Criticism of Daoism (Essay Sample)

Name
Institution
Course
Date
Criticism of Daoism
There are different cultures in the world that have their own beliefs and rules that govern them. The ancient Chinese culture, for example, like many other cultures, had different ways of viewing issues. There were philosophers in China, who defined morality in a more complex ways. For example, Daoism had this story of an old fool who lost his horse, the public termed this as a bad incident. The horse came back with a group of other animals; the public said that was good. His boy broke his leg while riding one of the new horses; the public again called the happening as bad. However, the boy survived as he could not fight a war; the public again termed this as good. The old man never judged any of the incidents as good or bad. He could not mention the acts as moral or immoral (Moeller 32). How fool was he that he could not differentiate between what was good and what was bad. Daoism focuses on the principle of ignoring morality. It does not advocate people to judge and it is ignorant to the terms bad or good. However, the Zhuangzi does not ignore morality as a whole, but recognizes moral or ethical relativism.
Daoism is blind to ‘bad and good’, and it does not understand the difference between good and bad. Those who believed in Daoism applied this dogma in their day to day life. Daoist refused to view the world on the basis of moral distinction since they did not accept their validity. This theory can have serious implications in peoples’ lives in a particular perspective, if they do not differentiate between the good and the bad (Cua 578). Ethically, referring to someone as good or bad is the same as referring to them as good or evil. It does not augur well to refer to a person as "good" or ”bad" in its moral application; which is unavoidable. The disdain that goes along with the moral use can go a long way to say something entirely different. The Zhuangzi philosophy, on the other hand, has a small difference from Daoism because they have a radical renunciation of morality as a result of its failures. They assume that good cannot be determined, and ethics does not have clear guidelines or principles to be followed. Just because something does not have a formula or a clear guideline on how it works does not mean it does not exist (Lee 82). Therefore, the Daosism argument seems baseless from this point of view.
It is hard to agree with Daoism philosophy, which suggest that morality does not exist. Daoism tries to imply that there is no good and bad and everyone is allowed to do everything they want without any criticism. Daoism chooses to ignore morality in all aspects including moral relativity. Given the renunciation of moral and ethical values, the world will not be able to distinguish between good and evil. If we choose to ignore the existence of morality, then almost everything, or anything will be allowed. Genocides, raping and almost all dangerous activities would be allowed. Everyone would be allowed to do whatever they want to (Xiao and Huang 32) . After denying the existence of moral principles, how would we deal or handle these obscene occurrences? From this argument, Daoism is objectively arbitrary because without moral standards good things will not be appreciated and terrible acts be will not be justified or condemned.
Morality exists, and it is in most cases related to the term ‘ethics’. The two words have the same meaning, but some other people think there is a thin line between them. What a person does can be termed as moral depending on the intention the person has before doing, and the actions and intentions of a person can be termed as moral. On the other hand, ethics are closely related to the standards and believes that exist in different cultures. When people come up with norms and rules of how they should do their activities, they form values that should be considered as bad or wrong. A group of people in a society come up with ways in which they can co-exist peacefully. They formulate rules that direct how they can live in conditions that seem favorable to them; these conditions are what are termed as ‘ethics’. This means, ‘ethics’ is a code of conduct among individuals that hail from the same background, and may not necessarily be similar to other people’s. Therefore, ethics can influence the personality and moral standards of a person. In most cultures, ethics and morality are more related to the word ‘evil’; when we view it in the negative terms. If these ethics were not there how would these cultural society live and co-exist together without rules that draw the line (Xiao and Huang 62). All these issues can be summarized in this statement that states, "without morality, there are no rules, without rules there would be no peace and harmony”. Therefore, the inexistence of rules in the Daoism beliefs could lead to social anarchy without peace.
The act of doing right or wrong is closely related to morality. However, defining what is good or bad differs from one community to another. What one considers good in their community will not necessarily be termed as good in another different community. When we analyze the definition of morality; the ability of a person to be good or bad leads to questions, which can be raised about what is good or bad. Consider a footballer who happens to play ‘bad’ football, is it moral to call the footballer immoral just because of the bad football skills he possess? Therefore, morality cannot be defined on the basis of a person being j bad, but it focuses more on the acts that affect human values. It is the free will of people and their sound mind that makes them evil or wicked (Moeller 12).
However, it is controversial when refer to other people as bad or even sinful. There is no clear line between morality and immorality. The range differs from one person to the other, or one culture to another. When children, old people or even mentally ill in the society do wrong things, is it of moral virtue to call them immoral? They form the moral-free zone and it is the intentions and the existence of free will in people to do things that make them judge each other. How comes that people do not judge the infant for the irritation they cause? It only means that they consider young one as too immature to know what is good and what is bad, and the mature people are subjected to moral judgment because of the free will that they possess. This only means that there is an acceptance of the universal morality among the adults (Rachels 57). The Daoism believed that it does not exist, but their views seem skewed and without basis.
In global religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity and Islam the supreme being provides the moral principles to human beings by guiding them on what they should or not do. These values are followed or supported which results in negative consequences. This means human beings are morally inherent and it is part of their life. From a religious perspective, morality and ethics are defined as the particular ability of humans to do good or evil because they can think and have the free will to act whenever they want (Moeller 72).
Human beings respond to different issues in many ways, such as through revenge and recognition. They have emotions, such that they can laugh, cry, or even frown. When someone is afraid of something, he/she will probably stay away from it. For example, a consideration of two scenarios, where the first one involves a man who sees his sons being attacked by a gang of three other boys with dangerous weapons. What is the most probable thing that the father would do? If he is normal, he will most likely punish the three boys. The second scenario involves a mother who gets home to find her house ablaze with fire, and then she remembers that her one-year-old daughter was sleeping inside the house. Then to her relief, she finds out that her neighbor had rescued her daughter in time. What do you think would be her immediate reaction? She would probably smile to her neighbor with much appreciation. The fact that people can respond to events and deeds of others shows that they recognize the morality of others as they live with them. The morality of the actions that people do can be shown by their reactions to such issues. People can also know and identify immoral things by identifying the things that will not want to be done to them by others (Rachels 58). This clearly shows that morality exists, and it is found in each person in contrast with the Daoist philosophical theory.
A German socialist Niclas Luhmann defines ‘morality’ as a communication tool by which esteem or disesteem of others is distributed. There is a big difference between respect and support. Approval is only limited to certain acts and performances such as, good music, good clothes and does not qualify for moral evaluation. Esteeming or disesteeming people mean that people can either morally accept people or disdain them. Morality serves as a social technique in which they evaluate and differentiate peoples. It differentiates between those one values or those that they believe are bad or wrong. By calling someone wrong or ‘evil’, one communicates with such individuals indirectly. It means one does not trust them and subsequently do not appreciate their company (Moeller 72). Most people want friends; they enjoy other people’s companies and choose not to make friends with others. This is a clear indication that morality exists.
Daoist argues that, morality cannot exist in individuals that are not independent. Autonomous subjects are independent, and it happens that human beings are not autonomous. Human beings do not do what they want every day, but take the best options that are available to them, even ...