Abstract

Social credit rating in China (SCRC) has been criticized as "dystopian" and "Orwellian," an attempt by the Communist Party to hold onto power by exerting ever greater control over its citizens. To explain such measures, value differences are often invoked, that Chinese value stability and cooperation over privacy and freedom. However, these explanations are oversimplifications that result in ethical impasses. This article argues social credit rating should be understood in terms of the commonly human problem of large-scale cooperation. To do so, this paper relies on a cultural evolutionary framework and is an exercise in interpretive pros hen ethical pluralism, attempting to understand how apparently irresolvable cultural differences stem from common human concerns. Wholesale condemnation of SCRC fails to acknowledge the serious, intractable nature of problems resulting from a lack of trust in China. They take for granted the existence of institutions ensuring largescale, anonymous cooperation characteristic of - but somewhat unique to - Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) cultures. Because of its history and rapid development, China lacks the institutions necessary to ensure such cooperation, and because of anti-social punishment, social credit rating might be one of the few ways to ensure cooperation at this scale. The point is not to defend social credit rating in general, but to raise the possibility of its defense in China and show one way this would be done.