Jump to content

Mandarin paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OAbot (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 20 June 2020 (Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Mandarin paradox is an ethical parable used to illustrate the difficulty of fulfilling moral obligations when moral punishment is unlikely or impossible, leading to moral disengagement.[1] It has been used to underscore the fragility of ethical standards when moral agents are separated by physical, cultural, or other distance, especially as facilitated by globalization.[2] It was first posed by French writer Chateaubriand in "The Genius of Christianity" (1802):[3]

I ask my own heart, I put to myself this question: "If thou couldst by a mere wish kill a fellow-creature in China, and inherit his fortune in Europe, with the supernatural conviction that the fact would never be known, wouldst thou consent to form such a wish?"

The paradox is famously used to foreshadow the character development of the arriviste Eugène de Rastignac in Balzac's novel Père Goriot.[1] Rastignac asks Bianchon if he recalls the paradox, to which Bianchon first replies that he is "at [his] thirty-third mandarin," but then states that he would refuse to take an unknown man's life regardless of circumstance.[3] Rastignac wrongly attributes the quote to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which propagated to later writings.[2][4]

In fiction

References

  1. ^ a b Hanotte-Zawiślak, Anna (2019-06-28). "Le retour du "paradoxe du mandarin" dans la construction de l'arriviste littéraire au XIXe siècle". Cahiers ERTA (18). Uniwersytet Gdański: 9–23. doi:10.4467/23538953CE.19.010.10695. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  2. ^ a b Delon, Michel (2013-12-15). "De Diderot à Balzac, le paradoxe du mandarin". Italian Review of French Studies. 3 (3). doi:10.4000/rief.248. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  3. ^ a b Ginzburg, Carlo (Autumn 1994). "Killing a Chinese Mandarin: The Moral Implications of Distance". Critical Inquiry. 21 (1): 46–60. doi:10.1086/448740. JSTOR 1343886.
  4. ^ Falaky, Fayçal (2011-09-15). "Reverse Revolution: The Paradox of Rousseau's Authorship". In Lauritsen, Holger Ross; Thorup, Mikkel (eds.). Rousseau and Revolution. Continuum Studies in Political Philosophy. Continuum. pp. 83–97. ISBN 978-1441128973. Retrieved 2020-01-23.

Bibliography

  • Champsaur F., Le Mandarin, Paris, P. Ollendorff, 1895‐1896 (réimprimé sous le nom L’Arriviste, Paris, Albin Michel, 1902)
  • Schneider L. Tuer le Mandarin // Le Gaulois, 18 juillet 1926, no 17818
  • Paul Ronal. Tuer le mandarin // Revue de littirature comparee 10, no. 3 (1930): 520–23.
  • E. Latham // Une cita􀁒on de Rousseau // Mercure de France, 1er juin 1947, no 1006, p. 393.
  • Barbey B. «Tuer le Mandarin» // Mercure de France, 1er septembre 1947, no 1009
  • Laurence W. Keates. Mysterious Miraculous Mandarin: Origins, Literary Paternity, Implications in Ethics // Revue de littirature comparee 40, no. 4 (1966): 497–525,
  • Antonio Coimbra Martins. O mandarim assassinado // Ensaios Queirosianos: «0 mandarim assassinado». "0 incesto d"os maias,' imitagdo capital". (Lisbon, 1967), pp. 27–28.
  • Eric Hayot. The Hypothetical Mandarin: Sympathy, Modernity, and Chinese Pain. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009