The Meaning of Mutual Life-Giving within Non-Self-Deception in Daesoon Thought: A Comparative Analysis Including the Ethical Theories of Kant, Mill, and Bergson

This study explores the meaning of mutual life-giving within the concept of Non-self-deception (無自欺) in Daesoon Thought by comparing it with Kant’s deontological ethics, Mill’s utilitarianism, and Bergson’s ethics. Kantian ethics defines moral actions through the categorical imperative, emphasizing the principle of acting according to universal laws. In contrast, Mill’s utilitarianism views actions that produce good results as morally good, aiming for happiness and pleasure. Non-self-deception in Daesoon Thought is defined as “abandoning selfish desires and regaining one’s conscience,” fundamentally based on not engaging in falsehoods. Regarding self-deception, Kant and Mill’s systems of ethical thought offer different solutions. Kant argues that self-deception cannot be made a universal law according to the categorical imperative, while Mill allows for self-deception, such as lying, if it promotes overall utility. While Non-self-deception is closer to Kantian ethics in principle, it emphasizes not only ethical forms like the categorical imperative but also ethical content such as human relations and mutual beneficence. Furthermore, non-self-deception complements the potential weaknesses of Kantian ethics, which may lean towards intellectualism or formalism, by considering that in certain situations, expedient measures or silence can be regarded as moral emotional actions embodying mutual beneficence. Moreover, this open characteristic of mutual life-giving ethics aligns with Bergson’s concept of “open morality,” which sublimates instinct and intellect into emotions of love like philanthropy. In this context, the practical ethics of non-self-deception can be understood as the foundation of a new moral principle embodying inclusive ideals such as the ‘harmonious virtue of yin and yang’ and the ‘resolution of grievances for mutual life-giving.’