An ethical perspective
We have been appalled by international and local news in the past week: First the terror attacks in Brussels and then the decapitation of a four-year-old girl in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) in an apparently random attack.
The latter stoked public anger in Taiwan and people, understandably, appealed to law and justice to express their anguish. However, what ensues is of no less urgency and importance: the call for an ethical perspective.
I do not intend to propose judicial solutions, but to suggest a mode of thinking in response to such events, which are indicative of ubiquitous fear, the quandary of contemporary society.
I want to re-examine how we think of the perpetrators from an ethical perspective and take fear as a departure for discussion.
Fear stems from not being able to understand what has happened, but people still pretend to have an understanding of the situation. Mass media have gushed out unsettling photographs, surveillance clips and interviews about the attacks.
With these information people strove to reconstruct the events. In particular, suspects’ backgrounds, possible mental illnesses and religious or political views have been put forward as expedient reasons for the attacks.
However, beneath the surface lies the idea of seeking a causal relationship to explain the unknown. If there is any sign, for instance, of a suspect’s mental instability, people reassure themselves with the assumption that “there must be something wrong with that person.”
If this sounds too subjective, there is also the lamentation that “the world and the society is sick.” It does not matter what or who takes the blame. What matters is the belief that a cause must exist somewhere, be it the assailant’s relatives or the education system.
This mindset functions as a defense mechanism against the fear of no causal relation. The more people focus on the causes which are believed to be palpable, the more they distance themselves from the criminals. It is easy to castigate society, but difficult to admit that we are a part of it.
This is why ethics, the moral principles that regulate interpersonal relationships, has to be brought up. There is no need to reiterate ethics’ merits.
However, what people often ignore is that ethics comes with risks as well. Since ethics involves opening a person’s inner self to others, the risk encompasses not being supported, understood or respected. It does not guarantee immediate benign responses — it possibly reveals personal vulnerabilities, shame or guilt.
Therefore, being ethical is not only demonstrating the capability to love, but also to accept the risk of negative experiences.
Does cruelty not arise from a sense of isolation from others? Are acts of murder not the most radical gesture to provoke a response from other? Finding a way to deal with negative feelings is as essential as receiving and giving love. In this sense, ethics is not a utopian concept and it is more necessary than ever.
Chuang Yu-chuan
Taipei
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with