To a great extent, a change of mind is represented as a difference in ideas. But for the direction of human life, values act as paradigms in the spiritual and actual life of people, determine the goals of action, the end of life and the mode of behavior of people. For this reason, any reform of society is concerned with a reform of values.

However, a reform of values requires a division and reorganization in which traditional values come into conflict with new ones. In China, the center of traditional values is Confucianism, which is characterized by an emphasis upon righteousness and a belittling of interests; in contrast, Western values emphasize individuals and interests. Since the reform and opening of China these two values have been in conflict.

Conflicts now emerge in Chinese values: between righteousness and interests, between egoism and altruism, and between collectivism and individualism. All these conflicts are manifest in the orientation of the values of human life; in the end they influence moral ideas and modes of thought and behavior. When their influence becomes too great the social structure changes and the individual must readjust his or her place in society.

The conflict between righteousness and interests emerged long ago. Even in times of extreme collectivism this conflict did not disappear completely, but continued in hidden forms.

As early as before the Qing dynasty, Confucius said: "The gentleman understands what is right, the cad understands what will pay." In the Chinese moral dictionary, righteousness and interests constitute a pair of irreconcilable contradictions. Some Chinese who maintain the doctrine of the mean are at a loss as to what to do in confronting the choice between righteousness and interest, because many see only two such kinds of people: the gentleman who emphasizes righteousness and belittles interests and the cad who forgets righteousness when he or she perceives interests. Therefore, when anyone made a choice between righteousness and interests, one faced a dichotomous moral evaluation: either the good name of the gentleman or the bad name of the cad. Such judgements about righteousness and interests have been the subject of Chinese culture and the backbone of the Chinese moral system.

It often asked why market economics has not developed in China for over two thousands years. A simple and immediate answer is that the Confucianist values, which held the central place in China and determined the Chinese national character, emphasized righteousness and belittled interests. To some extent this answer is reasonable, but it is unsatisfactory because as long as they did not become an extreme monasticism Confucianist values would not hinder the development of a Chinese market economy; on the contrary, they would promote standardization and order. Although many Chinese persons like to connect the merchant with treacherousness, whence appears the concept of the "treacherous merchant", there exist maxims useful for a market economy such as "Good-naturedness leads to wealth in business", "There still exists good will even when business is unsuccessful", "Buying and selling at reasonable prices", etc. All these maxims manifest the Confucian spirit and the principle of placing righteousness above interests.

In a broad sense, keeping one’s word, an important principle for the development of a market economy, is part of Confucianist righteousness. Just as any game is impossible without its rules, society would fall into disorder and disaster were there not the principle of righteousness ruling one’s behavior in searching for interests. In this sense, righteousness and interests can be unified. Because of this some scholars consider Japanese capitalism to be Confucian.

But now, some younger Chinese experience the conflict between righteousness and interests much more than in the past. On the one hand, the Confucian principle in which their fathers believed has lost its authority. Some people are bent solely on profit and see all social relations in terms of profit-making so that one worries whether "China will become more capitalist than capitalism". At present, there are no healthy values appropriate for the market economy in China; often it is noted that some people are corrupt, steal and loot in self-interest. This phenomena is not much more serious than in Western countries, but it lies heavily upon the Chinese mind and society so that many feel distressed about these immoral phenomena.

On the other hand, there still exists a moral mechanism which limits materialism in China. It is characteristic of Chinese society that relations among people are harmonized not by law, but by morality -- for which reason there were no police in China for over two thousand years. The Chinese crowd around the scene of an accident to judge between the right and wrong because they think of themselves as moral observers and judges. Hence, the Chinese pay special attention to the other’s evaluation of themselves. Although the force of moral evaluation is decreasing and the force of law is increasing in Chinese social life, the value of putting righteousness above interests still holds a central place in Chinese society.

In May 1980, the magazine Chinese Youth published a letter from a young man named Pan Xiao: "The creative person is for oneself subjectively and for others objectively. . . . Perhaps this is the law of human beings and of the evolution of life."

Pan Xiao’s letter evoked great repercussions among the young and led to a prolonged debate which centered on the problem of life values, especially the proposition "to be for oneself subjectively and to be for others objectively."

This debate represents the conflict between two values faced by Chinese youth after the reform and opening of China, namely, the conflict between egoism and altruism. Although we may not be able to say whether such action is for ourselves or for others, we find that there are two types of tendencies in the actual life of the Chinese people. On the one hand, individuals in China were subordinated and attached to the collective. Almost everyone recognizes the social evils brought about by extreme collectivism and it’s harm to one’s sense of person. On the other hand, some people believe in the principle "everyone for oneself and the devil take the hindmost". They harm other’s interest when there is a conflict between their own and other’s interests. The whole society could descend to a state in which everyone is like a wolf to every other member of society and would harm the other for oneself.

Certainly, as the relation between self and other is very complex, it is difficult to judge whether a kind of action is moral or not by the standard of "either for oneself or for others". Spencer remarked, if the maxim "to live for oneself" is wrong, the maxim "to live for others" also is wrong. So, a conciliatory attitude is the only possibility; for the evolution of human beings it is necessary to reconcile "for oneself" and "for others".

However, we must consider some possible extreme case. For example, when a boat on which there are many women and children is sinking, the children in the boat cannot flee for their life. Thus, there have been heroic paeans for men who give up their chance for life to women and children. Altruism is an important means for maintaining affinity and the integrity of society. Heroism exists because there is altruism to the extent of offering love and life. If everyone indulged his interests, heroism would be impossible and the spiritual force maintaining social justice would disappear.

In China now one finds that when a boy falls into the water some are not willing to rescue him, while others do their best to rescue him even at risk to their lives. A student named Zhang Hua died a martyr in rescuing a farmer who had fallen into a manure pit. Some persons said Zhang Hua’s action was unwise because Zhang Hua was a highly educated young man who would be able to contribute a great deal to the society. Obviously, this is an utilitarian value according to which we must calculate the amount of the value of an action to the society or individual before we take a certain moral action. But if so, there would be such absurd phenomena as not rescuing an idiot or an old man because they are burdens to society.

In the above-mentioned case, if Zhang Hua did not go to the rescue of the farmer, still we could not say that he was an egoist, for in Chinese to be an egoist means "to use public office for private gain" or "to injure the public interest to benefit one’s private interests." In law Zhang Hua was not obligated to rescue the farmer, but moral nobility consists in the spirit of devotion of a person precisely when he is not responsible. Zhang Hua’s death confirms the greatness of morality and the nobility of the devotion which strongly influences our society and inspires us all. If every member of society saw someone in mortal danger without lifting a finger to save him, what would happen to our society?

Obviously, "to be for oneself subjectively and to be for others objectively" is not feasible for the simple reason that "to be for oneself subjectively" does not necessarily mean "to be for others objectively". On the contrary, there are conflicts between "for one-self" and "for others" in many cases. "For oneself" is impossible if there is no person willing to be for others subjectively. So, "to be for oneself subjectively and to be for others objectively" is not a useful solution to the conflicts between "for oneself" and "for others".

There are traditions by which collectivism is upheld in Eastern nations, but because of the different cultural traditions and the different levels of development the collectivism of these nations plays different parts in social life. With the fusion of the Eastern and Western cultures collectivism in the traditional sense practically disappeared.

The Chinese people upheld an extreme collectivism with a taint of puritanism for the last several decades. The whole society was understood as a machine of which everyone was a part. "Everyone is a screw never getting rusty" was a vivid note in that extreme collectivism. During the period called "eating food in the collective", the collective spirit entered every aspect of the social life. The collective was seen as a mechanical accumulation of individuals so that the relation between the collective and the individual seemed to be a relation between a bag and potatoes. This extreme collectivism necessarily led to the extreme egalitarianism whose result was that individualism is a false egalitarianism because it does not recognize the difference in ability among individuals.

For this reason, a movement of liberation in thought arose in China after the policy of reform and opening. Some outdated Western trends of thought were very welcome and were studied by Chinese youth with great eagerness. Philosophies which emphasized the liberation of individuality did away with the earlier blind faith in collectivism and propagated the idea of freedom. With the rapid development of Chinese market economics young Chinese longed for self-realization, self-determination and self-struggle.

Too great an emphasis on individual value causes extreme individualism, so that some persons denied community concerns in general and not only extreme puritanical collectivism. Some who understood freedom as doing whatever one likes without limit of law, only asked for rights but would not perform obligations. Hedonism and a worship of money led young people to commit crimes. Now, when individual interests conflict with collective interests, some put their own interests above community ones. To quote Sartre some even think that "the other is hell".

Like the extreme collectivism, extreme individualism is not useful to the healthy development of our society. If extreme collectivism sacrificed individuality and strangled human creativity, then extreme individualism would break down social harmony and lead to a hostile state among people. In China there is an historical tradition which emphasizes community and underestimates individuals. This must be reformed gradually. But without community concern China would cease to be China, and the East would cease to be the East. As long as this does not sink into racism and extreme nationalism, as long as it can develop individual activity and creativity, concern for the community is helpful to individuals, society and human civilization.