Ethics and Law

A recent news in China reports that a young man refused to offer his seat to a woman carrying a 5-month infant on the bus (in China it's not requested by law to offer seats to disadvantaged people.) The outraged husband slapped the young man in the face fiercely. With a bleeding nose and broken glasses, the young man got off the bus, leaving shocking audiences and controversy behind.

Ethics and laws are viewed as two molds that shape people's behavior in a society. Laws, made on the assumption of evil human natures, forbid people from committing malefaction; on contrary ethics believe in the goodness of people and encourage them to promote these virtues and help others. In a society, the minimum requirement for its citizens are to abide by laws, i.e. do not harm other people; and in a well-functioning one, incentive mechanisms are developed to encourage people to do good. For example, in the US, if you violate laws, you may be indebted to fines, community work or even imprisonment. But if you've got involved in charity ("ethics"), you are rewarded with honors and tax exemptions. In other words, it's your responsibility to abide by laws, but it's your choice to follow ethics.

Different as they are, the lines between ethics and laws are blurred in China. The terribly flawed and powerless Chinese legal system appeals for heavier reliance on ethics to regulate people's behavior. After decades of propaganda on setting high moral standards, two parallel but very different standards are formed in evaluating people's behavior. On one aspect, laws are ignored in many fields. People find it "normal" for government officials to take bribery although it obviously violates the Civil Servant Law; and the public also finds it a good deal for victims if the murderer offers to pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach a out-of-court settlement despite the fact that the murderer should be sentenced by law. Laws are effective in regulating the mass, but not the rich or the powerful. On the other aspect, ethics are highly respected. People condemn those refusing to give seats to elderly, and denounce those who do not donate to the disadvantaged groups, although these people do much less harm (if there is any) than the corrupted officials or rich murderers. I remember in May 2008, soon after Wenchuan was hit by a 8-magnitude earthquake, China's Democratic League (CDL) organized a donation from its internal employees. It should be a voluntary activity, however it was made compulsory as each employee's donation was publicly announced. (peer's pressure!) Later I learned that CDL was not the worst, some organizations even deducted "donations" from their employees' salary directly. A voluntary charity was turned into obligation. This is a typical transposition between ethics and law.

There is an old saying in China: curfew for the common people, but the governors can light a fire (只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯). The public observes social norms carefully, for fear that their moral standards are not high enough; while elites play around laws, knowing all the rules are made to fool the mass. Back to the story mentioned at the beginning of this blog, later it was released that the young man was handicapped too. However, too embarrassed to defend himself or to report to the police after being beaten because of "low morals", he chose to stay silent. Regardless of being handicapped or not, it was NOT the young man's obligation to give up his seat under current law though it would be laudable if he did. However, the husband who mete out punishment can be suspected of committing the crime of intentional injury. Both of them are victims of the double standards in China today, who are confused by the difference between ethics and laws, and ignorant of their rights and obligations.