Paradoxically there is more official sanction against
other-directed violence in America
than in the PRC but there is more other-directed violence in America . This paradox is due partly
to the many differences in the legal systems of the two countries: the
presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt mean
that in America
more violent citizens are put back on the streets to commit more violence. For
our purposes here however there is another crucial difference: violence
committed by state officials is more likely to be “approved” in the PRC than in
America .
For instance, law enforcement officers
in both countries are of course permitted to use violence in their official
duties but in America there are greater constraints on this approved violence:
police officers are more likely to be arrested for excessive use of force in
America than in China and when they are off-duty American police officers are
subject to the same laws against violence as are other citizens. There is then a “legal relativism” in the PRC
toward violence. Is there a “moral relativism” also?
Is there less moral opprobrium to other-directed
violence in China than in America --even though again there is more
other-directed violence in America ? I
wonder at this because Anglo-American law is so influenced by Christian
morality, because the English and the Americans are overwhelmingly Christian,
because Americans are among the most religious people on earth, because China
is among the least religious nations on earth, because it
has comparatively little religious heritage, has little Christian
influence, and has Confucianism and Communism as ethical influences, both of which
teach obedience and neither of which are moral systems.
