and Differences,” Asian Philosophy 2.2 (1992): 173–85; Tu Wei-ming, “Rujia de shudao shi wenming duihua de jichu” 儒家的恕道是文明對話的基礎 (The Confucian Way of shu is the Foundation for Dialogues between Civilizations), Renmin luntan 人民論壇 (People’s Tribune) 12 (2013): 76–77.

  5. Xu Shen 許慎 (ca. 30–124), Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1963), 218a.

  6. Jia Yi 賈誼 (200 BCE–168 BCE), Yan Zhenyi 閻振益, and Zhong Xia 鍾夏, Xinshu jiaozhu 新書校注 (Collation and Annotation on the New Book) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1983), 8.303; Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 (Collective Annotations on the Four Books) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1983), 72–73. Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi and others further extend the interpretation to “extending one’s feelings to consider all objects.”

  7. All translations of citations from the Analects are adapted from D. C. Lau, trans., The Analects (London and New York: Penguin Books, 1979).

  8. It is uncertain whether Confucius actually made such a comment, but in the Analects (14.12) he indeed says that Zang Wuzhong is a man of wisdom.

  9. See Rost, Golden Rule; Küng and Kuschel, Global Ethic.

  10. Ivanhoe, “Reweaving the ‘One Thread’ of the Analects,” 17–33; Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments in Chinese Moral Philosophy,” 59–76; Wattles, The Golden Rule, 15–26; Wang, “The Golden Rule and Interpersonal Care,” 415–38.

  11. Mou, “A Reexamination of the Structure and Content of Confucius’ Version of the Golden Rule,” Philosophy of East and West 54.2 (2004): 218–48.

  12. Wing-Tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 44.

  13. This interpretation follows the comments of Kong Anguo 孔安國 (156 BCE–74 BCE), Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, and Yang Fengbin 楊逢彬. See Yang Fengbin, Lunyu xinzhu xinyi 論語新注新譯 (New Annotation and Translation on the Analects) (Beijing: Peking University Press, 2016), 87–88. Some scholars have interpreted Confucius’ words as asserting Zigong was unable to reach the standard of shu, which I believe to be a misunderstanding.

  14. Mou, “Reexamination of the Structure,” 228–29.

  15. Allinson, “Confucian Golden Rule,” 305–15.

  16. Allinson, “Hillel and Confucius: The Proscriptive Formulation of the Golden Rule in the Jewish and Chinese Confucian Ethical Traditions,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 3.1 (2003): 29–41.

  17. See mainly Feng Youlan (Fung Yu-lan) 馮友蘭, Zhongguo zhexueshi 中國哲學史 (A History of Chinese Philosophy) (1934; rept. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 2000), 61–62; David Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments,” 59–76.

  18. Li Zehou 李澤厚 has put forward this argument and explained that ancient Chinese thinkers were usually more interested in the empirical question of “how to do” than the ontological question of “what is.” See Li, Lunyu jindu 論語今讀 (Reading the Analects Today) (Hong Kong: Cosmos Books, 1998), 54. We can further support this argument by other similar questions such as “asking about xiao-filiality” (wen xiao 問孝) and “asking about zheng-government” (wen zheng 問政). Since the meanings of xiao and zheng are not ambiguous, these questions can be consistently explained as “how to practice filiality” and “how to govern.” The reason why Confucius offers different answers to different people is because everyone should practice ren-humaneness, xiao-filiality, or zheng-government according to their own personalities or contextual situations. For example, “Sima Niu asked about ren. The Master said, ‘A person of ren is loath to speak” 司馬牛問仁. 子曰: “仁者其言也仞” (Analects, 12.3). According to his biography in the Shiji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian), Sima Niu “talked a lot and was impatient” (duoyan er zao 多言而躁); this may be why Confucius instructs him to be “loath to speak.” Yang Bojun has indicated this point; see his Lunyu yizhu 論語譯注 (Translation and Annotation of the Analects) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1980), 124.

  19. This misinterpretation started with some traditional scholars. For example, as early as in the Han dynasty, Xu Shen already explained shu as ren. See Xu, Shuowen jiezi, 218a.

  20. Feng Youlan, Zhongguo zhexueshi, 61–62.

  21. Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments,” 59–76. See also Gao Heng 高亨, “Kongzi sixiang sanlun” 孔子思想三論 (Three Discussions on Confucius’ Thought), Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究 (Philosophical Researches) 1 (1962): 52–61; Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), 27.

  22. Fingarette, “Following the ‘One Thread,’” 387–91.

  23. Ivanhoe, “Reweaving the ‘One Thread’,” 17–33.

  24. Wattles, The Golden Rule, 15–26.

  25. Höchsmann, “Love and the State in Plato and Confucius,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2.1 (2002): 97-116.

  26. Qian Mu 錢穆, Lunyu xinjie 論語新解 (New Interpretation on the Analects) (Beijing: Joint Publishing, 2002), 104.

  27. Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments,” 64; E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks, The Original Analects (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 148–49; Bryan Van Norden, “Unweaving the ‘One Thread’ of Analects 4:15,” in Van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 218–24.

  28. Bryan Van Norden has rebutted Fingarette, Nivison, and Ivanhoe in this regard; see his “Unweaving the ‘One Thread,’” 216–36.

  29. Qingjie Wang has noted this point. See Wang, “The Golden Rule and Interpersonal Care,” 421. The excavated Guodian text, The Dao of Zhong-Loyalty and Xin-Trustworthiness (Zhong xin zhi dao 忠信之道), states, “Zhong-loyalty is the substance of ren-humaneness” 忠, 仁之實也. This text mainly discusses the ruler’s virtue, and zhong-loyalty here is not identified with ren but instead seen as a way to achieve ren-humane government. See Li Cunshan 李存山, “Xianqin rujia de zhengzhi lunli jiaokeshu: Du Chujian ‘Zhongxin zhi dao’ ji qita” 先秦儒家的政治倫理教科書: 讀楚簡忠信之道及其他 (A Textbook of Pre-Qin Confucian Political Ethics: Reading on the Chu Bamboo Text “The Dao of Loyalty and Trustworthiness” and Others), Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu 中國文化研究 (Study on Chinese Culture) 4 (1998): 24–30。

  30. Philip Ivanhoe has indicated that zhong never denotes reversibility/reciprocity in the Analects; see his “Reweaving the ‘One Thread,’” 18-19, 22.

  31. The transmitted Shuowen jiezi does not contain this interpretation; here I replenish it with citations from the early commentary to Xiaojing 孝經 (Classic of Filiality). See Xu Shen, Jiang Renjie 蔣人傑, and Liu Rui 劉銳, Shuowen jiezi jizhu 說文解字集注 (Collective Commentaries on the Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1996), 2205–6.

  32. Lau, The Analects, “Introduction,” 16; Hall and Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press, 1987), 28.

  33. Feng Youlan was the first modern scholar to elevate shu and zhong to the level of ren, but he did not invent this opinion. Rather, he simply followed the idea of traditional Confucian scholars, especially Neo-Confucians such as Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1108), Zhu Xi, and others (Nivison, “Golden Rule Arguments,” 67–73). This idea was not merely a misinterpretation of Confucius’ conceptions of shu, zhong, and ren, but had also brought serious consequence to both ideological and political spheres in Chinese history. Since shu and zhong were identified with and even replaced ren, the ruling class required the people to be absolute loyal and tolerance to them while they could do all the inhumane, corrupt things. The concept of absolute loyal and tolerance had taken root in Chinese peoples’ minds both consciously and unconsciously, and thus had helped prolong China’s totalitarian regimes. This is the topic of another essay I am working on.

  34. Xu Shen, Shuowen jiezi, 161b.

  35. Ding Foyan 丁佛言, Shuowen guzhou bubu 說文古籀補補 (Supplementary to the Supplementary of the Ancient Scripts in the Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1988), 37b; Guo Moruo 郭沫若, Jinwen congkao 金文叢考 (Miscellaneous Studies on Bronze Inscriptions) (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1954), 216b; Liu Xiang 劉翔, Zhongguo chuantong jiazhiguan chanshixue 中國傳統價值觀闡釋學 (Hermeneutics of Traditional Chinese Values) (1994; rept. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 1996), 157–61.

  36. Chen Wei 陳偉, ed., Chudi chutu Zhanguo jiance [shisi zhong] 楚地出土戰國簡冊 [十四種] (Fourteen Warring-States Manuscripts Excavated from Chu Region) (Beijing: Jingji kexue chubanshe, 2009), 162–262.

  37. See Li Xiaoding 李孝定, Jiagu wenzi jishi 甲骨文字集釋 (Collective Interpretations of Oracle Bone Inscriptions) (Nangang: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1970), 2719; Dai Jiaxiang 戴家祥, Jinwen dazidian 金文大字典 (Grand Dictionary of Bronze Inscriptions) (Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1995), 4502–5; He Linyi 何琳儀, Zhanguo guwen zidian 戰國古文字典 (Dictionary of Warring-States Ancient Scripts) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1988), 1137–38.

  38. See for example, The Analects, 15.24, 1.4; Mencius, 1B15, 7A30, 4A5. See also Liu Xiang, Zhongguo chuantong jiazhiguan chanshixue, 159.

  39. Wang Xianshen 王先慎, Hanfeizi jijie 韓非子集解 (Collective Annotations on the Master Han Fei) (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1998), 6.131.

  40. Wang, “Golden Rule and Interpersonal Care,” 415–38.

  41. Eric L. Hutton, trans., Xunzi: The Complete Text (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 155.

  42. Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200) and Kong Yingda 孔穎達 (574–648), Liji Zhengyi 禮記正義 (Correct Meanings of the Record of Rites) (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2000), 54.1720b, 60.1871a.

  43. Apart from identifying ren with zhong and shu, scholars have also defined ren as “general virtue,” “universal virtue,” “totality of virtues,” “ontological notion,” or even “surrounded with paradox and mystery.” See for example, Wing-tsit Chan, “Chinese and Western interpretations of jen (humanity),” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2.2 (1975): 107–29; Fingarette, Confucius: The Secular as Sacred (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), 37. This kind of definition, however, is again mainly drawn from the misunderstanding of “asking about ren” as “asking what ren is.” Since Confucius uses various kinds of virtue and conduct to answer the questions, scholars misread all the virtues as identical with ren, and thus draw the conclusion that ren represents the general, universal virtue. If we understand the questions as mostly about “how to practice/cultivate ren,” Confucius’ answers are mainly ways to practice and cultivate ren in daily activities and all the paradoxical, mysterious doubts can be dismissed. There have been many more other explications of ren, and in English literature alone there have been more than twenty different translations of ren. Because of the limited space, it is impossible to discuss all those definitions here.

  44. Li Zehou has held this opinion and cited these records to illuminate it. See Li, Lunyu jindu, 18, 31.

  45. Chen Wei, Chudi chutu Zhanguo jiance, 184.

  46. Translation adapted from D.C. Lau, Trans., Mencius (London and New York: Penguin, 1970).

References

  • Allinson, Robert E. 1985. Confucian Golden Rule: A Negative Formulation. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 12 (3): 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allinson, Robert E. 2003. “Hillel and Confucius: The Proscriptive Formulation of the Golden Rule in the Jewish and Chinese Confucian Ethical Traditions.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 3.1: 29–41.

  • Allinson, Robert E. 1992. The Golden Rule as the Core Value in Confucianism & Christianity: Ethical Similarities and Differences. Asian Philosophy 2 (2): 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, E. Bruce., and A. Taeko Brooks. 1998. The Original Analects. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Wing-tsit. 1955. The Evolution of the Confucian Concept of Ren. Philosophy East and West 4: 295–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Wing-tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Chen, Wei 陳偉, ed. 2009. Chudi chutu Zhanguo jiance [shisi zhong] 楚地出土戰國簡冊 [十四種] (Fourteen Warring-States Manuscripts Excavated from Chu Region). Beijing: Economic Science Press.

  • Creel, H.G. 1960. Confucius and the Chinese Way. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai, Jiaxiang 戴家祥. 1995. Jinwen dazidian 金文大字典 (Grand Dictionary of Bronze Inscriptions). Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe.

  • Ding, Foyan 丁佛言. 1988. Shuowen guzhou bubu 說文古籀補補 (Supplementary to the Supplementary of the Ancient Scripts in the Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Press.

  • Feng, Youlan (Fung Yu-lan) 馮友蘭. 1934/2000. Zhongguo zhexueshi 中國哲學史 (A History of Chinese Philosophy). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.

  • Fingarette, Herbert. 1979. Following the ‘One Thread’ of the Analects. Journal of the American Academy of Religion: Thematic Issue 47 (3): 387–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fingarette, Herbert. 1972. Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Heng 高亨. 1962. “Kongzi sixiang sanlun” 孔子思想三論 (Three Discussions on Confucius’ Thought), Zhexue yanjiu 哲學研究 (Philosophical Researches) 1: 52–61.

  • Guo, Moruo 郭沫若. 1954. Jinwen congkao 金文叢考 (Miscellaneous Studies on Bronze Inscriptions). Beijing: People’s Press.

  • Hall, David, and Roger T. Ames. 1987. Thinking Through Confucius. Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Linyi 何琳儀. 1988. Zhanguo guwen zidian 戰國古文字典 (Dictionary of Warring-States Ancient Scripts). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

  • Hutton, Eric L., trans. 2014. Xunzi: The Complete Text. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Ivanhoe, Philip J. 1990. Reweaving the ‘One Thread’ of the Analects. Philosophy East and West 40 (1): 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, Yi 賈誼 (200 BCE–168 BCE), Yan Zhenyi 閻振益, and Zhong Xia 鍾夏. 1983. Xinshu jiaozhu 新書校注 (Collation and Annotation on the New Book). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1983.

  • Küng, Hans, and Karl-Josef. Kuschel, eds. 1993. A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C. trans. 1979. The Analects. London and New York: Penguin Books.

  • Lau, D. C. trans. 1970. Mencius. London and New York: Penguin Books.

  • Legge, James. 1994. The Chinese Classics. 1861; reprint, Taipei: SMC Publishing.

  • Li, Cunshan 李存山. 1988. “Xianqin rujia de zhengzhi lunli jiaokeshu: Du Chujian ‘Zhongxin zhi dao’ ji qita” 先秦儒家的政治倫理教科書: 讀楚簡忠信之道及其他 (A Textbook of Pre-Qin Confucian Political Ethics: Reading on the Chu Bamboo Text “The Dao of Loyalty and Trustworthiness” and Others), Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu 中國文化研究 (Study on Chinese Culture) 4: 24–30

  • Li, Xiaoding 李孝定. 1970. Jiagu wenzi jishi 甲骨文字集釋 (Collective Interpretations of Oracle Bone Inscriptions). Nangang: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1970.

  • Li, Zehou 李澤厚. 1998. Lunyu jindu 論語今讀 (Reading the Analects Today). Hong Kong: Cosmos Books.

  • Liu, Xiang 劉翔. 1996. Zhongguo chuantong jiazhiguan chanshixue 中國傳統價值觀闡釋學 (Hermeneutics of Traditional Chinese Values). Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing.

  • Mou, Bo. 2004. A Reexamination of the Structure and Content of Confucius’ Version of the Golden Rule. Philosophy East and West 54 (2): 218–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nivision, David S. 1996. “Golden Rule Arguments in Chinese Moral Philosophy.” The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy, ed. Bryan W. Van Norden. Chicago: Open Court, 59–76.

  • Plaks, Andrew H. 2015. Shining Ideal and Uncertain Reality: Commentaries on the ‘Golden Rule’ in Confucianism and Other Traditions. Journal of Chinese Humanities 1: 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Mu 錢穆. 2002. Lunyu xinjie 論語新解 (New Interpretation on the Analects). Beijing: Joint Publishing.

  • Rost, H.T.D. 1986. The Golden Rule: A Universal Ethic. Oxford: George Ronald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Wei-ming. 2013. “Rujia de shudao shi wenming duihua de jichu” 儒家的恕道是文明對話的基礎 (The Confucian Way of shu is the Foundation for Dialogues between Civilizations). Renmin luntan 人民論壇 (People’s Tribune) 12: 76–77.

  • Van Norden, Bryan. 2002. “Unweaving the ‘One Thread’ of Analects 4:15.” Confucius and the Analects, ed. Van Norden. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 218–24.

  • Wang, Xianshen 王先慎. 1998. Hanfeizi jijie 韓非子集解 (Collective Annotations on the Master Han Fei). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Press.

  • Wang, Qingjie James. 1999. The Golden Rule and Interpersonal Care: From a Confucian Perspective. Philosophy East and West 49 (4): 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattles, Jeffrey. 1996. The Golden Rule. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Shen 許慎 (ca. 30–124). 1963. Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

  • Xu, Shen, Jiang Renjie 蔣人傑, and Liu Rui 劉銳, eds. 1996. Shuowen jiezi jizhu 說文解字集注 (Collective Commentaries on the Explanations of Simple Graphs and Analyses of Compound Characters). Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Book Press.

  • Yang, Bojun 楊伯峻. 1980. Lunyu yizhu 論語譯注 (Translation and Annotation of the Analects). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

  • Yang, Fengbin 楊逢彬. 2016. Lunyu xinzhu xinyi 論語新注新譯 (New Annotation and Translation on the Analects). Beijing: Peking University Press.

  • Zhao, Dunhua 趙敦華. 2008. “Zhishi jinguize ma: Ping zongjiao duihua de yige wuqu” 只是金規則嗎: 評宗教對話的一個誤區 (Is There only the Golden Rule? On a Misunderstanding in Religious Dialogues). Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰線 (Social Science Front) 2: 32–36.

  • Zheng, Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200) and Kong Yingda 孔穎達 (574–648). 2000. Liji Zhengyi 禮記正義 (Correct Meanings of the Record of Rites). Beijing: Beijing University Press.

  • Zhu, Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200). 1983. Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 (Collective Annotations on the Four Books). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Studies of Traditional Chinese Culture, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, People’s Republic of China

    Jinhua Jia

  2. Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau SAR, People’s Republic of China

    Jinhua Jia

Authors
  1. Jinhua Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinhua Jia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, J. Shu-Considerateness and Ren-Humaneness: The Confucian Silver Rule and Golden Rule. J Value Inquiry 58, 257–273 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09879-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09879-x

Search

Navigation