Two similar cases of child kidnapping occurred in both the United States and Changchun, in northeastern China. Though both were similar there were drastic differences in both cases. Luckily, in the United States, the child was abducted in a silver SUV where it was then reported by the offender roughly an hour later by the offender himself. The child was luckily unharmed. However, as the news of Baby Haobo's disappearance in China went viral, thousands of netizens were in a state of limbo waiting for the baby to be found. The parents, after running in to turn on the heater in the supermarket they own, r-appeared to find the SUV they owned gone, with baby Baby Haobo inside. The individual called to then report that he had strangled Baby Haobo do death where his body was never found.
In this case study, the man from Asia and the man from the United States, and how they each dealt with the car theft are being examined. Two different people from two different cultures dealt with a similar situation in different ways. It would appear that both men felt an obligation to phone in the incident but they acted differently before doing so. The man from the United States left the child un-harmed under a moral value. Whereas the man from Asia felt compelled to be homicidal. The study seems to indicate that the value on human life in Asia is less than the value on human life in the United States. Yet, one moral remains. They both seemed to feel the need to report the incident under some sort of moral value.
In the article it announces that Baby Haobo's eyes are pixilated in the article, where it suggests that there is something wrong with China’s value system. Pixilation of the baby’s eyes might suggest that the Chinese try to lessen the value of people’s individual lives. However, since there is only one person from Asia and one person from the United States to be studied, it seems hard to draw and overall conclusion of the different values on human life from the two...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document