Social behavior has been essential for human development since the dawn of civilization. The origins of individuals choosing to help each other have been traced back by anthropologists deep into prehistoric times, as they have tried to find answers to “why we cooperate.” Likewise, a sense of reciprocal altruism, an even more committing form of social engagement among species, apparently existed in the pre-human stage of natural evolution, before care and love for those genetically close gradually developed. Our primal moral intuition seems to be based on our social nature.
Does this mean that we are good by nature? Unfortunately not. Evolutionary biologists tell us that it is the selfish gene that pulls the strings behind our “good” nature and successfully prevents us from becoming angels by tying our sense of altruism to a Darwinian program of survival. We act unselfishly because we are selfish.
Does this then mean that we are evil by nature? Fortunately not. “Good” or “evil” are terms we use to prescribe how we should or should not act, rather than tools for the consideration of what we think our nature is — nature is neither good nor bad; it is what it is.
Facts don’t tell us what we should do with them. For instance, the fact that capital punishment is supported by the majority of people in Taiwan does not mean executions should be carried out; there is always space for debate on what is the right thing to do — and leadership. Moral issues deal with questions about how things should be in comparison to what they are now. There is no need to sacrifice ideas and ideals on the altar of “reality.”
What constitutes moral action? There is no easy answer, as there are many contenders. Yet any answer has to explain what it means for an individual to act responsibly vis-a-vis others and to provide reasons why we should define such acts as good or evil. Usually, reasons given in moral discourses are condensed in the form of principles or imperatives.
One prominent ethical position holds that the same moral principles apply to all people at all times and in all places. They are universally obliging, thus compelling individuals to rationally and critically consider their actions in the light of universal acceptability. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant is the most important representative of such a universal concept of morality. This outlook, however, is not very popular in Taiwan due to a prevailing Confucian ethical culture that fits better into a world of local orientation, aimed at the maintenance and reproduction of traditions from a distant past.
According to Kant, individuals are free. They can act autonomously but often choose not to do so, like when blindly following traditions. Autonomous actions are those that are guided by “pure” reason, ie, by motives that respect others as equally free individuals regardless of personal preferences. Respect for each individual’s freedom is in Kant’s view the guiding principle of any moral action. He calls this sphere of respect humanity or human dignity. It is shared by any human being and can, therefore, be universally justified. Modern human rights are rooted in Kant’s ethical thinking.
Moral actions should be guided by considerations that promote humanity and freedom instead of rules of behavior that benefit particular individuals or cultures, which — too often — are egoistic actions in disguise.
“Family values” is a good example. Fathers often impose their way of life on their grown-up children under the pretext of well-intentioned guidance. But often the “good” advice given to those who “need” guidance is informed by nothing more than the selfish nature of a “benevolent” family leader, just as the selfish gene is behind altruistic actions. What these fathers are indirectly saying is that I want you to be like me, which is a direct denial of individual freedom and respect.
Obviously, moral obligations can clash with so-called reality because they contain critical elements where the “is” is measured against “ought.” In our example, it may be perceived as traditional “reality” that daughters (or sons) should obey their fathers, but if fathers ignore their daughters’ right to freedom, it could just as easily be a moral duty to act against the father’s will. Moral decisions seek to ensure freedom for all individuals. They are based on mutual respect, including the respect of fathers for their daughters.
Modern societies encourage such critical attitudes. They provide platforms where people “test” and improve their opinions by exposing them to a critical public. The formation of opinionated individuals with open perspectives is a moral imperative for each educator, because such individuals are the core of a well-functioning democracy.
Traditional societies, on the other hand, discourage criticism. They are afraid of the changes it might bring about. Therefore, they discourage individuality because individuals with opinions might question the ingrained hierarchies on which they are built and, subsequently, those who profit from them. Criticism could undermine the “is” — the existence of hierarchies for instance.
Taiwan is still a traditional society where even young people follow rules blindly, thus missing out on the innovative potential facilitated by the “is-ought” gap. Education in Taiwan does not prepare people to be critical. Students are intellectually victimized by the local educational system and its dogma — cultural relativism — which functions as a license to stifle opinions and ideas that reach beyond their narrow cultural scope.
The prevailing culture in Taiwan discourages moral education; it perpetuates the status quo in favor of those who dictate what the prevailing culture “is.” In contrast, moral education seeks to sensitize people to the need to go against the “is” if there are good reasons to do so that can be debated.
However, debate is likewise discouraged. This is why so many young people in Taiwan lack opinions on substantial matters. The best way for the younger generation to develop such opinions would be through debating topics as that would allow them to hone the intellectual skills needed to analyze and criticize the “is.”
The Taiwan education system in itself is immoral; it does not focus on individuality. At no point in the government’s current promotion of ethics courses at universities is it recognized that it is impossible to morally better students without questioning the immoral nature of educational culture as a whole. As such, it is just an exercise in “hand-washing.”
A moral education must aim to form intellectually independent individuals endowed with the courage to swim against the tide, it must encourage young people to strengthen their own opinions and stand up for them, it must encourage the “making” of intellectually rebellious students who do not surrender their ideals before traditional “truths” as propagated by those who profit from them.
Moral education must encourage democratic behavior which, in turn, would enable individuals to make moral decisions. This program, however, is not on the agenda of the present government’s policy on education. Likewise, so-called experts on ethics who, asked by the government to conduct lectures, preach the perpetuation of traditional educational values in the name of morality, are clearly the wrong candidates for this truly important task.
Herbert Hanreich is an assistant professor in the Applied English Department at I-Shou University in Kaohsiung County.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS