Individual Autonomy and Responsibility in Late Imperial China By ...

self is perceived in society; its representation is deemed particularly meaningful because it discloses important information about the values attributed to personal autonomy and on the interaction between personal autonomy and tradition. Thus it is no wonder that responsibility is conceived differently by scholars like Fingarette and Du Weiming.

The first difference we notice is that in China there is no philosophical debate on the opposition “determinism-free will,” which has animated the history of thought in Europe.¹⁰ It has been noted that premodern Chinese thought has not apparently been aware of the problem of human freedom and free will.¹¹ The role of the question on free will seems not so connected with responsibility as we are used to thinking, though with different perspectives. Generally speaking, in Europe, debates on divine justice and on the cause-effect sequence had a relevant impact on theoretical discussions on moral responsibility. Confucianism goes beyond the moment of choice-making, extending responsibility to personality formation, and pays great attention to the cultivation of the person. Thus, moral responsibility is perceived as removing (or not) the obstacles that prevent the natural growth of the heart-mind.¹²

Consequently, the lack of controversy over personal freedom and responsibility does not automatically mean their rejection, nor that there was a gaping hole in Confucian moral philosophy; it is simply an indication and consequence of a different perspective.¹³ The different perspectives concerning responsibility and the question of free will are evident if we think of the Western view of a distinct God, creator of both nature and humans, with the contradiction of coexisting with evil. The monotheistic concept of an almighty, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God identified with good is what can here primarily be accounted for such a difference in approaches and perspectives. Indeed, simply put, the main issue at hand for Western philosophers is how to explain the coexistence of an almighty good God with evil: Si Deus est unde malum? Et si non est, unde bonum? (lit. If God exists, why is there evil? If God does not exist, why is there good?). Many debates have arisen from the dichotomy of