Callous society or are people too afraid to help?

accordingly, it's within the realm of normality and status quo when a Chinese dude refuses to help a person because that's just how his Chinese mentality operates.

but if a person of western ethnicity refuses to help a victim in need of urgent assistance, his deliberate omission to help is only borne by a pragmatic and cool-headed rationale of avoiding tort liability.

hmmm

:lol: No, that's not what I meant. The liability comment applies to both contexts. The comment about it happening in Western societies is to say that this isn't a uniquely Chinese phenomenon. The cultural predisposition not to get involved, as described by the quoted comment in the OP, though, is familiar enough to me.
 
Hmm...must be an ancient chinese recipe for immortality.

One pint children's blood, a handful of cheap political points, and dash of moral posturing (substitute with slouching, if necessary).
 
:lol: No, that's not what I meant. The liability comment applies to both contexts. The comment about it happening in Western societies is to say that this isn't a uniquely Chinese phenomenon. The cultural predisposition not to get involved, as described by the quoted comment in the OP, though, is familiar enough to me.

oh did you mean the comment from someone who lived briefly in China?

i have read that too and it's oozing with the same theme you started the thread with by a very leading title.

see it's a bit of stretch to say that he was being pulled inside the car by his Chinese friends to prevent him from rendering aid all because that's not part of their culture to help out. it could be that those machete wielding assailants are part of a gang or an organized syndicate so it's probably safer to not get involved. ;)

it's not some hassle to help out some random victim of a potentially dangerous group, it's actually a matter of life and death for the do-gooder and his car companions especially when the machete attackers are still nearby.

last i checked, life and death considerations in any language or culture is a universal thing.

and another part of his comment which i found amusing was this:

However, If I were to be hit by a car or have a heart attack in the street, I would in all likelyhood be left for dead. The only help I would get is someone removing my wallet!

this is not a Chinese thing really. in most common law countries, this is considered a crime, and in others, considered as an aggravating circumstance of greater perversity in the commission of the crime of theft. what he said happens often enough that most countries penalize the act.
 
oh did you mean the comment from someone who lived briefly in China?

i have read that too and it's oozing with the same theme you started the thread with by a very leading title.

see it's a bit of stretch to say that he was being pulled inside the car by his Chinese friends to prevent him from rendering aid all because that's not part of their culture to help out. it could be that those machete wielding assailants are part of a gang or an organized syndicate so it's probably safer to not get involved. ;)

I dunno, man. I come from a predominantly Chinese society and people have a tendency to mind their own business. That's not to say people wouldn't help in a situation like what happened to the little girl. If that's not beyond the pale, it wouldn't be quite so sensational in China itself, yeah?

And you say "it's a bit of a stretch that..." and yet offer your own outlandish explanation. Even if it was a gang thing, why shouldn't he have helped a guy who was bleeding badly? Is that were you draw the line? If it's gang-related violence, then it's none of your business?
 
I dunno, man. I come from a predominantly Chinese society and people have a tendency to mind their own business. That's not to say people wouldn't help in a situation like what happened to the little girl. If that's not beyond the pale, it wouldn't be quite so sensational in China itself, yeah?

And you say "it's a bit of a stretch that..." and yet offer your own outlandish explanation. Even if it was a gang thing, why shouldn't he have helped a guy who was bleeding badly? Is that were you draw the line? If it's gang-related violence, then it's none of your business?

outlandish explanation, hmm, perhaps it is. but there's a good reason why people are reluctant to get themselves involved in any criminal undertaking in whatever capacity e.g. as a witness in open court or as a good Samaritan.

even with witness protection programs in place and a promise of 24/7 police security, witnesses to a crime are generally unwilling to come out and help with the investigations for fear of reprisals to his person or immediate family members.

in this same sense, persons do not generally volunteer help at the very moment while criminal proceedings are afoot if doing so exposes them to imminent risk of serious injury to life and limb. it's not a Chinese thing, it's evolutionary biology.

i am not drawing a line, making distinctions or creating subtle tiers of when and what are situations to render aid. the situation with the his comment is just vastly different from what happened to Yue Yue.

in either case using any of these isolated instances to ascribe a facile description of Chinese mentality is really really uncalled for.
 
Sad stuff, thats why you need to keep animals on a leash. Africa, Asia, nothing can be done.
 
Sad stuff, thats why you need to keep animals on a leash. Africa, Asia, nothing can be done.

Yeah, isn't too peachy for the ones who went north from Africa, either.
 
outlandish explanation, hmm, perhaps it is. but there's a good reason why people are reluctant to get themselves involved in any criminal undertaking in whatever capacity e.g. as a witness in open court or as a good Samaritan.

even with witness protection programs in place and a promise of 24/7 police security, witnesses to a crime are generally unwilling to come out and help with the investigations for fear of reprisals to his person or immediate family members.

in this same sense, persons do not generally volunteer help at the very moment while criminal proceedings are afoot if doing so exposes them to imminent risk of serious injury to life and limb. it's not a Chinese thing, it's evolutionary biology.

i am not drawing a line, making distinctions or creating subtle tiers of when and what are situations to render aid. the situation with the his comment is just vastly different from what happened to Yue Yue.

That's as good an explanation as being worried about a scam or about tort liability.

katipunero said:
in either case using any of these isolated instances to ascribe a facile description of Chinese mentality is really really uncalled for.

Description of Chinese mentality? Who's describing anything in certain terms?

Are you saying that it's not true that Chinese communities have some tendency to subscribe to the idea of minding your own business?
 
Besides, helping people when everyone can see it is downright embarrassing. A real strong man doesn't help the "wounded" weaklings and sissies. People who help other "weak" people are downright ridiculous, and their phony Polyanna-ish nice act makes decent people who mind their own business uncomfortable for a reason. Am I right?
 
Description of Chinese mentality? Who's describing anything in certain terms?

Really? How about the comment you specially included in the OP:

x x x Sorry China, but this is fact as people just do want any hassle. If someone did take me to the hospital the first thing hospital staff would ask is 'who is paying?' This little girl is now dead by the way.

or this:

That's not unbelievable as far as Chinese mentality goes.

par for the course?

Are you saying that it's not true that Chinese communities have some tendency to subscribe to the idea of minding your own business?

sure, Chinese communities believe in the idea of minding one's business...like any and all other communities do! selfish genes tend to do what is good for the tribe and what would ensure its survival after all (paraphrasing Dawkins).

but are the Chinese MORE talismanically attached to the inviolate idea of minding one's own business than any other community is what the question should have been before we attempt an answer and cast any contrast and comparison of which community is supposed to be which.

what happened to the kid was unfortunate. but i am afraid the public discourse you claim to speak for seems to make unnecessary links to ethnicity to explain why the stuff on the video happened.
 
Really? How about the comment you specially included in the OP:

I included that as discussion material. Is there really anything to say about the incident on its own other than the fact that it's tragic?

Also, it never occurred to me that quoting someone means you endorse what is said. Thanks for letting me know.

katipunero said:
or this:

par for the course?

sure, Chinese communities believe in the idea of minding one's business...like any and all other communities do! selfish genes tend to do what is good for the tribe and what would ensure its survival after all (paraphrasing Dawkins).

but are the Chinese MORE talismanically attached to the inviolate idea of minding one's own business than any other community is what the question should have been before we attempt an answer and cast any contrast and comparison of which community is supposed to be which.

what happened to the kid was unfortunate. but i am afraid the public discourse you claim to speak for seems to make unnecessary links to ethnicity to explain why the stuff on the video happened.

I don't "speak for" the public discourse. The public discourse is what it is.

I don't have that much experience outside of Chinese communities, to be honest, so I can't really comment on whether other societies are just like that too. I did provide the caveat that the same kind of thing happens in other societies too, which you seem to be quite happy to ignore. I merely said that what the guy seems to allege is believable to me, not that it's necessarily correct.

Personally, from what I know of Chinese culture (and to speak of any culture is to generalise), it places a large emphasis on communal ethics. That is my basis for saying that there may be something of a Chinese dimension to the incident, not that the incident represents a phenomenon unique to China.

But I guess what's the point of nuance when it's easy to play the racism card, right?
 
I included that as discussion material. Is there really anything to say about the incident on its own other than the fact that it's tragic?

Also, it never occurred to me that quoting someone means you endorse what is said. Thanks for letting me know.

sure okay. in my world, whenever an issue is tendered for resolution (like the OP title) and a single piece of evidence, quote or comment from the record is included (like the comment so quoted) and nothing else, it is safe to conclude that the person who offers that piece of evidence wants a specific result or conclusion over another. so please forgive me if i sorely mistook your quoting as an endorsement of the truth of its contents or that you approved of whatever that guy said. sorry, muscle memory i suppose.

I don't "speak for" the public discourse. The public discourse is what it is.

I don't have that much experience outside of Chinese communities, to be honest, so I can't really comment on whether other societies are just like that too. I did provide the caveat that the same kind of thing happens in other societies too, which you seem to be quite happy to ignore. I merely said that what the guy seems to allege is believable to me, not that it's necessarily correct.

i never ignored anything you said. if there was no proper reply or acknowledgment to any point raised, clarified, explained it's probably because i understand, concede and already consider the matter a non-issue. you may have noticed that i was already talking about the comment you posted and how wrong it was at least from my perspective.

Personally, from what I know of Chinese culture (and to speak of any culture is to generalise), it places a large emphasis on communal ethics. That is my basis for saying that there may be something of a Chinese dimension to the incident, not that the incident represents a phenomenon unique to China.

But I guess what's the point of nuance when it's easy to play the racism card, right?

i am very very familiar with the "Chinese community" culture, or at least a version of it in my country and the many other places that i have been, practically all my life, and bloodlines and lineage attest to that too.

but i never until now raised that personal fact to this argument because it's not me to defend one ethnicity, race or community over another let alone the Chinese mentality. besides it's irrelevant.

i am making the point that when it comes to questions of morality, empathy and compassion, there's not an ethnic specific approach or explanation and one should not be made. that is all.
 
sure okay. in my world, whenever an issue is tendered for resolution (like the OP title) and a single piece of evidence, quote or comment from the record is included (like the comment so quoted) and nothing else, it is safe to conclude that the person who offers that piece of evidence wants a specific result or conclusion over another. so please forgive me if i sorely mistook your quoting as an endorsement of the truth of its contents or that you approved of whatever that guy said. sorry, muscle memory i suppose.

i never ignored anything you said. if there was no proper reply or acknowledgment to any point raised, clarified, explained it's probably because i understand, concede and already consider the matter a non-issue. you may have noticed that i was already talking about the comment you posted and how wrong it was at least from my perspective.

Fair enough. Your post looked to me it like it was entirely directed at me. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

katipunero said:
i am very very familiar with the "Chinese community" culture, or at least a version of it in my country and the many other places that i have been, practically all my life, and bloodlines and lineage attest to that too.

but i never until now raised that personal fact to this argument because it's not me to defend one ethnicity, race or community over another let alone the Chinese mentality. besides it's irrelevant.

i am making the point that when it comes to questions of morality, empathy and compassion, there's not an ethnic specific approach or explanation and one should not be made. that is all.

I disagree with that. Cultural factors may explain how people react to certain things, even human suffering.

I'm not arguing, however, that these factors are necessary or absolute. There are no neat dividing lines between cultures. But, again, when we talk about culture, we are necessarily generalising. I do think there's something to the idea that communal ethics has a strong hold on the Chinese community (also looking back at what I was taught). That some people could take that to the extreme is plausible enough. Would that mean less empathy for 'distant sufferers' (e.g. strangers and people on the other side of the world). By definition, yes. Is that a real problem? I don't know, but it may be. Is that unique to Chinese culture? No.
 
I disagree with that. Cultural factors may explain how people react to certain things, even human suffering.

I'm not arguing, however, that these factors are necessary or absolute. There are no neat dividing lines between cultures. But, again, when we talk about culture, we are necessarily generalising. I do think there's something to the idea that communal ethics has a strong hold on the Chinese community (also looking back at what I was taught). That some people could take that to the extreme is plausible enough. Would that mean less empathy for 'distant sufferers' (e.g. strangers and people on the other side of the world). By definition, yes. Is that a real problem? I don't know, but it may be. Is that unique to Chinese culture? No.

before anything else, i used ethnicity in its most narrow sense to mean racial characteristics as opposed to culture as artificial and temporary norms of conduct. thus, ethnicity notwithstanding, morality is the same no matter what (except for the fringe physiologically and clinically related cases).

yes, culture and tradition plays a huge part in how a person acts morally. it could be as simple as being forced to wear acceptable traditional clothing which restricts movement, such that when the person is faced with a choice to rescue a kid who is about to slip and fall over a cliff and throwing away her clothes, she has to decide on and factor in several layers (sic) of extra considerations before the actual deed of saving is done or not done. and by that time, it could be too late already.

or it could be the pervading legal culture of avoiding tort liability which prevents or enlarges a person's capacity to act upon his or her built in morality. like in China, if you help out an injured person and bring that person to the nearest hospital, a legal presumption arises that you were the one who caused the accident. as if your attempt to rescue a person in need of medical attention is an implied admission of legal fault.

my point is, mentally, every individually, at the most fundamental core of morality, decides that something must be done regardless of ethnicity...the recogitation of morality only happens when other extraneous things are being considered, usually practical matters (like what you pointed out). so to me there is no such thing as a "callous society", but a prohibitive society whose present cultural realities discourages, suspends or delays immediate moral action on a very superficial level.

but with Yue Yue's case (R.I.P.) something else interesting is theoretically happening. and that is the group phenomena of diffused responsibility and bystander intervention, something that even the most moral-action conducive societies like America is not immune to.
 
I wanted write something that in the Czech Republic is normal mind own business and not helping in street. But after watching video...OMG. Thats something whats realy disturbing. Thats not fear from violence, thats not fear from involvement...thats pure ignorance:cry:
 
By the way, I kept saying communal ethics when I meant communitarian. My bad.
 
I read about this effect in a psychology book, the more people are around the less any particular individual feels responsible to do something. Is that "right"? Certainly not. Would I take action? I like to think so. I forgot what this effect is called & I must go right this second to pick up my own toddler.
 
How can I be proud of my China if we are a nation of 1.4bn cold hearts?

Shame on us Chinese! Last Thursday a two-year-old girl was run over twice, about 100 metres from her home in a hardware market district of Foshan, a prosperous city in southern China. As she lay on the ground, writhing in pain, before being hit by the second vehicle, 18 people, on their bicycles, in cars or on foot, passed by but chose to ignore her. Among them a young woman with her own child.

Finally, a 58-year-old female rubbish collector came to the girl's rescue, but it was too late. By the time she was brought to the hospital, the girl Yueyue, (whose name translates as Little Joy), was brain dead. She was declared dead early on Friday morning. She was a good girl, full of life, her mother said a few days ago in an interview. She said she had just brought Yueyue back from her kindergarten. She popped out to collect the dry clothes and returned to find Yueyue gone – probably trying to look for her elder brother.

It might have been a different story if one of the 18 people had lent Yueyue a hand. None even bothered to call for emergency services. Later, when interviewed by a journalist, one of the passersby, a middle-aged man riding a scooter, said with an uncomfortable smile on his face: "That wasn't my child. Why should I bother?"

Before giving himself up to the police, the driver of the second vehicle, a van, told the media why he had run away. "If she is dead, I may pay only about 20,000 yuan (£2,000). But if she is injured, it may cost me hundreds of thousands of yuan." What's wrong with these people? How could they be so cold-hearted? The horrific scene was caught by a surveillance camera and has been watched by millions of viewers since it was posted on Youku, China's equivalent of YouTube.

This is only the latest incident where tragedy has struck as a result of the callous inactivity of onlookers. Last month an 88-year-old man fell over face down at the entrance of a vegetable market near his home. For almost 90 minutes, he was ignored by people in the busy market. After his daughter found him and called an ambulance, the old man died "because of a respiratory tract clogged by a nosebleed". If anyone had turned him over, he might have survived.

Both cases, the death of Yueyue in particular, have provoked much public outrage and a nationwide discussion about morality in today's China. From Shanghai, someone with the cybername 60sunsetred wrote: "The Chinese people have arrived at their most morality-free moment!" There was plenty of condemnation of the cold-heartedness of the passersby. But, astonishingly, a large percentage of posters said they understood why the onlookers did not lend a helping hand. Some admitted they would do the same – for fear of getting into trouble and fear of facing another "Nanjing judge".

Let me explain the story of the muddle-headed Nanjing judge. In 2006, in the capital of Jiangsu province, a young man named Peng Yu helped an old woman who had fallen on the street and took her to a hospital and waited to see if the old woman was all right. Later, however, the woman and her family accused Peng of causing her fall. A judge decided in favour of the woman, based on the assumption that "Peng must be at fault. Otherwise why would he want to help?", saying that Peng acted against "common sense". The outcry from the public in support of Peng forced the court to adjust its verdict and resulted in Peng paying 10% of the costs instead of the total. Since that incident Peng has become a national cautionary tale: the Good Samaritan being framed by the beneficiary of their compassion.

It's true that in China you can get into trouble when you try to help. Weeks ago I spotted an accident on the fourth ring road in Beijing as I returned home one night. A man was hit by a "black car", an "illegal taxi", and his face was all bloody. Watched over by a crowd, the injured man behaved aggressively towards the driver. I got off my scooter. As I tried to pull the two men apart, I was struck myself. When I asked if anyone had reported this to the police, the driver said no. I couldn't believe that people just stared as if enjoying a free show, without doing anything. I called the helpline and the policemen turned up soon after.

The fundamental problem, in my view, lies in one word that describes a state of mind: shaoguanxianshi, meaning don't get involved if it's not your business. In our culture, there's a lack of willingness to show compassion to strangers. We are brought up to show kindness to people in our network of guanxi, family and friends and business associates, but not particularly to strangers, especially if such kindness may potentially damage your interest.

Fei Xiaotong, China's first sociologist, described Chinese people's moral and ethical characteristics in his book, From the Soil, in the middle of the last century. He pointed out that selfishness is the most serious shortcoming of the Chinese. "When we think of selfishness, we think of the proverb 'Each person should sweep the snow from his own doorsteps and should not fret about the frost on his neighbour's roof,'" wrote Fei. He offered the example of how the Chinese of that period threw rubbish out of their windows without the slightest public concern. Things are much the same today.

Under Mao, citizens were forced to behave themselves in both public and private spheres. Every March, people were obliged to go into the street to do good deeds: cleaning buses, fixing bicycles and offering haircuts. Now relaxed social control and commercialisation over the past three decades have led people to behave more selfishly again.

People are enjoying, and sometimes abusing, the vast personal freedoms that didn't exist before. To start with, it is now safe to be "naughty". Back in the early 1980s, when I worked at a rocket factory in Nanjing, one of my colleagues, a married man, was caught having an affair with an unmarried woman. He was given a three-year sentence in a labour camp and the girl was disgraced. In today's society, having extramarital affairs or keeping an ernai – second wife or concubine – is as common as "cow hair", as the Chinese would say. For a novel I am writing on prostitution, I have interviewed many prostitutes and ernai. Many see their profession as a way to gather wealth quickly, feeling few moral qualms.

China's moral crisis doesn't just manifest itself in personal life but also in business practice and many other areas. The high-profile "poisoned milk powder" case and the scandal of using "gutter oil" as cooking oil have shocked and disgusted people around the world. Last year an article, "Why have Chinese lost their sense of morality?", in which the author tried to find an explanation, was widely read. He reasoned that China has introduced the concept of a market economy from the west but failed to import the corresponding ethics, while the traditional moral principles of China no longer fit the market economy model.

There's a lot of sense in that. I believe that the lack of a value system is also deepening the moral crisis. Before Mao, the indifference towards others once so accurately described by Fei existed but was mitigated by a traditional moral and religious system. That system was then almost destroyed by the communists, especially during the 10 mad years of the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. Nowadays communism, the ideology that dominated Chinese people's lives like a religion, has also more or less collapsed. As a result, there's a spiritual vacuum that cannot be filled by the mere opportunity of money-making.

To drag China out of its moral crisis will be a long battle. The pressing question is how to make people act in cases of emergency and the solution is law. After the "Nanjing case", there have been discussions about introducing a law that imposes a "duty of rescue" as exists in many European countries. I am all for it, because that's probably the only way to propel action for a people who do not see a moral obligation in rescuing others.

The Yueyue incident revealed an ugly side of China. I hope the entire nation will take the opportunity to take a hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves what's wrong with society. There's at least hope in the action of the rubbish collector who rushed to Yueyue's side without hesitation.

China's economy is galloping like a horse without a rein and its position in the world is rising. We Chinese have every reason to feel proud about what we've achieved. Now we demand respect. But how can we possibly win respect and play the role of a world leader if this is a nation with 1.4 billion cold hearts?

Link

The paragraph I bolded is what I was talking about.
 
The fundamental problem, in my view, lies in one word that describes a state of mind: shaoguanxianshi, meaning don't get involved if it's not your business. In our culture, there's a lack of willingness to show compassion to strangers.
While it's certainly not a singularly Chinese phenomena, you have to grant the Chinese credit for having a word that describes that state of mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom