CHAPTER VI

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE MORAL

QUALITY OF CITY-DWELLERS

WANG MIAOYANG

            As a modern concept, urban life appears along with estab-lishment of the market economy and the formation of civil society. Modernization can be understood as a process of urbanization, secu-larization and rationalization; it is also the context for the development and progress of civil society. However, the historical experience of de-veloped countries shows that economic development did not bring about social progress in all respects and that there still exist social problems which threaten human subsistence and development. Fur-ther, many persons are materially rich, but spiritually poor. In view of these problems, it appears that in the process of modernization the improvement of the individual moral quality of urban inhabitants needs to be an important concern for the entire society.

HISTORICAL PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING

            SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

            The development of contemporary society has implied considerable change in the concept of development itself. Before World War II, it was generally considered that the problem of social development could be solved automatically by economic growth. However, this link of social development to economic growth later proved to be onesided. After investigating the situation of France, an American scholar came to the conclusion that economic prosperity alone is not a sufficient condition in order for a society to be stable and for its people to live and work contentedly and in peace. He showed that in the course of its modernization urban French communities experienced a great economic leap. The resulting unprecedented prosperity, however, generated a feeling of insecurity. The main rea-son for this was that, with economic growth, traditional social groups disintegrated and some nouveau riche suddenly appeared which broadened the gap between the poor and the rich. Traditional morals were violated, corruption pervaded the entire society and grievances on the part of ordinary people reached a climax. Therefore the view that social development depends exclusively upon economic growth not only cannot ensure a healthy development of social life, but can damage continuous economic growth.

            After World War II, it was suggested that the objective of social development should not be defined merely as economic growth, but should include also supplying the needs of people’s daily lives. This view drew much attention. However, the impact of high-technology and the pursuit of the fulfillment of these needs produced many negative effects. These included ecological damage, unlimited exploi-tation of natural resources and neglect of the complete development of human beings and of improvement in the quality of human life. Under such circumstances, a comprehensive view of development which sets as one of the objectives of social development the improvement of the quality of human life now attracts ever greater attention and is accepted by more and more people.

            This historical progress regarding social development marks the transition from a matter-centered to a human-centered state, and hence the advance of modern civil society. In fact, the above-mentioned three objectives, that is, acceleration of economic growth, fulfillment of people’s needs and improvement of the quality of human life are internally interconnected: they are mutually dependent and mutually promoted. The human-centered comprehensive view of development actually is embraced in Karl Marx’s theory of scientific socialism, particularly in his goal of an ideal future society. Now China is in a period of socialist modernization. By unifying the foregoing factors--economic growth, meeting people’s needs and improving the quality of human life--in a dialectical manner the theory of building socialism with Chinese features, created by Deng Xiaoping, puts for-ward a comprehensive view for social development with Chinese fea-tures.

            Deng Xiaoping proposed that economic construction occupy the central position, and that the ultimate task for the present stage is the development of productive forces. He also pointed out that the nature of socialism is to liberate and develop productive force, to wipe out exploitation, to eliminate polarization in wealth and to reach the final goal of universal prosperity. In this way, he unified economic growth with the satisfaction of people’s needs. Deng also insisted that in the course of socialist modernization two tasks should be given equal importance: one is the construction of material civilization and the other is the construction of spiritual civilization. The cultivation of a newly-educated and disciplined generation, with splendid ideals and noble morals, is the basic task in the construction of spiritual civilization.

THE DOUBLE EFFECTS OF THE MARKET ECONOMY

            ON MORALITY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

            The experience of most countries in the world shows that the development of civil society and its modernization must be based on the growth of a market economy, which can be regarded as a developed commodity economy. Under the impact of the scientific and technological revolution, the rapid development of the market econ-omy serves as a driving force for the rapid improvement of social productive forces and a heightened prosperity for the social economy. Before the founding of the new China, the country had long been a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. Hence, the market economy was imperfect and in a strict sense there were no civil societies and urban centers as in Western European countries. On the founding of the People’s Republic of China, a planned economy was generally adopted, but the commodity economy was not fully developed and the system of market economy was not set up and perfected until 1978. Then the open door policy was formally adopted and the proposition of establishing a socialist market economy was definitely set out.

            In the high tide of modernization and market economy which followed, the mental outlook and moral ideas of the people have undergone great changes. In the present situation, the development of a market economy has both positive and negative effects upon peoples’ ideology and moral quality, and hence upon social progress and human development. These double effects should be conditioned or controlled through society so that the positive effect can be brought into full display and the negative effect reduced to a minimum.

            Is the market economy really a good economic system; can it be accepted by socialist countries? So far as the present condition in China is concerned, most people agree that the market economy is neither the devil it was considered to be in the past, nor the angel it was later overestimated to be. The fact is that it has twin positive and negative effects. It is wrong to reject the compatibility of a market economy with the socialist system, or the positive effects of the market, due to some corruption as a negative effect. First of all, it is through the average of market competition in the whole society, not through individual market exchanges, that the law of values takes effect. This is the main force that propels an enterprise to improve its management, to adopt new technology, to allocate material resources more effectively, to raise the productive efficiency and to reduce costs, thus accelerating the development of production and of the economy. Secondly, the socialist system requires democracy, and without an exchange of commodities at equal value, there will be no modern democracy. The market economy begins from the principle of ex-change at equal value and through equal competition achieves its goals of survival of the fittest and optimum allocation of productive capabilities and material resources. The market economy is not only the driving force of economic development, but also the economic base for democratic politics. Lastly, it seems more appropriate to attri-bute the cause of the phenomenon of corruption in society to feudal privilege, rather than to corruptive capitalist ideas. A market economy not only needs equal and open competition, but also requires that social justice be guaranteed by legal regulation and social norms. Therefore it helps to punish corruption, to disclose social evils and to check its expansion. For these reasons, we can say that the market economy can be used to maintain the socialist system.

            Market economy also has positive effects on human devel-opment such as the establishment of some sense of efficiency, of competition and of interests, and also an intensification of some concepts such as those of justice, equality, human rights and the legal system. Under the conditions of a market economy working people have more independence and more potential for development. The independent personality of individuals is enhanced and initiative is intensified.

            On the other hand, the growth of market economy has also produced many negative effects. The fact that the market economy has set profit as its goal makes deception, the worship of money and egoism more possible and more common. Such things as producing commodities of poor quality and with false trademarks, unlawfully reaping huge profits from customers and misleading advertising are easily observable in the market. Further it is common to harm others in order to benefit oneself or to damage new public facilities. Even when someone’s life is in great danger, no one may be willing to help. In all these instances egoism and the worship of money have gone to the extreme; ultimate concern has been replaced by concern for money. Under the negative influence of the market economy, both public and traditional morals have been eroded, personal relationship commer-cialized and various masks of social corruption invented.

            These double effects of the market economy occur in any social system and are inevitable in the progress and modernization of civil society. But this does not mean that society or the state has no power here. On the contrary, the society or state can bring it under control through conditioning the positive and negative effects. In a socialist system it is possible for the positive effects to be brought into full display and the negative effect to be limited as much as possible and therefore reduced to a minimum. What we must now discover is how, under socialist conditions, to limit the negative effect on human development. At present the main task is to promote the construction of a socialist spiritual civilization, to focus upon the continuous improvement of civil society and the quality of urban inhabitants, and thereby to promote to the maximum the positive effect of a market economy upon human development and to repress its negative effect in such a way as to inhibit their spread to more areas.

THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE MORAL QUALITY

            OF HUMAN LIFE

            The key point in the construction of spiritual civilization is to improve the moral quality of human life. The construction of spiritual civilization can be considered in terms of the improvement of human qualities. The quality of human life is a comprehensive concept which includes multiple qualities: moral, scientific, cultural and legal. Of all these the moral quality is the most important, for it is indispensable in improving the scientific and cultural, the aesthetic and legal qualities. Hence, the improvement of moral qualities should be given first priority.

            Morals may be dealt with on two levels: on the religious level they are called religious or spiritual morals; on the social level they are called social or public morals. Kant considered morals to be absolute: he posited a transcendent and universal necessity which was the moral imperative to be followed by everyone. Religious or spiritual morals express this transcendent and universal moral which usually is related to a certain faith or ideal; it is called a priori because it holds for mankind as a whole and is constituted of absolute, universal and necessary moral standards. "Not to tell lies", "to realize one’s own ta-lents", "to help others" and so forth are all requirements or implications of the moral a priori specified by Kant. Religious morals advocate devotion, sacrifice and the belief that by sacrifice one can ascend to a state of spiritual nobility; hence it is considered a spiritual moral.

            In this sense, we can regard as a sort of religious or spiritual moral what was taught by Chairman Mao, namely, that to serve the people one should be devoted to others without any thought of oneself, and that in the interest of all one should fear neither hardship nor death. This kind of morals is situated on a higher level and is something to which a person entrusts the significance of his or her life; this is what is meant by one’s ultimate concern. Without this kind of moral, civilization could not have developed and the moral world would have lost its splendor and attraction.

            As compared with religious morals, social morals stands on a lower level; they are closely related to the policy and law of a certain society and must be observed by every member of the society. Social morals may be affected by many factors such as circumstances of time and space, the national culture, tradition and custom, and economic conditions. Professional morals are found here. With the development of society, moral ideas also undergo changes; social morals are an important component of this changing moral. At the New Year, people now say, "May you become rich", which had not been heard for a long time. This phenomenon shows that for some time it was considered to be immoral to be rich, whereas today making money is quite normal and common, with no connotation of immorality. Furthermore, we must also respect the individual rights and interests of every member in the society. These are changes which are now taking place in social morals.

            Religious morals can be realized only in special social groups which constitute a minority of society, whereas social morals are a goal that most people can reach through their efforts. We can lead people to take up spiritual morals as a goal, but it seems inappropriate to require everybody to reach that goal. To impose this moral standard on the whole society would mean requiring everyone to become a sage; undoubtedly, this cannot be realized. On the other hand, if we do not advocate spiritual morals and are content only with the construction of social morals, morals in general will lose their spirit and attractive brilliance. Then the splendid chapter of the noble spirit written in the course of human history will no longer be inherited.

            Often it is said that the value of traditional Chinese culture lies in its ethics. Ethics is indeed a major component of traditional Chinese culture, as can be seen from its Confucian content. Since the May 4th Movement too much emphasis has been laid on the negative aspects of traditional ethics. Today during the course of socialist modern-ization, it seems necessary to reevaluate the ethics in traditional Chi-nese culture so that some important distinctions can be made: what is of the essence and what is dross, what spiritual morals are of continuing use and able to be developed, what social morals can be reconstructed and what should be discarded? It is still beneficial for the development of current society to inherit and develop good morals from the traditional culture and to criticize and reconstruct what is bad or out-of-date, for in traditional Chinese philosophy one may find statements concerning the significance of life and ultimate concern.

            Through academic study some contribution can be made to the improvement of the moral quality of human life, to the progress of current society and to the improvement of the general human quality of civil society.

Institute of Philosophy

Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

Shanghai, PRC

DISCUSSION

            In considering the need for spiritual civilization in a country it is important to assure that the dignity of persons is taken into full ac-count. This has been stated by Kant in terms of recognizing that persons are ends in themselves and never to be treated as means by others, whether individually or cooperatively. This points to the basic human reality of which civil society and nations are built and to the place which any program of spiritual morals must begin. This is the freedom which persons exercise; it is personal life as exercised in a self-responsible manner.

            On this basis and in these terms one can construct a society of free and responsible people. If a public morality is attempted only as a set of external goals, promoted and/or imposed by society as an external force, without engaging the spiritual sense of a people there is danger that it will be counter-productive for lack of public response or that, if this be forced by ever harsher penalties, it will destroy the free initiative of the people.

            This gives special weight to the thought of Professor Wang that human development has three levels: the economic, the public or political, and the spiritual. This latter, spiritual development is not cared for by the earlier two, but it is essential for them, while itself reaching much more deeply into the meaning and values of a culture. This is the level at which philosophy operates in uncovering the sense of life, opening the mind to goals for human growth, and attending to the human quality of life. This cannot be left entirely to economic theory, which is focused upon material civilization, without reducing humanity to its physical dimension only; nor can it be left to the political order without subjecting all to external relations of power at the expense of the internal personal engagement of persons as free and self-responsible. Hence there is need for philosophy to integrate all of these dimensions: material and spiritual, external and internal, public and personal. The unfortunate thing is that these have become dissociated and the higher have been subordinated to the others. (See Professor Zhou Changzhong’s note regarding the substitution of science for Tao in this century.) It is the task of philosophy to hold open the mind to all these dimensions and to so integrate them that the quality of human life is promoted.

            If this is to be done, however, it is necessary that there be a realm of human action and interaction which is dominated neither by economic nor political considerations, but where people inspired by the full range of human meaning can come together and interact. There they must be able to see things from the point of view of others not as means, but as ends in themselves. They must be able to come to a reasoned sense of what is due to others, to set goals and develop habits and customs of human interaction and social concern, and to decide which will come first, righteousness or interests, or more pro-bably how these can be effectively interrelated. This precisely is the meaning of civil society.

            Certainly, this is not without implications for the economic and political order, for the enhanced human quality of life which it enables and promotes has direct implications for the humanization of those orders. In their human social inventions those orders cannot but benefit from the cumulate creative imagination and the balancing of human needs and interests which can take place in civil society. This, in other words, is the realm of creative human freedom par excellence.

            Philosophy must have a role here in order to hold open human horizons and allow in principle for the effective interaction and mutual promotion of the various dimensions of human life. In part this is the sense of J. Habermas’ notion of communicative action. Unfortunately he leaves this simply on the formal level, whereas its substance is in the realm of actual existence and interchange. It is in the actual exercise of human life in which being enters into time, in which the shape of social life is created, and in which public standards, opinions and expectations are formed. We must have confidence in this interaction, debate and, in the end, cooperate toward the common good; we must give humankind a chance to act humanly, expecting that in the end people will not act as mere animals which they are not, but as proper human beings with higher hopes for their children and with a willingness to be held to higher expectations for and by themselves. This is the reality of spiritual civilization and for its exercise there is need not only for an economic and a political order, but for the civic forum of civil society in which people interact and shape not only their ethics but their concrete life.