Filial Piety in Confucian Ethics and Contemporary Society

The Interpretive Questions

We analyze Confucian texts that critics often cite as evidence for the claim that Confucianism endorses corrupt behavior if it serves filial piety. One example is Mengzi (Mencius) 5A3, where the sage king Shun grants his wicked brother Xiang a fiefdom to rule, justifying it as a natural expression of humane filial love. Although Shun takes measures to prevent Xiang from harming his new subjects, this act of appointing an unfit family member to a powerful position exemplifies how filial piety can lead to the abuse of power. Another instance is Mencius 7A35, which describes a hypothetical scenario where Shun's father commits murder. Mengzi suggests that Shun would not interfere with the law but instead abandon his responsibilities to his people and flee with his father. While favoring family in morally ambiguous situations is not unique to Confucianism, these examples raise concerns about the extent to which filial duty might override other moral obligations.

In a subsequent paper (2023c), I discuss a common reply to such criticisms: that Confucian texts also recommend remonstrating with one's parents when they act reprehensibly (whether morally corrupt or practically foolish). However, Shun never remonstrated with his wicked kin. Moreover, while some passages do encourage remonstration—offering reasoned advice to one's parents—they emphasize doing so gently, avoiding any confrontation that could strain the relationship. This approach all but guarantees that remonstration will fail. (An obvious counterexample is the Xunzi, which maintains that a filial son must choose righteousness over blind obedience. However, this marginal exception merely proves the rule.)

And it is indeed a rule (2023a). Texts such as the Analects and the Filial Classic make it clear that filial piety is fundamentally a duty, to be performed regardless of one's intrinsic motivation and regardless of one’s parents’ past behavior. (In fact, ancient lexicons like the Erya 爾雅 and Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 define filial piety as "doing good for one's parents" and "serving one's parents well," without any mention of parental merit.) The stark absence of any real conditions for the application of filial duties challenges the notion that only virtuous parents deserve such unwavering devotion.

I conclude that the emphasis on unquestioning obedience found in many canonical texts, particularly concerning filial piety, lends credence to the criticisms levied against it.

The Empirical Questions

Having addressed the interpretive claim (3, above), let's turn to the empirical claims. Does Confucianism's advocacy of filial piety—even towards morally questionable parents—inadvertently foster an environment conducive to corruption?

In a recent publication (2020), I argue that corruption and its causes are extensively studied in the social sciences. Philosophers cannot hope to address the empirical question of whether filial piety causes corruption by merely examining classical texts and engaging in armchair speculation. Instead, we must turn to the relevant literature. I focus on existing empirical research on cultural values and corruption, primarily utilizing Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions. My findings suggest that in societies already high in power distance and collectivism (such as China), one cultural value—namely, assertive materialism, or the prioritization of status and wealth over well-being—is a stronger predictor of corruption. While filial piety shares some features with power distance and collectivism (deference to hierarchy and in-group loyalty), these cultural dimensions only provide a conducive environment for corruption. Therefore, addressing assertive materialism, rather than filial piety, may be more effective in combating corruption. (Policy interventions, such as promoting merit-based systems, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, remain the most effective approach.)

In a more recent contribution (2023c), co-authored with psychologist Emma Buchtel, we present ongoing research investigating the relationship between filial piety and corruption. Our experiments (currently under review) use established scales to directly measure two distinct types of filial piety: reciprocal (characterized by love, gratitude, and a desire to care for one's parents) and authoritarian (emphasizing deference to parental authority, maintaining family status, and even suppressing personal desires to fulfill familial obligations). We also sought to move beyond general measures of corruption to examine whether filial piety predicts tolerance for two distinct types of rule violations: those benefiting kin and those benefiting oneself (through bribes). We used real-world examples of situations where people used personal connections, or guanxi, to circumvent rules, and created parallel versions where a bribe (rather than a personal connection) was used to achieve the same result for oneself. This allowed us to directly compare tolerance for rule violations in these two contexts.

Our findings revealed no direct link between either type of filial piety and tolerance for guanxi-based rule violations. This suggests that the relationship between filial piety and this type of corruption is complex and likely mediated by other factors, such as a person's general respect for rules. However, we found an interesting distinction between reciprocal and authoritarian filial piety regarding tolerance for bribery. The more participants endorsed reciprocal filial piety—which involves love, care, and gratitude towards parents—the less they found bribery acceptable. Conversely, those who scored higher on authoritarian filial piety—which involves unquestioning obedience and a desire to uphold family status—were more likely to tolerate bribery.

These results contradict the simplistic view, still widespread in the literature, that filial piety necessarily leads to corruption. Instead, they suggest that different aspects of filial piety can have opposite effects. While authoritarian filial piety might make individuals more susceptible to certain forms of corruption, reciprocal filial piety might actually make them more resistant. We believe these findings should inform future discussions about filial piety and its role in society. I conclude that condemning filial piety simpliciter as inherently problematic is not only inaccurate but also counterproductive.

Our research reveals an intriguing correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and filial piety. Higher SES is associated with reciprocal filial piety, which in turn correlates with a stronger aversion to bribery. Conversely, lower SES is linked to authoritarian filial piety, which correlates with a greater acceptance of bribery. In future studies, I plan to experimentally investigate these correlations. For instance, do low SES participants perceive their system as inherently corrupt, thus viewing bribery as acceptable? Or do they face pressure to elevate their families' economic status due to authoritarian parental expectations, thus compromising their moral fortitude? I aim to make progress on these research questions.

← Back