Moral universalism which currently governs a great deal of American social and political thinking is wrong.
Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for “all similarly situated individuals,” regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature. (Source)
Moral universalism is not only wrong it is also very bad and causes great harm, especially when it governs a nation’s social and political thinking.
I personally came to this point of view from long and intimate experience with several non-American societies, one of which is China.
Like virtually all societies in the world China does not practice or believe in universal morality.
Seriously, virtually no society in the world does except European and European-derived societies.
If you believe in universal morality and your adversary (yes, that is how they fundamentally see you) does not, you are a dead duck.
Chinese espionage, both online and old-fashioned, represents a serious threat to American security and prosperity, as Washington, DC, has stated many times. Cyber theft and online pilfering of American intellectual property was castigated as “the greatest transfer of wealth in history” by the director of the National Security Agency back in 2012, and things have only gotten worse since then, with China taking the lead in stealing our secrets for profit and strategic advantage. (The Unpleasant Truth About Chinese Espionage)
I got that from a recent article by John Derbyshire, Chinese Immigration DOES Pose A Security Risk.
His piece is well-worth reading. I discovered that he, like me, lived in China for a long time. I also discovered that he, like me, thinks that:
The moral of the story is plain. Because Communist China 1) has a hostile posture towards the U.S.A., and is unscrupulous about stealing military, diplomatic, and commercial data, and because 2) they almost exclusively use Chinese-Americans and Chinese in America to do so, by ethnic appeals and threats to loved ones in China, 3) nobody with any connections to China should have access to sensitive data.
Derbyshire believes that even he should be “barred from access to sensitive data.”
If the ban includes him it would also include me.
So, should I be barred?
I would say only maybe. I think I should be looked at more closely than a Mormon from Utah. Derbyshire does have relatives in China and I no longer do.
Please take the time to read his piece and follow some of the links to other articles. It’s a big subject that both he and I, who have real experience in China, agree needs a sea change in attitude among Americans.
Lest anyone think the above is some sort of anti-Chinese screed, let me assure you I think the above is true for anyone from any society that is not European-derived and I am not so sure about many of them.
The truth is most humans are intensely loyal to their own kind, the opposite of universal morality, and nothing is going to change that any time soon.
Most societies teach their young a morality that treats their in-group very differently from out-groups. This is a fact of life on planet earth.
In Buddhism, statements like “all sentient beings are equal” are true at an ultimate level, not at the relative level of mundane activity, which is the level at which most human activity happens.
Buddhism also teaches “wise compassion.”
Wisdom is always the highest virtue in Buddhism. Compassion can be harmful, disastrous, if it is practiced unwisely.