Abstract

Compared to such Western states as the German Federal Republic, the People’s Republic of China copes much more successful with the Covid-19 pandemia. What are the reasons for this? Is it so-called Western individualism that is responsible for the refusal to accept government measures against Covid-19? And ‘Eastern’ communitarism that explains the acceptance of such measures? Do the differences reflect different ideas of individual autonomy and freedom? Or even a difference of traditional ethics of rights and duties or social responsibilities? Does the notion of an inviolable human dignity support the notion of an individual freedom that justifies neglect of moral duties? Scholars and politicians who believe in significant differences between ‘Western’ and ‘Chinese’ cultures hold that it is precisely the indicated features that characterize such differences. In my paper, however, I argue that is ultimately individual egoism that explains success and failure of Covid-19 politics in China and ‘the West’ respectively. In China, the politicians and functionaries’ egoistic interest in the possession of power has led to the establishment of a totalitarian system that permits for extremely radical measures against Covid-19. The system is justified by the Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist ideology of an unquestionable rule of the Communist Party, and this ideology is supported by reference to certain traditional Chinese philosophies. In ‘the West,’ it is the egoistic misunderstanding of individual freedom and human rights that is responsible for most of the opposition against Covid-19 politics. Actually, however, both the best ‘Western’ and ‘Chinese’ ethics put forward notions of human dignity that enable and secure individual autonomy as well as fulfillment of moral obligations. If ‘Westerners’ and Chinese would respect them, neither totalitarism nor individual wilfullness would play a role in Covid-19 politics.