Whether there is a moral predicament, even a moral crisis, in contemporary China is a sensitive issue which often is discussed by many people, especially in academic circles. Views on this issue are very different. Some admit that there are serious problems in present day China, but refuse to use such words as "moral predicament" and "moral crisis" to indicate this condition because they think that these confuse the distinct nature of moral problems in different social systems. Others think that the moral problems in contemporary China are very serious and morally disruptive for many persons. This divergence is related both to different views on the problems and to different understanding of the meanings of such concepts as "moral predicament".

It is necessary then to explain these concepts. Moral predicament can simply indicate a dilemma people face when they make judgements on moral choices. In their lives, people often meet various moral problems and have to take positions about them. When people make judgements concerning moral problems they are often in an ambivalent condition and are asked to make choices. For example, people can sometimes have alternatives as to the pursuit of matter or spirit, personal economic profits or influence, taking into account friends or sticking to one’s principles, etc. Thus people may fall into some difficult choices. Such conditions can be experienced by anybody in every society. Moral predicaments in this sense do not necessarily have the meaning of a moral crisis or of moral depravity. When people say that contemporary China is in a moral predicament they mean something different.

Moral predicaments in the sense of moral depravity and loss or moral crisis mean mainly that the whole society lacks a relatively stable system of moral standards, or that if there is such a system it cannot play the role of moral standards in society because it is incapable of adapting to the needs of social change or conflicts with some social mentalities. In this case, people will lack a certain relatively stable standard in their moral choices and fall in varying degrees into moral relativism or nihilism, even into a certain kind of moral depravity.

The causes which produced the above condition are very complicated and sometimes completely opposite in nature. For example, when a society is in a condition of decadence and depravity, the originally dominant ideology cannot suit the requirements of social development; the original system of moral standards is increasingly suspect and challenged; it can no longer provide moral standards for the whole society. Until a new social system is established and a new system of moral standards formed or recognized by the majority of people, moral relativism and nihilism may spread. The condition of the late years of ancient Rome is an example. In the modern Western world, some countries have also experienced a similar condition in specific periods of their history.

On the one hand, when a society is in its early years of formation and development or in a period of great change, the original system of moral standards is shaken seriously and to a great degree loses its influence. The new system of moral standards suitable for forming or changing society is in the course of formation, but is not yet relatively stable and may even have some contradictions. In making their moral choices people may have a certain sense of instability and sometimes are influenced by moral relativism and nihilism. There may be some kind of moral loss, but in this case the "loss" is in the course of progress and hence often is transient and partial. With the realization of a new social system, the system of moral standards becomes increasingly perfect and the phenomenon of "loss" may even disappear.

When we discuss contemporary Chinese moral predicaments or moral loss, we mean these in the latter sense. The use of these terms to state the moral condition of contemporary China may be criticized by some left theorists as blackening socialist China. But as long as we define the meanings of these terms to some extent and do not take them as an evaluation of the whole society, it may be appropriate to describe the moral condition of contemporary China in order to draw attention to the change of conditions.

The moral problems of contemporary China have various manifestations, the most important of which include: disruption of traditional moral standards, wavering by many people in their belief in the communist moral ideal, imperfection in the system of socialist moral standards, the moral corruption of some, etc. Our views on these problems will be stated below.

China is an ancient civilized country with a history of more than 5000 years. Since the social structure of China was basically linked with the patriarchal clan system and blood relationship with a characteristic unity of family and state, all aspects of social relationships have intense ethical qualities. Based on such a foundation Chinese culture was certainly ethical, and in the rich heritage of Chinese thought ethical ideas played a very important role. These traditional ethical ideas gave the Chinese people a lofty moral character. The basic spirit of "five virtues" (jen or human-heartedness, yi or righteousness, li or justice, zhi or wisdom, and xin or trustworthiness) advocated by Confucian moral doctrine teaches people to do good morally. Jen teaches people to work selflessly and love others. To practice jen, people should balk at no sacrifice, even that of one’s life. Yi requires people to act according to a social standard of right and wrong and teaches them to be open, above board, brave and candid, and to use yi to overcome profit and perform the law according to yi. Li demands that people have an attitude of modesty and respect towards others and to esteem the personalities of others in relationships between people. Zhi calls for respect for knowledge and ability, and for regarding zhi as a criterion in associating with others. Xin demands that people be honest in words and actions and to be as good as their words in dealing with others.

The above moral ideas derived from the "five relations" were used by Confucian ethics for relations between the monarch and his subjects, husband and wife, father and son, old and young brothers, friends (the so-called "five relations") and various relations between people themselves and with society. Confucian ethics formulated a series of principles dealing with those relations and relevant practical steps. The traditional ethico-moral ideas of China played an important role in promoting the stability and development of Chinese society for a long time. Ancient Chinese society was maintained to a great extent by its special moral standards; China is a country of etiquette which was developed through the cultivation of just such ethical ideas.

However, the system of Chinese traditional ethics was based on focused production within the family and suited to a social structure linked by the patriarchal clan system and blood relationships. This restricts it greatly and generates a strong conservativeness and closed character. The Confucian theory of the five virtues and five relations stated above and many moral standards derived from them were made absolute. They were regarded not only as products of human nature but were considered as well to correspond to the way of heaven and earth and to be an eternal moral standard. Being politicalized they came to be considered eternal standards of political action. Often they became a conservative power which fettered and hindered the originality of thought and political innovation, and were used by conservative forces to maintain the existing phenomenon: most rulers in all the dynasties of China highly praised and built up Confucianism into an idol, once their dominant position had been established. On the contrary, when society was in periods when new forces were replacing the old these new forces always violently attacked Confucianism in order to break through the net of conservative forces.

In the 150 years since the Opium War of 1840, especially since the May 4th movement of 1919, the various forces of Chinese society have launched a very sharp debate over where Chinese society should go. Attitudes toward traditional Chinese moral doctrines such as Confucianism were always an important part of this debate. During the May 4th Movement, the political positions and thought orientations of the various forces differed, but they all criticized traditional culture of which Confucianism was the main component especially its traditional ethical thought. They all held that a new culture and social system could not be established unless this critique were carried out. What they did in this regard had great significance.

For a long time, however, the critique of Chinese traditional culture and its ethical theories, such as Confucianism, were one-sided, left or right, that is, ossified Marxist and ultra-liberal. Both took a position of total repudiation toward traditional culture and morality. This attitude led to moral relativism and nihilism under some conditions, and became one of the important causes of the loss of morality and the consequent moral predicament of present day China.

The representative figure of the rightist inclination in its early years was Hu Shi, the leading figure of pragmatism in China. In many articles written in the 1920s and 1930s, Hu Shi publicly looked down upon the culture of China and the East and highly praised Western culture. He held that the characteristics of Eastern (Chinese) culture are "satisfaction", "conservativeness", "being happy-go-lucky", "discouragement in adversity", "ignorance" and "being content with poverty and satisfied with one’s place"; on the other hand, the characteristics of the Western culture are "dissatisfaction", "an enterprising spirit", "conquering nature", etc. He advocated that the Chinese "must admit that we are poorer than the Western people in every respect" and "should be not afraid of losing our national culture", but should follow the example of the West. Hu completely agreed with the "theory of a total Westernization" which was systematically demonstrated by another Chinese scholar at that time, Chen Xujing. Both Hu and Chen idealized the Western capitalist system and its culture; they held that as long as the Western system and culture are introduced into China and carried out, all problems, political, economic and cultural, in China can be resolved.

In all later historical periods, the inclination of total repudiation toward traditional Chinese culture and morality and the corres-ponding theory of total Westernization was accepted under various guises by some Chinese scholars. In another burst of discussion about culture launched in the 1980s, the inclination was developed in an extreme manner by some so-called "radical" scholars. In this period, the "Heshung" telefilm series caused a sensation throughout the country with the keynote of total repudiation of Chinese traditional culture, the so-called "yellow culture".

Those who completely repudiated Chinese traditional morality and culture from the left were mainly some Marxists or those who waved the banner of Marxism. According to the original doctrine of Marxism, we should not take an attitude of total acceptance or repudiation towards either foreign, including Western, or traditional Chinese morality and culture, but an attitude of critical inheritance: to repudiate what is obsolete and conservative or unsuitable for present China, while absorbing what is positive and worthwhile therefrom. Early Chinese Marxists had long taken such an attitude. Although quite different from liberals such as Hu Shi and others who proposed total Westernization, such leading Marxists as Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu and Qu Quibai did not simply negate the worth and importance of Eastern ideas and culture. In order to struggle against feudal groups pointing back to ancient times and to stress the necessity of departing from the feudal patriarchal clan system and its ideology they used some extreme words, but did not sweepingly deny Chinese traditional culture. Mao Zedong and other communist leaders who turned to the left later described the attitude with which people should critically inherit the good traditions of Chinese culture. After the People’s Republic of China was founded, the leaders of the CCP such as Mao Zedong retained such an attitude.

However, they increasingly fell toward the left and this ideological leaning often became an unresistable political force as the CCP became the ruling party of China. Matters of right and wrong in the realm of culture and moral ideas were no longer resolved by scholarly research, but by the leaders’ thought. In the early and middle years of the 1950s, Mao Zedong launched a discussion of the film "Biography of Wu Xun" and the classic novel "Dreams of the Red Mansion", and developed such discussion into a punitive political expedition against those who took the opposite position. After that time discussion in the fields of culture and thought was more and more controlled by left political forces; Chinese traditional moral ideas and culture as well as related research were increasingly regarded as decadent feudal ideas opposed to socialism and were negated. This developed intensively during the ten years of the "Cultural Revolution". Under the slogan that communism must completely break with traditional ideas, all traditional cultures were regarded as reactionary and hindering the progress of China, and every effort was made to completely "eradicate" them. Since this eradication went beyond critique in the academic field and turned into a political critique in which hundreds of millions of people took part, among a great part of the masses Chinese traditional culture almost disappeared through "eradication". In a word, under irresistible political pressure the destruction of Chinese traditional culture by leftist orientations was much more serious than that by those who advocated total Westernization.

It must be noted that what was negated by the left was not only traditional Chinese morality and culture, but also its Western counterparts; where advocates of total Westernization affirmed everything of Western culture without any analysis, the left negated everything of the West.

When those who designed and executed the "left line" wiped out the ideas of both traditional Chinese and Western moralities it seems that they did not intentionally want to advocate moral nihilism, but only to establish and advocate communist morality among people. But their intention did not have its expected effects.

For more than forty years since the establishment of the P.R. of China in 1949, communist moralities have been advocated as the most lofty. Those who followed communist moral standards or norms are considered in some respects as models for the whole people, especially for youth, to study; education in the communist moral ideal was regarded as the fundamental content of moral character. In one period, especially during the early 1950s, the advocacy of communist morality played a positive role by encouraging people’s enthusiasm to devote themselves to the state and society.

However, a society governed by the communist party is not a communist society. There is still a long distance between the Chinese society which just cast off the yoke of the feudal-patriarchal system and the communist society idealized by Marxists. Communist moralities can be taken only as a moral ideal. If the minority is willing to devote themselves to the communist ideal, and can take it as the standard of their actions in some respects and to some extent, they would be taken as fine examples for others. Yet, this moral system still could not be taken as an actual standard of actions for the majority of society. For example, "nothing for self, all for others", advocated by Mao Zedong, was regarded as one of the main expressions of communist moralities. Although a few advanced members can do so in some affairs, it is unrealistic for the majority in such a poor country as China where just to survive makes one think of one’s own interests. Even of they can display the enthusiasm of "nothing for self" in some cases, this cannot last and be enlarged.

If we insist upon actualizing the communist moral system as the practical moral system which must orient people’s lives regardless of the condition of actuality and history, we can succeed only in people claiming communist morality orally, but not executing it in action. In that case such morality becomes an empty slogan. It is worth mentioning that in the period during which the "left line" prevailed, especially the 10 years of "Great Cultural Revolution", the slogans of communist moralities were often used by some political conspirators and careerists as a means of deceiving the broad masses and poisoning their minds. This threw many people into perplexity and insensitivity.

In more recent years, along with the transformation to a market economy in China, those who are called "public servants" transform their power into money. In order to grab private or small-group interests, they do everything to the extreme under the cover of Marxism and communism. This is bound seriously to damage the reputation of Marxism and communism. If many people in the past had had a sense of respect and even worship of communist morality, the actions of those mentioned above have turned people cold and generated antipathy to communist morality. Except orally, the past pious belief in the communist moral system of many people gradually is vanishing.

Since both traditional Chines moralities and those introduced from the West have been rejected and the communist moral system is not a practical moral system for regulating people’s actions, if there is no new moral system to fill in, people’s conduct will have no standards to follow. No one would help; everyone would do as he or she likes; the result would be moral relativism and nihilism. Chinese leaders and relevant scholars who have some knowledge of this recently emphasize again and again that in order to construct socialism in the Chinese style it is necessary to pay attention to the construction of both a material and a spiritual civilization. If the construction of a socialist spiritual civilization could be successful, it would certainly be a fine standard for people’s moral choices, and also helpful for people in facing moral predicaments. In fact, in recent years there have been great achievements both in theoretical inquiries regarding socialistic spiritual civilization and in promoting this among the broad masses. Moral relativism and nihilism have been restrained and to a great extent surmounted among those who have an appropriate understanding of socialist spiritual civilization. Following this route, we cannot only cast off moral predicaments, but also reconstruct China as a country with lofty moralities.

But as reform in the economic field is far from being finished in China, the co-existence of different economic systems and the conflicts between them are far from being well regulated and controlled. Reform in the political system is but the beginning; a more thorough democratic political system suited to a market economy is far from being established. The influence of the "left line" and feudal autocracy are far from being rooted out. Reform in the fields of thought and culture has fallen further behind, and the inclination to be closed and conservative is still dominant; there still has not been an adequate and wise understanding of how both to critically absorb Western culture and to develop traditional Chinese culture. In a word, socialism with a Chinese face, far from being completely established, still is not a definite concept in people’s minds. In this case, it is naturally very difficult to formulate quickly a clear-cut theoretical system of socialist spiritual civilization, and even more difficult for the system to be accepted universally and to become a practical system for guiding people’s everyday conduct. Hence, achievements in this field are limited for the time being; they remain insufficient to clear up and restrain the influences of moral reactivism and nihilism which have long prevailed.

In fact, in present day China, a number of people still fall into some kind of moral predicament or even moral degeneration. The following phenomena are rather grim and surprising. First, in reaction against "selflessness", "nothing for self, all for others" and other noble mottos of communist morality, extreme individualism overflows to a very serious extent among some people, especially those in political or economic power or who have some special relationship with such persons. Their individualism is not one that advocates respecting the individual’s personality and developing his or her activity and creativity; rather it is an egoism which takes everything for one’s private benefit. Such people take the following ideas as the standard of their conduct: to use public goods for private ends, to harm the public good, to benefit oneself and to harm others for one’s own good. They do not serve the people anymore, but force people to serve them. Their actions go far beyond general graft and embezzlement "legitimated" by some privilege. They transfer extensive public to their own pocket. Their actions have produced a very bad impression on the broad masses, and are the major factor causing the moral crises and political instability of present day China.

The second phenomenon concerned with extreme individualism under the impact of negative market economy factors, is the orientation to the money-worship: "All is measured by money" is not just an idea and slogan, but a motto earnestly practiced by some people. The commodity and money fetishisms analyzed by Karl Marx in his Capital have become a religion worshiped faithfully by some people in present day China. In order to gain money, some will spare no despicable or filthy means. According to their opinion, fame, conscience, personality, national dignity, all can be thoroughly abandoned; the discipline of the CPC and the national laws can be trampled. News of murder for money often appears in the newspapers.

The third phenomenon, hedonism, has developed to a very serious extent contrary to the life style of hard work and plain living which was advocated by communist morality and revolutionary tradition, and different from the rational consumption permitted by socialist morality. It has been reported that the amount of expenses for banquets arranged by officers at different ranks of government, the communist party and enterprises using public finances amount to more than 100 billion in Chinese currency each year. This is not comparable to any country in the world, even the most developed. That this has happened in so poor a country as China with nearly 100 million people not having enough food to eat and clothes to wear is even more inconceivable, but it is a matter of fact. This shows the extent to which hedonism has developed in present day China. Furthermore, such immoral and degenerate actions as drug-taking and prostitution, which once were regarded as the manifestations of rotten and corrupt capitalism, have been developing to a serious extent in some parts of China.

The fourth phenomenon which is especially ironic in view of the norms of communist morality regarding relationships between people and with society, and constitutes a repudiation of traditional Chinese morality is that many people despise public morality and will not be responsible for elementary moral obligations and duties. Examples abound and are manifest in people’s refusal to obey public order and in the destruction and pilferage of public property. Professional morality is not followed; people will not be responsible even for their parents and children.

The above factors suffice to show that in present day China, many people’s thoughts and behaviors not only have no trace of communist and socialist morality, but are contrary also to virtue in both traditional Chinese and Western moralities. If this happened rarely it would not be surprising, for in any society some people depart from normal moral regulation or even become degenerate, violating social disciplines and laws. Society can restrict and limit such persons by certain means so that they do not lead to the collapse of all morality in society. But the actual status of present day China is that the above phenomena are numerous. The relevant authorities try to take measures of education and prevention, but have not achieved the intended effects. So there is a contradictory situation in the Chinese moral field today; on the one hand, the moral outlook of the majority of people is turning towards good order through advocating socialist spiritual civilization; on the other hand, moral loss and moral declination still run wild in certain spheres.

Why should this happen? We have analyzed some of the reasons above. It is worth mentioning that some do not like to seek the causes from such factors as the limitations in the social and historical conditions of present day China, the negative influences of the political and ideological "leftist line" which prevailed for a long time, and the imperfections of reform and openness in various fields. They simply impute all to Western trends, especially pragmatism. In their view, egoism, money-worship, hedonism, moral relativism and moral nihilism in any form, all reflect such Western ethics as pragmatism. In their view, in order to cast off the moral predicament of China today and to construct a socialist moral system as a constituent part of socialist spiritual civilization, we must criticize and reject pragmatism and other Western ethical theories, and eliminate their pernicious influences.

The above point of view is not new. Surveying Chinese history since the 1950s we note a regular phenomenon: once a theoretical inclination in the ideological and cultural sphere was criticized a major political leader, some scholars close to the leaders always imputed it to the influence of pragmatism and other Western trends. They always turned the criticism of a particular inclination into a criticism of pragmatism. For example, the criticism of the film "Biography of Wu Xun" and of the Chinese classic "The Dream in the Red Mansion" became critical of rightist opportunism in the communist party of China. Both were launched by Mao Zedong himself during the 1950s, and both were developed and transformed into criticism of pragmatism. The theoretical foundation of the persons criticized was said to be just pragmatism. During the "great cultural revolution", the extreme left also took pragmatism as the ideological foundation of the so-called revisionist and bourgeoisie lines criticized by them. After the "cultural revolution", some people took pragmatism again as the ideological foundation of the extreme left. In a word, in contemporary China, there always have been some persons who regarded pragmatism as the gathering place of all rotten and degenerate things and fallacies. No matter what was criticized, its theoretical foundation finally would be imputed to "bourgeois pragmatism". So it is no surprise that some people impute the reason for serious moral problems in present day China to the influence of pragmatism and other Western trends.

However, it may be asked, why pragmatism could influence China for so long time, why some people who criticized pragmatism under the banner of Marxism afterwards would be criticized in turn as being oriented toward pragmatism, why whose who never received any education in pragmatism could be regarded as having been influenced by pragmatism. In order to understand the true relation between the moral situation of China today and pragmatism, the above questions are worth studying. It is impossible for this article to discuss these questions in detail. But it must be mentioned that either those who criticize pragmatism or those who were criticized have no clear and definite idea of authentic pragmatism. What they criticized, or are being criticized for, is neither pragmatism nor even contrary to pragmatism. Therefore, to analyze the connection between he present moral condition of China and pragmatism, and especially to explore the way to construct socialist spiritual civilization, it is necessary to study and reconsider the real meaning of the relevant theories of pragmatism.

Pragmatist ethical and moral theories were early introduced in China. When John Dewey was invited to give lectures in China during the May 4th period, one of his main topics was precisely ethics and moral theory. Later, those who propagandized and criticized pragmatism referred to Deweyan ethics. It is impossible for this paper systematically to comment on pragmatist moral theory; I intend only to briefly mention certain of its contents related to the subject of this chapter, especially concerning Dewey’s moral theory, because his theory not only is the typical representative of pragmatist philosophy, but also has great influence in China.

In discussing the moral theory of pragmatism, Chinese philosophical circles always have been concerned with the theory of moral reconstruction as the important constituent of Dewey’s broader theory of philosophical reconstruction. The most universal accusation brought against Dewey’s theory of philosophical reconstruction was that it propagandized idealism and opposed materialism as a way of escaping the mind-matter dualism. Some did not deeply explore what the theory is for or against. If one takes an objective attitude and carefully reads Dewey’s moral writings, one finds that they were misunderstood in some respects.

This view originated directly from Dewey’s new empiricism, i.e., empirical naturalism, as he called it later. Its basic point of view is that the realm of philosophy should be limited to the world which can be experienced. Philosophy should be theory concerned with the world of experience, i.e., the life world of human beings. Experience is neither knowledge resulting from a process of cognition, nor subjective consciousness separated from the object; rather, it is human action, life, practice itself, or the united process of subject and object, or mind and matter. Human action, life and practice, are different from the instinctive behavior of animals; they are always in pursuit of some goals and are guided by reflection and thought, i.e., by intelligence. What philosophy should do is to help people in their action, life, practice, so that they could be successful. Therefore, philosophy is nothing but a methodology of human action, life and practice. Its mission is to inquire how people can achieve their designated goals in their actions and practice. In this sense, philosophy is a scientific method of inquiry, i.e., a theory of inquiry or experimental logic.

There are many weak points and shortcomings in Dewey’s theory just mentioned. For example, he over-emphasized the unity between natural sciences and the moral-social-historical sciences, overlooking their diversity and the special character of each. But compared to the ethical trends of intuitivism, emotionalism and even mysticism which took the moral realm as fully contrary to science, his theory is certainly quite progressive. If we do not forget that one of the main shortcomings of traditional Chinese moral theories is weakness in scientific demonstration, we should recognize that Dewey’s theory on moral reconstruction, especially his scientific method of inquiry in the ethical realm, is worthwhile and helpful for moral reconstruction in China.

One of the important parts of Dewey’s reconstruction in philosophy is to oppose the absolutism of rationalist idealism which used absolutized general concepts to generalize various special situations and reduced all concrete and ever-changing situations to single and fixed general concepts. It is the same in the ethical realm. Some rationalists took general, fixed, even eternal moral concepts as the starting point of moral research, and attributed special and concrete moral situations to these concepts. What Dewey did his utmost to reject is that there are unique, fixed, and ultimate moral ends as well as a highest good or supreme moral law and principle, and that the fundamental task of ethics is to find this kind of end, good or principle. This idea is in fact a moral absolutism, with different manifestations. Some people believe that this moral purpose is subjection and loyalty to a supreme power or authority, others hold that it is the intention of God or the will of a secular governor, and so on. But uniformly they search for this ultimate purpose and supreme principle. Dewey rejects the above rationalist norm because a person’s moral situation and conduct is always particular, special, concrete and changing. So must be our moral judgements; we should make different moral judgements according to different moral situations. If we forcedly subject these situations to general and fixed concepts, we can only give rise to a series of nonsensical polemics and obstruct people from resolving the moral problems they are facing. Even to do so under the banner of advocating reason, would reduce the power of reason by preventing people from exploring concrete moral problems by scientific methods.

While opposing moral absolutism, Dewey did not promote moral relativism, nor did he recommend subjective idealism in general philosophy. In his view, although we cannot reduce concrete and special moral situations to universal, fixed and ultimate concepts, we should not go to the other extreme, i.e., to subordinate general universal concepts to particular cases. We should not absolutize concrete, particular moral situations so that every such situation would be taken as unique and unsimiliar, with no connection to other situations. This would simply exclude any role for general concepts and principles and lead to moral relativism. Dewey clearly rejected such relativism:

The blunt assertion that every moral situation is a unique situation having its own irreplaceable good may seem not merely blunt but preposterous. For the established tradition teaches that it is precisely the irregularity of special cases which makes necessary the guidance of conduct by universals, and that the essence of virtuous deposition is willingness to subordinate every particular case to adjudication by a fixed principle. It would then follow that submission of a generic end and law to determination by the concrete situation entails complete confusion and unrestrained licentiousness.

 

This paragraph shows us that while emphasizing making particular moral judgments according to the particular situations, Dewey did not repudiate the importance of general concepts and laws in making concrete moral judgements.

Of course, as in Dewey’s overall theory of moral and philosophical reconstruction, there are also certain shortcomings and onesidedness in his criticisms of moral absolutism and relativism. As to evaluating his criticism and even his overall reconstruction theory, scholars of different trends have different views. I will not discuss it here in detail. But one thing is definite: when Dewey opposes traditional moral theory, especially moral absolutism, his purpose is surely neither to promote idealism, nor to absolutize certain capitalist moral principles, nor to preach moral relativism and nihilism, but to shake off the yoke of the old tradition and authority so that moral research could be based on scientific methods of inquiry and could help to resolve the various concrete and realistic moral problems faced by people. Such an idea can play a positive role at least to a certain degree in smashing the trend of thought of China whereby traditional feudal-patriarchal moral ideas long fettered people’s thought. This is the main reason why scholars of various trends in the May 4th new cultural movement all welcomed his theory.

Dewey did not completely negate the meaning of general concepts and principles when he opposed traditional moral theories which generalized special moral situations by using general moral concepts and laws. On the contrary, he emphasized the importance of these concepts and principles; there is a need for people to use them when they are to do research on morals, make moral judgements or apply the scientific method of inquiry in moral affairs. As when doctors examine various concrete and special illnesses, they need to use medical knowledge consisting of general concepts. However, we should not consider these concepts and principles as the end of investigation or the only yardstick for making moral judgements. We can take them only as means and instruments for exploring concrete and special moral situations. In other words, general moral concepts, principles and laws are not themselves the purpose and end of moral inquiry, but only the instruments for such inquiry. This is the basic meaning of Dewey’s instrumentalism in the moral realm.

There are some serious limitations and fallacies in Dewey’s instrumentalistic moral theory, which are criticized by both Chinese and Western scholars. I do not intend to recommend this idea, but it is appropriate to mention that Dewey’s instrumentalism emphasized only that general moral concepts and principles be regarded as instruments for helping people to investigate and resolve various moral problems. There is no intent to satisfying only the individual’s private interest. There exist some misunderstandings in Chinese philosophical circles in this regard for some scholars have been severely criticizing Dewey’s instrumentalism in the moral realm as not only a subjective idealism theoretically, but also an instrument for defending the bourgeoisie’s private profit and interests. However, Dewey again and again asked people not to misunderstand the meaning of his theory:

Many people undervalue the pragmatist view of happiness. They think it emphasizes only a person’s private interests, success and satisfaction, but does not concern the happiness of other people, the collective or society. Some people even consider the pursuit of maximum possessions and material enjoyment to be the creed of pragmatism. In fact, this is not true.

Pragmatists emphasize the great importance of happiness in their whole ethical theory and believe that changes in moral ideas will always be embodied centrally in changes in the view of happiness. They refuse asceticism which excludes people’s actual happiness and insist that each moral theory has to discuss the question of happiness. Moralists who seemingly neglect happiness retain the idea under the term "bliss". Therefore, we should accept such things as happiness, satisfaction and enjoyment.

These sentences suggest that Dewey does not appreciate selfishness, unlimited possessions of property and uncontrolled material enjoyment. He even has a sense of advocating the construction of spiritual civilizations. So it is obviously improper to consider such things as upholding selfishness, hedonism and other relevant moral characters to be the creed of pragmatism.

That the worldview of pragmatism is an individualism has not been doubted by many. The pragmatist philosophers themselves definitely recognized that. But individualism is a conception with various meanings; people can understand it in quite different ways. When people say that the moral depravity of present China was influenced by individualism advocated by such Western trends as pragmatism, what they have in mind is individualism in the sense of egoism. But such individualism is just what Dewey intensely opposed.

Comprehensive evaluation of Dewey’s and other pragmatists’ moral theory needs to be explored from various angles, but this is not the mission of this chapter. But from the brief introduction above, it is also clear that if people impute the various problems of the moral realm in present day China to the influences of pragmatism and other Western trends, it is not practical or realistic to blame the people’s immoral actions upon the pragmatist moral-view.

Regardless of whether or not people support using such phrases as "predicament" to express the moral situation of present China, they cannot deny that there are serious moral problems in present Chinese society. No matter whether or not people consent to using the term "reconstruction" to represent the present task of moral construction of China, they must agree that there is difficult work to perform, including theoretical reflection and concrete measures.

To deal with the moral reconstruction in China, the first thing to do is to gain a clear and comprehensive understanding of the causes which engender these problems. These are various: the interior contradiction and conflict of the economic and political systems of contemporary China and the contractions and conflicts between them are the principal reason for the contradictions and conflicts in the moral and cultural realms. To overcome the problems in the moral and cultural realms presupposes a successful reform in the political and economic systems. Therefore the latter is the principal way for the moral reconstruction of China. Besides this, the ultra-left ideological and cultural line with its pernicious influence, the destruction of traditional Chinese moral standards, the conflicts between moral ideals and the present moral condition, the misunderstanding and mis-critique of the moral philosophy of pragmatism and other Western trends, etc., all are important causes of the present predicament. To overcome these carefully is also the way to moral reconstruction. Some additional ideas on these questions include being rid of the ossification of Marxism and making it an open and continually progressive theory.

China is a socialist country directed by the communist party. The Chinese constitution stipulates that Marxism and Mao’s thought is the guiding idea for every cause. No matter whether or not people doubt the truth of Marxism, they could not deny the leading position of Marxism in the ideological realm of China. Neither theoretical study nor the practical operation of the moral realm in China could be practiced without recognizing the guiding role of Marxism. The important thing here is not whether to recognize this role, but how to treat it.

Why are there serious problems in the moral sphere of China? The most important reason is not that people did not emphasize the guiding role of Marxism, but that Marxism was ossified and dogmatized, falling from guiding to mis-guiding. Therefore, in discussing moral reconstruction, the first thing to do is to extricate ourself from the yoke of this ossified Marxism and to recover original Marxism as an open and continuously progressive theory. This is easy to say, but difficult to do in practice; to fight against dogmatism, to fight against ossification, these slogans were shouted for a very long time, but they are only slogans. If in his practice one stressed "against dogmatism", he would be blamed for abandoning Marxism. The present situation is better than the past, but there is no cardinal change. More progress in this regard is what most scholars wait for.

A second step is to strengthen education in moral ideals and treat correctly the relation between these and practical moral standards. At the present time, belief in the communist moral ideal has been shaken. But we should not abandon moral education in the communist ideal for that, for beyond political reasons and considering only the development of the people’s morality,ho education for a lofty moral ideal also is very important. A people who has a lofty moral ideal will always keep a lofty moral character in its life and action. In Western society, many people not only choose money and other private interests, as some leftists think, but seek also lofty moral ends. In this regard, religious organizations often play a positive role, teaching people to act morally. The moral order of Western society is supported to a great extent by Catholic and Christian moral ideals.

As a socialist country with Marxism as the guiding ideology and communism as the final social goal, China can only take communist, not religious, morality as her moral ideal. Here moral education is principally communist. But when relevant authorities carry out such education, it is better for them to consider such points as the following; (1) Do not take communist morality as the only ideal; do not take it as absolutely opposite other moral ideas which also may have some lofty implications. Christian morality, for example, has some things in common with communist morality: at least, it advises people to do good. (2) Do not confuse the communist moral ideal with present moral standards. Education in communist morality should be practiced in a limited area, for example, mainly among the communist party. We should carefully study its feasibility. (3) Advocating the communist moral ideal must be connected with a formulation of the standard system of socialist morality; at the present time, education in moral ideals must also be suited to conditions for the transformation to a market economy.

The third step is to develop and transcend the traditional ethico-moral idea of China. In order to overcome the full repudiation of Chinese traditional morality and culture by both the ultra-left and the ultra-right, many scholars from the Chinese mainland and overseas propose reviving and developing traditional Chinese morality and culture; some scholars even take this as a prerequisite for modernization in China. No matter what the political tendency of the persons who propose these ideas, they should be considered carefully. In the last ten years the Chinese people have suffered deep injury from abandoning the tradition. Many persons, especially the younger generation, are not familiar with this tradition. If we do not do our best to revive and redevelop it, the program of constructing socialist spiritual civilization in the Chinese style will become an empty slogan.

In recent years many Chinese scholars have discussed the relation between traditional culture and modernization with great ardor and interest. In order to revive and develop traditional Chinese culture and morality more effectively, it is not enough for us to discuss in academic circles. When the ultra-leftist fully negated Chinese traditional and Western culture, they did not only make an academic critique, but using powerful political pressure they also launched mass movements again and again in order to root out these cultures from people’s minds. Although it is unnecessary, and even impossible, to launch a mass movement to revive and develop traditional Chinese culture, we should study carefully how to encourage the broad mass of people to re-germinate a deep sense of their own culture and moral tradition, to make the excellent virtues with which Chinese culture is imbued once again the virtues of the Chinese people today, and to formulate practical operations towards that end. All these are very important to improve the moral condition of China today.

But we should not exaggerate the role of Chinese traditional morality and culture in the present day moral reconstruction. It is absolutely wrong to think that we can reconstruct our desired morality and culture only from the traditional heritage of our history. We must not forget that, after all, Chinese traditional morality and culture emerged and developed on the basis of a feudal-patriarchal system and is imbued with a strong feudal and conservative character. While nourishing the Chinese people with noble virtues, it also was used by feudal-conservative forces as an instrument to defend their reactionary control and other interests. In order to advance a more open reform in China, especially democratic reform in the political field, it is necessary to criticize continually the negative aspects of traditional culture. We must bear in mind that in contemporary China the influences of feudal autocracy are still rather strong, and sometime are even one of the main obstacles to realizing modernization. If we are limited by our traditional culture, it will be very difficult to overcome the influences of feudal autocracy. Therefore, in beginning to develop traditional culture and morality, we must also pay attention to how we can transcend them. Since Marxism is stipulated as the guiding ideology, we had better re-study it and make it a truly open and progressive theory and a helpful guide for our studies. We also should deeply study excellent Western moral and cultural thoughts, use them as references, and connect them with the excellent Chinese traditional culture. On this basis we can create a more progressive and superior morality and culture.

We must re-evaluate the role of pragmatist and other Western moral philosophies. As to how to use pragmatist and other Western moral philosophies, there is no common view among Chinese scholars. Theories of indiscriminately imitating or fully negating the West have cropped up sometimes, but their supports are few. The main obstacle at the present time is that while some people agree that the above Western theories should not be negated fully and that their positive elements can be used as references, they do not take a practical and realistic attitude to abandoning the prejudices against Western theories formed in past. They discovered in these theories only their negative side, so in fact they the question of how to use these theories for reference. For example, for a long time some people equated the individualism proposed by pragmatists and other Western scholars with egoism. Even most recently some famous scholars have criticized such individualism sharply. But they leave beyond their field of vision how such individualism encourages persons to develop their creativity and activity to contribute to social welfare, how it advocates transcending the limitation of a person’s private interests, how it emphasize the individual’s duty and responsibility to others and to society, etc. In this way, what such critics say about individualism is only negative, whereas, as we saw in case of Dewey, individualism is much different from rugged egoism.

Connected with the above, many leftist scholars over-emphasized the opposition and conflicts between Marxism and such Western theories as pragmatism. Analyzing and studying Western scholars’ works, they are accustomed to taking them as only negative materials for Marxism and hardly pay attention to aspects which may be worthwhile and helpful in developing and enriching Marxism.

In order to surmount the above obstacles and to use Western theories for a Chinese end, it is necessary for Chinese scholars to re-evaluate pragmatism and other Western trends, to re-estimate the relation between them and Marxism.

To re-evaluate and re-estimate is not easy in practice. I have put some ideas forward in other papers. I would add several suggestions.

(1) Commenting on the above Western trends we must take full account of the condition of the economic, political and scientific developments of Western countries. Since we recognize that their condition in these fields is not bad, in some aspects they are worth our study and use as references. We cannot deny wholesale their morality and culture as they are all connected with each other.

(2) In order to emphasize the fundamental opposition between Marxism and such Western theories as pragmatism some scholars still proceed from concepts, not matters of fact -- which makes them fall into self-contradictions. For example, some speeches of a Chinese leader, such as the famous metaphor of white and black cats, clearly regard pragmatic philosophers, but as, according to authoritative commentaries in China, pragmatism is fully negative, scholars do not dare to recognize the fact. Taking the leader’s speeches as deeply true and highly appreciating them, they take similar speeches by pragmatists as utterly absurd and criticize them violently. Such self-contradiction certainly will be harmful to the reputation of Marxism. If we do not over-emphasize the fundamental opposition, but recognize common views on some aspects, we can get more truthful and positive elements from Western theories. There are many ideas in Dewey’s moral philosophy which certainly could be useful and helpful to moral reconstruction in China.

Both theoretical inquiry and practical work in the moral reconstruction of present day China are complex and formidable. The road is rugged and demands that scholars devoted to this must have great courage and insight in order to overcome the biases long originating from leftist orientation, and transcend various ideological and even political obstacles. If this could be done, certainly we would achieve our desired target.

1. Hu Shi, "Our Attitude towards Modern Western Civilization," Modern Review, IV (no. 83, July, 1926).

2. Hu Shi, "An Introduction of My Own Thoughts," a preface to Hu Shi Papers, A Collection, (Shanghai: Asian Press, 1931).

3. John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy and Essays (1920; The Middle Works, vol. 12; Urbana: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988), p. 174.

4. Ibid., p. 178.

5. Ibid., p. 173.

6. Ibid., p. 170.

7. Ibid., p. 183.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (1922; The Middle Works, vol. 14; Urbana: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988), p. 203.

12. Ibid., vol. 12, p. 181.

13. Ibid., p. 183.

14. Ibid., p. 184.

15. John Dewey, Individualism, Old and New (1930) (New York: Capricorn Books, 1962), pp. 74-100.

1. The Broken World, a Four Act Play by Gabriel Marcel, trans. by K.R. Hanley (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1998).

2. "Concrete Approaches to the Ontological Mystery", in Gabriel Marcel (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 1980), pp. 9-46.

See also: Two Play, by Gabriel Marcel: "The Lantern" and "The Torch of Peace" plus From Comic Theater to Musical Creation, a Previously Unpublished Essay, ed. Katharine Rose Hanley (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988).

"The Dangerous Situation of Spiritual Values", in Home Viator, an Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope (Glouster, MA: Peter Smith, 1978); Katharine Rose Hanley, Dramatic Approaches to Creative Fidelity: A Study in the Theater and Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), esp. ch. VII, "Colombyre or the Torch of Peace: The Role of Person-Communities in Living Creative Fidelity to Values", pp. 129-136.