From the time that human society achieved some degree of literacy and began implementing divisions of labor, the lineage in values and perceptions of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil has been closely intertwined with social class. In traditional Chinese society, social stratification, especially political organization, dominated societal resources, influencing and even determining the values of the majority of the people. This was one of the philosopher Zhang Taiyan’s central reasons for criticizing Confucianism and the imperial exam system.

 

While the market economy and contemporary politics have fueled significant development in human society and the human spirit, the accompanying push toward secularization and rationalization could also lead to increasingly utilitarian and superficial values, as well as humans’ unchecked avarice. In some countries that are witnessing a simultaneous crisis in traditional values and conflicts in modernization, including China, people’s values could become distorted or confused.

 

From its advent, civilization has faced ever more unbalanced development and an increasingly widening gap between the rich and the poor. Laozi realized and warned of human’s tendency to “take from those without enough to add to one’s own superabundance,” but until now this problem has not been thoroughly understood or satisfactorily resolved. Laozi suggested that human beings should learn from the way of the heaven (or nature) since it always tries to “diminish superabundance to supplement deficiency” so that a balance may be achieved. Often, when social inequity reaches such a degree that it is no longer bearable by the majority of the populace, revolution or rebellion will achieve temporary fairness. Inevitably though, society always returns to a state of inequality. From Laozi, we can learn that we should stop evaluating everything from the perspective of human subjectivity.　　

 

If human beings’ subjectivity became the absolute benchmark for values and could be exempt from any criticism, then the flaws inherent in our nature—for example, Francis Bacon’s idolas tribus (“idols of the tribe”), or a cognitive bias arising from social norms—could never be discovered, let alone be diminished or transcended. If we reverse our position in the environment, standing from the position of nature or other creatures in the world, is there anything more cruel and evil than human beings’ unmitigated hunting and slaughter of other animals for their own sake? People today should examine themselves, not only to control avarice, but to change their values and show more sympathy for life.

　　　　

Some say we can never go beyond anthropocentrism. In fact, anthropocentrism is merely a “viewpoint” of human beings, and we can deny and transcend our own viewpoints. The real problem lies in how we view the relations between man and nature. If the practice of consuming other creatures is a matter of necessity, we must also acknowledge the practice’s inherent problems and conflicts. What is driven by necessity does not necessarily deserve promotion as a positive value. As Mencius put it, “a virtuous man keeps away from his slaughter-house and cook-room.” We must acknowledge that not everything done by humans is good and worthy of merit; some things are done out of necessity. Therefore, self-reflection and self-criticism are needed.

 

History has taught us that the way we treat each other is influenced by how we treat other creatures. From tribal interaction to international relations, history is replete with examples of other groups of people being labeled barbarians or enemies in a scramble for resources and living space. Massive slaughter that occurs because of such avarice is later justified with excuses and white-washed facts. Such examples have warned us the necessity of assessing the evils we have committed, so as to alleviate and diminish them in the future. The ease of information transfer and exchange, as well as the public discourse space available in modern society, could facilitate criticism, supervision and self-examination of human beings’ behavior and help us develop more reason and sympathy. Nature is the home to man, who has a moral responsibility toward nature. The relations between the two can and should be realized in human beings’ pursuit of life and spirit.  

 

From its roots, one could say the relationship between human beings and the thousands of species of other creatures in the world follows the aphorism, “Short reckonings make long friends.” On the one hand, they are closely related and share common weal and woe together. On the other hand, however, they are independent and may have competition and conflict. When seen from a dialectical perspective, there is no independence without dependence and no competition without cooperation. Any action we take should be a rational step to foster the sustainable development of and facilitate the co-existence of all the human beings. While it is our ideal, it can be realized with sufficient confidence and endeavors.

 

 

The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 410, Jan 28.

　　　

Chinese link:

http://www.csstoday.net/Item/46110.aspx

　　

Translated by Jiang Hong

Revised by Charles Horne