Cited by 3Chinese history and philosophyPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryCorruption and Economic Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What, Exactly, Is Wrong with Confucian Filial Morality?

Open access
Sarkissian, Hagop, Buchtel, Emma E.·2023·Res Philosophica

Abstract

Confucianism’s emphasis on filial piety is both a hallmark of its approach to ethics and a source of concern. Critics charge that filial piety’s extreme partialism corrupts Chinese society and should therefore be expunged from the tradition. Are the critics correct? In this article, we outline the criticism and note its persistence over the last century. We then evaluate data from the empirical study of corruption to see whether they support the claim that partialism corrupts. Finally, we report some recent experimental work done with colleagues testing the claim that filial piety is associated with tolerance of corruption in Chinese societies. The results suggest that the critics are on to something. However, partialism (or kin affection) is not a cause of concern. Instead, authoritarianism (another aspect of filial piety) is associated with tolerance of corruption. We conclude that critics should reformulate their criticisms if they seek to combat corruption effectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11612/resphil.2266

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Angle, Stephen C. 2008. No Supreme Principle: Confucianism's Harmonization of Multiple Values. Dao 7 (1): 35--40. DOI: 10.1007/s11712-008-9038-0. · DOI
  2. Angle, Stephen C. 2012. Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  3. Bedford, Olwen and Kuang-Hui Yeh. 2019. The History and the Future of the Psychology of Filial Piety: Chinese Norms to Contextualized Personality Construct. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 100. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00100. Buchtel et al.(Unpublished manuscript- a )Buchtel, Guan, and Wang buch--a Buchtel, Emma E., Yanjun Guan, and Ning Wang. Unpublished manuscript- a. Framing Moral Character: Universal and Cultural Influences on Lay Prototypes of Moral Character in Two Chinese Cultures. Last viewed 2021. Buchtel et al.(Unpublished manuscript- b )Buchtel, Ye, Liu, Guan, and Sarkissian buch--b Buchtel, Emma E., Frank Tian-Fang Ye, Xiao-Xiao Liu, Yanjun Guan, and Hagop Sarkissian. Unpublished manuscript- b. The Particularism vs. Corruption Tolerance Scale: Are There Unique Vulnerabilities to Relational Temptations for Bending Rules? Last viewed 2022. · DOI
  4. Chow, Tse-Tsung. 1960. The Anti-Confucian Movement in Early Republican China. In The Confucian Persuasionḩeckcomma edited by Arthur F. Wrightḩeckcomma 288--312. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  5. Chow, Tse-Tsung. 1960. The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI
  6. Cline, Erin. 2013. Confucius, Rawls, and the Sense of Justice. New York: Fordham University Press. · DOI
  7. Davis, James H. and John A. Ruhe. 2003. Perceptions of Country Corruption: Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 43 (4): 275--288. DOI: 10.1023/A:1023038901080. Fine et al.(2016)Fine, van Rooij, Feldman, Shalvi, Scheper, Leib, and Cauffman fine16a Fine, Adam, Benjamin van Rooij, Yuval Feldman, Shaul Shalvi, Eline Scheper, Margarita Leib, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2016. Rule Orientation and Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Individual Acceptance of Rule Violation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law 22 (3): 314--329. · DOI
  8. Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
  9. Ivanhoe, Philip J. 2007. Filial Piety as a Virtue. In Working Virtue: Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problemsḩeckcomma edited by Rebecca L. Walker and Philip J. Ivanhoeḩeckcomma 189--202. New York: Clarendon Press. · DOI
  10. Ivanhoe, Philip J. and Irene Bloom. 2009. Mencius. New York: Columbia University Press.
  11. Kim, Sungmoon. 2019. Theorizing Confucian Virtue Politics: The Political Philosophy of Mencius and Xunzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  12. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf. 1999. ``Corruption in Empirical Research: A Review. '' Transparency International Working Paper. Berlin.
  13. McManus, Ryan M., Max Kleiman-Weiner, and Liane Young. 2020. What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment. Psychological Science 31 (3): 227--242. DOI: 10.1177/0956797619900321. · DOI
  14. Nivison, David Shepherd. 2002. Mengzi as Philosopher of History. In Mencius: Contexts and Interpretationsḩeckcomma edited by Alan K. L. Chanḩeckcomma 282--304. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. · DOI
  15. Park, Hoon. 2003. Determinants of Corruption: A Cross-National Analysis. Multinational Business Review 11 (2): 29--48. DOI: 10.1108/1525383X200300010. · DOI
  16. Richardson, Grant. 2006. The Influence of Culture on Fiscal Corruption: Evidence across Countries Tax Law and Political Institutions. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 24: 124--142.
  17. Russell, Bertrand. 1922 2020. The Problem of China. London: Routledge.
  18. Sarkissian, Hagop. 2010. Recent Approaches to Confucian Filial Morality. Philosophy Compass 5 (9): 725--734. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00319.x. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Sarkissian, Hagop. 2020. Do Filial Values Corrupt? How Can We Know? Clarifying and Assessing the Recent Confucian Debate. Dao 19 (2): 193--207. DOI: 10.1007/s11712-020-09718-z. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Sarkissian, H., & Buchtel, E. E.
Affiliations
  • Baruch College (US)
  • Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Res Philosophica
Published
2023
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
23-41
ISSN
2168-9105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4312190839
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Res Philosophica (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Saint Louis University
  • Education University of Hong Kong
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
Keywords
Confucianism, filial piety, corruption, corruption tolerance, authoritarianism, Chinese society

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What, Exactly, Is Wrong with Confucian Filial Morality? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11612/resphil.2266
The paper
Sarkissian, H., & Buchtel, E. E. (2023). What, Exactly, Is Wrong with Confucian Filial Morality? Res Philosophica. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2266