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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.