system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The early Confucians said that it would be unethical for someone to testify against their parent in court, even if the parent is actually guilty. How would this statement hold up in the Western tradition of ethics?

From *Analects* 13.18:

> The Lord of She instructed Confucius, saying, "There is an upright man in my district. His father stole a sheep, and he testified against him."

> Confucius said, "The upright men in my district are different. Fathers cover up for their sons and sons cover up for their fathers. Uprightness lies therein."

*Mencius* 7A. 35 also says:

> Tao Ying asked, "When Shun was Son of Heaven [emperor] and Gaoyao was Minister of Crime [a mythical time of perfect justice in Chinese history], had Shun’s father Gusou killed a man, what would have been done?"

> Mencius answered, "Gusou would have been apprehended, that’s all."

> "Then Shun would not have prevented it?"

> "How could he have prevented it? It would have been
Gaoyao’s mandate."

> "Well then, what would Shun have done?"

> Mencius replied, "Shun would have viewed casting away rule of the world like casting off a worn out shoe. He would secretly have borne his father on his back and fled until he came to dwell by the shores of the sea. There he would have lived out his days in joyful contentment, having forgotten the empire."

What would the Western tradition of philosophy say about this?
gpt
There is at least one comparable legal right in the West, that of spousal privilege which protects an individual from being called to testify in proceedings relating to their spouse. Maybe looking into the justifications for this right would answer your question.