Comments on: Recognizing China’s Amorality: A Box that Needs to be Checked

By: Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Chris Devonshire-Ellis — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:57:56 +0000

Thanks Domino. I accept your view over religion in this debate, however when the subject of morality crops up it is hard to seperate it from religion. (I was educated in a Church school so know something about the subject). Over the centuries, society has preferred to seperate State from morality (handy when fighting nasty political wars with other nations or dealing with crisises within), hence the rise of Heads of Church such as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Ayatollah and the Aga Khan, to name just a few. To lend weight to the point, the second highest figure of authority in the UK after the Queen is not the Prime Minister, it’s the Archbishop of Canterbury. So it appears that society in general prefers this status. However, in China, the issue is that the State and the question of Morality are not seperated. The Communist Party has indeed come to realise it cannot provide moral direction or teachings to its people. But in the absence of any religious institution to fill the breach, how is the Chinese society going to be able to receive education over ethics, morality and the difference between basic right and wrong? The State clearly cannot do it. So who can ?

The result is a nation prone to amorality and without any sign of correction in place – being either a non-religious based (scientific?) form of the proof of the values of morality in society, or a lack of religious teaching – China will continue to be amoral and it will continue to see the results in tragedies such as the Sanlu case. That is a very serious concern with China possessing a fifth of the human population and something, that if not acted upon, will increasingly impact upon all of us. It already has.

By: domino

domino — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:49:18 +0000

The deeper comment here, about the teaching of morality and social norms in China may be important, and I suspect it is. But by framing it in terms of religion you’re inviting dismissal. Ethics and morality are not dependent on religion.

I think you’ve put your finger on an issue that an increasing number of Chinese are becoming concerned about however.

By: Justin Loake

Justin Loake — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:45:21 +0000

A typical modern day response from China as regards any criticism. Blind rejection.

By: APOLLO

APOLLO — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:21:01 +0000

I do not know which country you come from and which uterus you came out! But I know every country has a certain number of people amoralityand involving a lot of sandals. So according to your SHABI logic, every country shall be regnised as country of amorality!

And also following your logic on that, If one your relatives or friends are incestuous, definitely your family or your city shall be regonised as INCESTUOUS FAMILITY OR SOCIETY.

That’s your logic. Everybody understand.
Thanks for your article which let me know you are an amorlity person.