Skip to main content
Log in

Immorality and bu daode, unculturedness and bu wenming

  • Brief Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contemporary Western moral philosophy literature that discusses the Chinese ethical tradition, it is a commonplace practice to use the Chinese term daode 道德 as a technical translation of the English term moral. The present study provides some empirical evidence showing a discrepancy between the terms moral and daode. There is a much more pronounced difference between prototypically immoral and prototypically uncultured behaviors in English (USA) than between prototypically bu daode 不道德 and prototypically bu wenming 不文明 behaviors in Mandarin Chinese (Mainland China). If the Western concept of immorality is defined in contraposition to things that are matters of etiquette or conventional norms and thus tied to a more or less tangible moral/conventional distinction, then we are dealing with a different structure in Mandarin Chinese—the prototypically bu daode and bu wenming behaviors seem to largely overlap. We also discuss whether bu lunli 不倫理 and bu hefa 不合法 can be considered adequate candidates for translation of immorality and we answer in the negative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Participant characteristics by country: USA (N = 114; after removing 3 from outside US: N = 111; age range = 20–63; median age = 30; mean age = 34; male = 55; female = 65); Mainland China (N = 122; age range = 17–61; median age = 22; mean age = 24; male = 34; female = 88); Lithuania (N = 121; after removing 4 incomplete answers: N = 117; age range = 18–63; median age = 22; mean age = 29; male = 41; female = 76).

  2. Note, in this paper we will sometimes refer, for ease of exposition, to Chinese or Lithuanian terms by using English terms. This, however, should not be taken as suggesting that, for example, bu daode is an exact translation of immoral. In fact, we will argue, on the basis of our results, that the English term immoral and Chinese term bu daode differ in very crucial respects.

References

  • Ames, R. T. (2011). Confucian role ethics: A vocabulary. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, R. T., & Rosemont, H. (1998). The Analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berniūnas, R., & Dranseika, V. (2017). Thou shalt not kill, steal, and lie: A preliminary study on cognitively salient moral transgressions among Lithuanians. Žmogus ir žodis, 19(4), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berniūnas, R., Dranseika, V., & Silius, V. (under review). Moralization East and West: Moralizing different transgressions among Chinese, Americans and Lithuanians.

  • Berniūnas, R., Sousa, P., & Dranseika, V. (2016). Are there different moral domains: Evidence from Mongolia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (1996). ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchtel, E. E., Guan, Y., Peng, Q., Su, Y., Sang, B., Chen, S. X., et al. (2015). Immorality East and West. Are immoral behaviors especially harmful, or especially uncivilized? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1382–1394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Munck, V. C. (2009). Research design and methods for studying cultures. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao G 高国希 (2005). Daode zhexue 道德哲学 [Moral philosophy], Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe.

  • Gassmann, R. H. (2011). Coming to terms with dé 德: The deconstruction of “virtue” and an exercise in scientific morality. In R. A. H. King & D. Schilling (Eds.), How should one live? Comparing ethics in Ancient China and Greco-Roman antiquity (pp. 92–125). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, P. R. (2005). After Confucius: Studies in early Chinese philosophy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont, Jr., H., & Ames R.T. (2009) (tr.). The Chinese classic of family reverence: A philosophical translation of the Xiaojing, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

  • Kupperman, J. J. (2002). Naturalness revisited: Why Western philosophers should study Confucius. In Bryan W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essays (pp. 39–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liji 禮記 [The Book of Rites], in Chinese Texts Project. http://ctext.org/liji/qu-li-i#n9485. Accessed 15 Aug 2016.

  • Machery, E. (2012). Delineating the moral domain. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 7(1), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machery, E. (2018). Morality: A historical invention. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), The atlas of moral psychology (pp. 259–265). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machery, E., & Mallon, R. (2010). Evolution of morality. In J. M. Doris (Ed.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 3–46). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, R. C. (2008). Ritual and deference: Extending Chinese philosophy in a comparative context. New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. (2004). Sentimental rules. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nivison, D. S. (1996). The ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese philosophy. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennec, F., Wencelius, J., Garine, E., Raimond, C., & Bohbot, H. (2012). FLAME 1.1. Paris: CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, Y. (2002). Foundations of Confucian thought: Intellectual life in the Chunqiu period, 722–453 B.C.E. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont, H. (1976). Notes from a Confucian perspective: Which human acts are moral acts? International Philosophical Quarterly, 16(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont, H. (1988). Against relativism. In J. Larson & E. Deutsch (Eds.), Interpreting across boundaries: New essays in comparative philosophy (pp. 36–70). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachdeva, S., Singh, P., & Medin, D. (2011). Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning. International Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147–1163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shun, K. (2009). Studying Confucian and comparative ethics: Methodological reflections. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36(3), 455–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, J. (1993). Understanding of social rules. In M. Bennett (Ed.), The development of social cognition: The child as psychologist (pp. 111–141). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sripada, C., & Stich, S. (2006). A framework for the psychology of norms. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind, Volume 2: Culture and cognition (pp. 280–301). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisak, M. (1995). Domains of social reasoning and beyond. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 11, pp. 95–130). London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicka, A. (2001). What did Jesus mean? Explaining the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables in simple and universal human concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicka, A. (2007). Moral sense. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 1, 66–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xunzi 荀子, in Chinese Texts Project. http://ctext.org/xunzi/quan-xue#n12253. Accessed 15 Aug 2016.

  • Levine, S., Rottman, J., Davis, T., O’Neill, E., Stich, S., & Machery E. (unpublished manuscript). Religion’s impact on conceptions of the moral domain.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant (no. MIP-15506) from the Research Council of Lithuania. An earlier version of this paper was presented at conferences at University of Vilnius, Tartu University, Kaunas University of Technology, and Osnabrück University, and a workshop at University of Iceland. We wish to thank the audiences at these events for suggestions on how to improve the paper. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for this journal for their valuable comments, Agnė Veisaitė for help with coding data, and Phyllis Zych-Budka and Vincent Giedraitis for language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vilius Dranseika.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1: Free-listing prompts for the studies reported in the present article

Prompts

English

The aim of this study is to learn which actions or behaviors are considered immoral [uncultured]. Please provide a list of actions and behaviors which, in your opinion, are immoral [uncultured]. Please list at least five examples. There are no correct answers, we are just interested in your opinion

Mandarin Chinese

这项调查旨在了解常人认为的何谓不道德[不文明/不伦理/不合法]的动作和行为。请列举出您个人认为是不道德[不文明/不伦理/不合法]的动作或行为。请最少列举出5个例子。这里没有标准答案。我们对您个人的意见感兴趣。

Lithuanian

Šiuo tyrimu norime išsiaiškinti, kokius veiksmus ar poelgius žmonės laiko amoraliais [nekultūringais]. Prašome pateikti sąrašą veiksmų ar poelgių, kurie jūsų asmenine nuomone yra amoralūs [nekultūringi] (pateikite bent penkis pavyzdžius). Čia nėra teisingų ar klaidingų atsakymų, mums tik rūpi jūsų nuomonė

Appendix 2: Terms used for quantitative analysis in the study

No.

EN

LT

CN

1

Killing/murder

žudyti

杀人

2

Stealing

vogti

盗窃

3

Cheating

sukčiauti

欺骗

4

Raping

prievartauti

强奸

5

Lying

meluoti

说谎

6

Animal abuse

kankinti gyvūnus

残害动物

7

Adultery

svetimauti

通奸

8

Paedophilia

pedofilija

恋童癖

9

Harming others

kenkti kitiems

损人

10

Violence

smurtauti

暴力

11

Bullying

tyčiotis

欺负

12

Betrayal

išduoti

背叛

13

Not respecting others

negerbti kitų

不尊重他人

14

Slandering

apkalbinėti

背后议论

15

Exploiting

išnaudoti

剥削

16

Being loud

triukšmauti

公共场合喧哗

17

Littering

šiukšlinti

乱扔垃圾

18

Spitting

spjaudytis

随地吐痰

19

Cutting in line

lįsti be eilės

插队

20

Smoking in public

rūkyti viešumoje

公共场合吸烟

21

Insulting

įžeidinėti

辱骂他人

22

Damaging public property

naikinti visuomenės turtą

破坏公物

23

Not observing traffic rules

nesilaikyti KET

不遵守交通规则

24

Swearing

keiktis

说脏话

25

Farting

persti

放屁

26

Picking_nose

krapštyti nosi

挖鼻孔

27

Burping

riaugėti

打嗝

28

Not washing

nesiprausti

不洗澡

29

Being rude

grubiai bendrauti

粗鲁对待他人

30

Chewing with mouth open

valgyti pravira burna

嚼着不闭嘴

31

Not respecting older people

negerbti vyresnių

不尊老

32

Ignoring others

ignoruoti kitus

不理他人

33

Alcohol abuse

girtauti

酗酒

34

Interrupting others

pertraukinėti kitus

随意打断他人说话

35

Urinating and defecating publicly

tuštintis viešai

随地大小便

36

Jaywalking

eiti per gatvę neleistinoje vietoje

乱穿马路

37

Fighting/hitting

muštis/mušti

打架/打人

38

Graffiti

graffiti

涂鸦

39

Eating in unsuitable places

valgyti netinkamose vietose

在禁止吃饭的场合吃东西

Appendix 3: Frequencies of terms in immoral and uncultured conditions (in percents) and differences between conditions

No.

Term

US

Mainland China

Lithuania

Immoral

Uncultured

Difference

Immoral

Uncultured

Difference

Immoral

Uncultured

Difference

1

Killing/murder

81.67

4.08

77.59

1.75

0

1.75

37.7

0

37.7

2

Stealing

78.33

12.24

66.09

14.04

3.08

10.96

42.62

1.79

40.83

3

Cheating

41.67

4.08

37.59

24.56

1.54

23.02

11.48

0

11.48

4

Raping

40.00

2.04

37.96

0

0

0

4.92

0

4.92

5

Lying

33.33

4.08

29.25

3.51

0

3.51

45.9

5.36

40.54

6

Animal abuse

15.00

2.04

12.96

1.75

0

1.75

13.11

1.79

11.32

7

Adultery

13.33

0

13.33

1.75

0

1.75

13.11

0

13.11

8

Paedophilia

13.33

0

13.33

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

Harming others

11.67

2.04

9.63

0

0

0

6.56

1.79

4.77

10

Violence

11.67

6.12

5.55

1.75

0

1.75

32.79

3.57

29.22

11

Bullying

3.33

10.20

6.87

5.26

0

5.26

29.51

16.07

13.44

12

Betrayal

1.67

0

1.67

0

0

0

18.03

0

18.03

13

Not respecting others

5.00

0

5

1.75

0

1.75

16.39

17.86

1.47

14

Slandering

0

0

0

5.26

1.54

3.72

11.48

16.07

4.59

15

Exploiting

6.67

0

6.67

0

0

0

11.48

0

11.48

16

Being loud

0

22.45

22.45

49.12

58.46

9.34

1.64

30.36

28.72

17

Littering

3.33

4.08

0.75

47.37

67.69

20.32

1.64

30.36

28.72

18

Spitting

0

14.29

14.29

42.11

67.69

25.58

0

39.29

39.29

19

Cutting in line

0

6.12

6.12

26.32

27.69

1.37

0

8.93

8.93

20

Smoking in public

0

2.04

2.04

22.81

27.69

4.88

1.64

10.71

9.07

21

Insulting

0

0

0

14.04

15.38

1.34

3.28

7.14

3.86

22

Damaging public property

1.67

0

1.67

10.53

6.15

4.38

1.64

1.79

0.15

23

Not observing traffic rules

0

6.12

6.12

10.53

15.38

4.85

0

8.93

8.93

24

Swearing

3.33

26.53

23.2

5.26

24.62

19.36

4.92

48.21

43.29

25

Farting

1.67

26.53

24.86

0

0

0

0

1.79

1.79

26

Picking nose

0

24.49

24.49

0

0

0

0

8.93

8.93

27

Burping

0

22.45

22.45

0

0

0

0

7.14

7.14

28

Not washing

0

14.29

14.29

0

0

0

0

1.79

1.79

29

Being rude

0

12.24

12.24

1.75

1.54

0.21

0

10.71

10.71

30

Chewing with mouth open

0

12.24

12.24

0

0

0

0

10.71

10.71

31

Not respecting older people

0

0

0

1.75

1.54

0.21

1.64

14.29

12.65

32

Ignoring others

0

2.04

2.04

1.75

0

1.75

6.56

12.50

5.94

33

Alcohol abuse

1.67

4.08

2.41

0

0

0

9.84

12.50

2.66

34

Interrupting others

0

4.08

4.08

1.75

1.54

0.21

1.64

12.50

10.86

35

Urinating and defecating publicly

0

0

0

8.77

10.77

2

1.64

1.79

0.15

36

Jaywalking

0

0

0

0

9.23

9.23

0

0

0

37

Fighting/hitting

10.00

8.16

1.84

8.77

9.23

0.46

3.28

3.57

0.29

38

Graffiti

0

0

0

5.26

9.23

3.97

0

1.79

1.79

39

Eating in unsuitable places

0

0

0

3.51

9.23

5.72

0

0

0

  

Avrg. diff.

 

13.36

  

4.37

  

12.55

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dranseika, V., Berniūnas, R. & Silius, V. Immorality and bu daode, unculturedness and bu wenming. J Cult Cogn Sci 2, 71–84 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-018-0013-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-018-0013-y

Keywords

Navigation