Daoism, Confucianism, and the Rights of Nature: Transformative Relations in Ecological Governance

2.1. Rights of Nature (RoN): Beyond or within Western Legal Frameworks? The Rights of Nature (RoN) movement represents a radical departure from conventional environmental law, which treats nature primarily as human property or a manageable resource. Instead, RoN asserts that natural entities—rivers, forests, ecosystems—possess inherent rights independent of human valuation [7]. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution famously recognized the rights of Pachamama “to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles”, embedding an Indigenous cosmology within national law. Likewise, New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua Act (2017) conferred legal personhood upon the Whanganui River, reflecting the Māori understanding of the river as an indivisible, living ancestor [8]. Such initiatives aim to elevate nature’s legal status from object to subject, empowering legal action on its behalf and resonating with scholarly calls for an “Earth jurisprudence” grounded in ecological interconnectedness [9,10]. Despite these landmark achievements, translating RoN principles into effective practice faces considerable hurdles, particularly when integrating non-Western, relational worldviews into legal systems founded on Western individualism and property concepts. Concerns about “green colonialism” [11] arise when Indigenous philosophies are adopted superficially without fundamentally altering power dynamics or challenging dominant extractive economies. Bolivia’s legal framework for Mother Earth, for instance, while symbolically potent, struggled to prevent continued state-driven resource extraction, highlighting this potential conflict [12]. Converting holistic understandings, like the Andean concept of Pachamama or the Māori relationship with their ancestral river, into specific, enforceable rights within adversarial legal systems remains a persistent challenge. Moreover, the language of “rights”, deeply embedded in Western liberalism, may not fully encompass the ethics of reciprocal care, kinship, and responsibility central to many Indigenous traditions [13]. These limitations suggest that purely legalistic RoN approaches may be insufficient, pointing toward the value of complementary ethical systems, such as those found in Eastern philosophies, to cultivate the deeper shifts in human values and relationships necessary for ecological transformation. 2.2. Daoism: Harmony, Humility, and Decentralized Governance Daoism offers a unique ecological sensibility grounded in its understanding of the Dao (道)—the ultimate, ineffable, generative reality permeating all existence. Within this view, the natural world is seen not as a separate object but as the dynamic, self-generating expression of the Dao itself, unfolding according to ziran (自然), a concept signifies intrinsic naturalness or “self-so-ness”, the inherent tendency of things to follow their course without external compulsion, implying an intrinsic value in their spontaneous existence [14]. Such a perspective inherently decenters the human, positioning people not as masters of nature but as participants within a vast, interconnected cosmic flow. The core ethical principle guiding this participation is wuwei (无为), often translated as “non-coercive” or “effortless action”. Far from prescribing passivity, wuwei involves a skillful responsiveness, acting in alignment with the natural grain and tendencies of situations, eschewing forceful intervention and excessive control [15]. It cultivates humility, patience, and a deep sensitivity to the rhythms and limits of natural systems. The Zhuangzi’s parable of Hundun (混沌, Chaos) vividly illustrates this critique of control: the well-intentioned emperors’ attempts to impose order (giving Hundun sensory organs) ultimately killed him, symbolizing how forced interventions disrupt natural spontaneity. Regarding governance, Daoist thought characteristically favors approaches that mirror nature’s apparent spontaneity and self-organizing capacity—often implying decentralized, minimal, and adaptive systems [14]. The ideal leader, governing through wuwei, acts more like a midwife or facilitator to natural and social processes, rather than an imposing commander, allowing complex systems to find their own equilibrium and flourish. This philosophy inherently critiques the assumptions underlying many centralized, bureaucratic models that seek to manage complexity through rigid planning and intervention, often proving counterproductive or causing unforeseen negative consequences when applied to dynamic ecological systems [16]. Daoist sensibilities encourage environmental stewardship based on keen observation, flexibility, respect for local specificities, and trust in the inherent wisdom embedded within ecological processes. This aligns well with contemporary ecological concepts like adaptive management and socio-ecological resilience, offering a potent philosophical critique of instrumental rationality and proposing instead an ethics of attunement, non-domination, and profound respect for the autonomy of the natural world [17,18]. 2.3. Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism: Cosmic Unity and Ethical Stewardship While deeply concerned with harmony, Confucianism approaches ecological ethics through the interconnected lenses of moral responsibility, rigorous self-cultivation, and the maintenance of well-ordered social relationships that resonate with the broader cosmic framework. As revised by Dong Zhongshu in the Han Dynasty and Neo-Confucianis from the Song Dynasty, Confucianism has gradually integrated several elements stemming from Daoism and even from Buddhism. Thus, the traditional Confucianism then became far from an anthropocentric paradigm. When talking about the relationship between the human being and the natural environment, the Confucian foundational concept is tian ren he yi (天人合一), often translated as the “unity of Heaven and humanity”. This signifies an intrinsic, dynamic bond between the human world and the overarching cosmic order (tian), encompassing natural processes and inherent moral principles [19]. This newly established anthropo-cosmic perspective implies that human flourishing is inseparable from cosmic flourishing, imposing a profound moral duty on humanity to act in ways that maintain this harmonious alignment, necessarily including responsible coexistence with the natural world. Nature is thus perceived not as mere scenery or resource-pool, but as possessing inherent value and embodying normative patterns—such as the ceaseless process of generation and transformation (sheng sheng)—that provide a basis for both ecological integrity and virtuous human conduct [20]. Achieving this harmony requires dedicated ethical self-cultivation, focusing particularly on developing ren (仁)—a complex virtue encompassing benevolence, humaneness, compassion, and authoritative conduct rooted in relationality [21]. Ren involves cultivating an empathetic understanding of one’s profound interconnectedness with others, a web of concern that organically extends to encompass the non-human world, fostering ecological responsibility from within [22,23]. The path to becoming a fully authentic or sincere person (诚, cheng) is thus a lifelong journey of moral learning that integrates ecological awareness. Furthermore, Confucian ethics are enacted through li (礼)—ritual propriety—which provides the normative structure for social interactions, defining roles, responsibilities, and reciprocal obligations within a fundamentally hierarchical, ideally harmonious, social order. This framework naturally embeds environmental stewardship within specific social duties: rulers, for instance, hold a moral responsibility derived from the Mandate of Heaven to ensure the well-being of both the populace and the land that sustains them, while individuals have correlative responsibilities within their families and local communities including their lands [19,24]. Confucianism offers a compelling model of duty-based environmental ethics where ecological care is understood as integral to personal virtue, social harmony, and cosmic resonance. A comparison of Western anthropocentrism, Rights of Nature, Daoism, and Confucianism is provided in Table 1. 2.4. Ongaro’s Approach to Bridge Philosophy and Practice Edoardo Ongaro’s work [6,25] provides a potential to bridge these rich philosophical traditions (RoN, Daoism, Confucianism) with the practical realities of public governance and administration (PA). His critique of value-neutral, purely technical approaches to PA aligns with Daoist warnings against excessive intervention and Confucian emphasis on virtue. Ongaro argues that PA systems are not neutral but are value-laden social systems reflecting underlying worldviews. Therefore, transforming governance requires explicitly engaging with these foundational values (axiological grounding) and considering the ideational bases of PA. His advocacy for an integrative approach to an ontological and political philosophical understanding of public governance and administration is also crucial, suggesting PA must develop the capacity to integrate diverse value systems—such as the rights-based logic of RoN, the spontaneity of Daoism, and the duty-based ethics of Confucianism—rather than imposing a single model. Ongaro’s framework thus enables the conscious design of hybrid governance models that are philosophically coherent and culturally sensitive [26]. For instance, Daoist principles like wuwei can inform adaptive, decentralized administrative practices, while Confucian ren can ground ethical training for public officials. RoN principles can be integrated not just as legal rules, but as reflections of a deeper ontological commitment facilitated by this pluralistic approach. Despite the potential synergies, significant literature gaps remain. While scholarship exists on RoN [8,10], Daoism/Confucianism and ecology [14,17,19], and Ongaro’s philosophy of PA [6,26,27], systematic attempts to integrate all three are scarce. Research often explores RoN primarily through Western legal or ILK lenses, neglecting potential contributions from established Eastern philosophies. Conversely, studies on Eastern environmental ethics have rarely engaged deeply with contemporary governance mechanisms like RoN. Furthermore, the practical challenges of institutionalizing fundamentally different ontologies (e.g., relational vs. individualistic) within existing administrative structures, as highlighted by Ongaro and Ho [27], require more empirical investigation, particularly in diverse cultural and ideational contexts. Therefore, this paper suggests that a relational governance framework consciously integrating RoN’s legal innovations with the ethical principles of Daoism and Confucianism, operationalized through Ongaro’s principles of axiological grounding and ethical pluralism in PA, can lead to more ecologically effective, ethically robust, and culturally resonant environmental governance than approaches relying on any single paradigm alone. Building on these theoretical foundations and the identified gaps, the following section examines concrete case studies to explore the practical application and challenges of integrating relational worldviews into governance.