| Home >Opinion |
Latest News
![]()
| advanced search >> |
- Keep a red line for arable land
- Precision farming yields many gains
- Xi building bridges on global tour
- Language evolves on shifting sands
- New rules for global governance needed
- New direction for World Bank
- Further R&D reform needed
- Big boost for poverty-stricken province
- More sustainable growth
- Closer EU-China cooperation
1 of 0 Email
| Print
| Share
| Text Size | ![]() |
The Shenzhen civil servant who beat his parents committed what was considered a serious crime in ancient times. Had someone filed a lawsuit against him in the old days, he would have been flayed to death for the crime of wuni. Although that cruel punishment has long been abolished, such deeds are still considered intolerable. That explains why pressure from public opinion both online and in the media forced the civil servant to go down on his knees before his parents begging forgiveness.
Even though we don't have as clear a definition of filial piety as our forefathers did, this event has made me consider the difference between the filial piety of ancient times and the filial piety practiced today.
In agriculture-dominated ancient China, social security and pensions were unheard of, people relied on their offspring to support them in their old age. If there was no one to look after them, elderly people in poor health would die, as their offspring were usually their only source of food and income. So filial piety was a matter of life and death for aged people in ancient times.
As a result, a code of conduct was established to cultivate a sense of obedience and duty in children toward their parents. For example, children were not supposed to walk in front of their parents, or sit and eat before their parents, nor were they permitted to talk to their parents in a harsh voice and so on.
In his Analects, Confucius said that those who in private life behaved well toward their parents would seldom show a disposition to resist the authority of their superiors and no instance had ever occurred of such men starting a revolution.
Obviously, filial piety had something to do with the governance of ancient imperial rulers, as children with enough sense of duty to provide for their parents in their old age would make obedient subjects and officials. No wonder that filial piety was emphasized in Confucianism as the top priority for the education of children.
But times have changed. So have the connotations of filial piety. It is not realistic for people today to observe many of the old rules of filial piety.
However, the philosophy on which the filial piety of Confucianism has been based is unshakable: People should be grateful to their parents for their efforts to bring them up. But what is problematic about the traditional doctrine is the natural link it established between gratitude and absolute obedience. What is even more absurd is the absolute obedience required of officials to emperors on the basis of this doctrine.
A lack of democracy is the result of such a doctrine both in families and officialdom. Confucianism was severely criticized early last century because of its lack of democracy and the lack of freedom for the development of individuality.
Whatever changes have occurred in our morals and ethics, the due respect we owe our parents and the duties we are supposed to perform for them in their old age are eternal. But the absolute obedience to parents dictated by Confucianism is not necessarily a must on all occasions.




Email
Print
Share
Text Size
