Let's first look at the two concepts of bottom line and scruples.
what is the bottom line? The bottom line belongs to the heart. Is that I don't do evil, and I will never do evil. No matter what I do, even if I do something bad, there is a bottom line that I can't break. For example, I steal, but I don't kill. Even if someone sees me, I can't kill anyone. Or I steal, but I don't commit adultery. Even if the hostess is a great beauty, I can't be fooled by her beauty. For example, I steal things, but I only steal from the rich, not from the poor, or I never steal other people's life money, life-saving money and so on. This is called "a thief has a way". Where does this bottom line come from? From oneself, we can only come from everyone's own morality and moral sense. Therefore, the bottom line is responsible for morality, and we also call it the moral bottom line.
so, what is scruple? Fear is additive. That is to say, it's not that I don't want to do evil, that I don't want to do evil, that I can't do evil, that I'm afraid.
Therefore, we can't help asking: Can morality really make people unscrupulous? My conclusion is no.
as we know, morality is related to conscience, and conscience is something in everyone's heart and belongs to everyone. What does morality mean? What does kindness mean? Good does not mean that there is no evil. Why is there no evil in people? Why is there no evil? How can there be no evil? Was he not born evil? This statement is unclear and unreliable. Because we can't know whether human nature is good or evil. Therefore, we can only talk about this issue, and we should make the following truth clear: good, not no evil. What is goodness? That is, I have evil, I can do evil, I want to do evil, I have the ability to do evil, but I don't do evil, and I don't want to do evil from the bottom of my heart. This is called good. This is "true goodness". If I wanted to do evil, I was able to do it, but I pretended not to do it, used the appearance of not doing it, or waited until I was able to do it. This is called hypocrisy. The so-called "true goodness" means that even if it is possible, I will not do it, and I don't want to do it from the bottom of my heart. Conscience can't bear the thought of doing bad things. In other words, once you break the bottom line, you can't get through, and you even want to slap yourself. This bottom line comes from morality. It is born without supervision from others.
the moral bottom line is also beyond the supervision of others. Because the bottom line comes from conscience, and conscience belongs to everyone. If a person has no conscience, others can't help it. Zaiyu, a student of Confucius, asked Confucius, what is the reason for the three-year mourning? One year is enough. Confucius said, "Your parents died less than three years ago, but you are eating white rice and wearing flowered satin clothes. Are you calm?"? Zai Yu said, "Yes! "Confucius had to say angrily," If you have a clear conscience, you should do so! The reason why a gentleman has been filial for three years is that during these three years, he didn't feel good about eating food, listening to music and living in a comfortable house. Since you feel at ease, you can do whatever you want! It can be seen that conscience does not need supervision and cannot be supervised. In this sense, conscience is not scruple.
why is conscience not scruple? Because first, conscience is not "dare" or "can't", but "won't". Secondly, conscience comes from the heart and is not controlled by others. In fact, all morality, truth, goodness and beauty do not need to be controlled by others, nor can they be controlled by others. Thus, once morality becomes a scruple, it must be hypocritical.
this is back to the topic of discussion.
scruples are better than no scruples, right? Yeah, it's not right either. Why do you say that? Because it depends on what scruples are. If it is "moral scruples", it may not be. Why? Because the word "scruple" runs counter to moral spirit, and morality can't really make people have scruples. In order to make this point clear, we might as well ask: what is a person afraid of because of moral scruples? Nothing more than fear of criticism, the so-called "moral condemnation." We know that morality is not a law, and there is no "hard control" and "hard punishment" like criminal law. It is a kind of "soft control", and its conventional means is "criticism with words". Excuse me, what if no one talks? Or what if no one can say it? Or don't care? When a person still feels that "people's words are awesome", moral condemnation will play a binding role and make him have scruples. However, once he becomes a certain person, no one can say anything about him, which is terrible. God knows what he will do! That's what the so-called "Wang Mang is humble before he usurps the throne" means. He was modest before he usurped the throne. What about after the usurpation? Then I'm sorry! In fact, even if you can't be follwed, there will always be times when others can't see or tell, such as "behind the scenes" and "in private". Therefore, a grass-roots person might as well "face to face, behind is a ghost"; Big rape and evil, but also "abnormal stealth, occasionally show great achievements." In short, you are usually a man with your tail tucked, and once you have the conditions, you will show your true colors.
the "tail" of "I" is the "tail" of "tail".
of course, it is not entirely true that moral condemnation has no effect at all. It still works. For example, if there are more people talking, there will be public pressure; If you talk for a long time, you will have psychological pressure; For others, it will be educational; For the whole society, we can create a moral environment and moral atmosphere. Therefore, we must persist in condemning unethical behavior, but we should not naively think that this will definitely make the wicked fear.
some people may say that we are not afraid of what others say, but of what we say. Good, that's exactly what we want. But I'm sorry, this is "conscience", not "scruples"; This is "goodness", not "hypocrisy"; This is a "true gentleman". It is a "true gentleman", not a "hypocrite". As I have said before, morality should come from the heart, not from outside supervision. Therefore, once you become a scruple, you are suspected of hypocrisy; Once it becomes hypocrisy, it breaks the bottom line of morality.
There is a problem here, that is, "Tell the truth, don't tell lies": "Tell the truth, don't tell lies; Is the principle of being a real person, not a fake person the bottom line of morality? Yes What is the ultimate goal of morality? It is the happiness of mankind. Is happiness subjective or objective? Subjective. Therefore, if a morality violates human nature or forces people to become hypocrites, it must be "pseudo-morality". Similarly, if a person's words and deeds go against his own nature and truth, then he must be a "hypocrite". Of course, sometimes we have to tell lies or not tell the truth. For example, in order to protect others, we may have to tell lies; To protect ourselves, we may have to tell the truth. However, it must be pointed out that "protecting others" and "protecting yourself" cannot be confused, and "telling lies" and "not telling the truth" are also two different concepts. Telling lies and not telling the truth are also two different concepts. In order to protect others, you can tell some lies (for example, if a gangster is chasing a weak person and asks where you see him running, you should point in the opposite direction). In order to protect yourself, you can not tell the truth, but you must never tell lies. Some people will ask, if I can neither tell lies nor tell the truth, what should I say? It's simple. Don't talk. If you can't stop talking, tell the truth that won't hurt you. According to the moral principle, what a person says must be true, but he is not obliged or required to say all the true words.
then, can't you tell a little lie? You can't tell a little lie unless it's to protect and help others. Moreover, even to protect or help others, you can't tell all the lies. Why? Because telling lies is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy itself is immoral. Besides, if you dare to tell one lie today, you will dare to tell ten lies tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow may be a big lie. Today you may be reckless, tomorrow you may be a habitual hypocrite, and the day after tomorrow you may be a thief.
In this way, "true villain" is more lovely and reliable than "hypocrite", because at least he doesn't pretend, lie or cheat. We know that "true villains" and "hypocrites" are evil in nature. A real villain is a villain, and a hypocrite is not a villain? Yes So what's the difference? Just one word: pretend. Pretend to be a hypocrite, but don't pretend to be a real villain. In this sense, "true villain" is closer to good people.
some people may ask, "shouldn't we be cautious? We should do this. But not based on morality, or mainly not based on morality. By what? Law. Why is it law and not morality? Because morality is "soft control" and law is "hard control". I just said, what is "fear"? I want to do evil, I can do evil, I want to do evil, but I dare not do evil. Why not? Because someone is in control, and must control, will control, can control. Obviously, the "person" mentioned here can't be an individual or a private person. Individuals and individuals have no such power, no such obligation, and no such ability. When a person commits an evil deed, we can condemn it or not. We may be outraged by a sense of justice, speak out when we see injustice, or be silent because we are too sensitive or afraid of authority. Even if we do this, those who are controlled may not listen. So, you can't rely on them.
only the law can be relied on. Because first of all, the law represents not the individual's will, but the people's will, the society's will, and the country's will. It will not be influenced by personal intimacy and good and evil, and it is wrong to combine leniency with severity. In other words, the law is just. Secondly, the law relies on the power of the state, using the public * * * *, which is enormous. A person, if you do evil, can catch you even if you hide in the ends of the earth. As the saying goes, "the justice of the earth is long, but it is sparse without leakage", which is a deterrent. Third, the law has practical punishment means, unlike morality, which can only be condemned, which is more awe-inspiring than morality. Fourth, the essence of the law is to enforce the law like a mountain, and everyone is equal. There will be no such thing as "no punishment for doctors, no courtesy for Shu Ren". Therefore, as long as it is a country ruled by law and has a sound legal system, then, even if you are a heavenly king and Laozi, as long as you dare to do evil, someone will naturally control you and prevent you from doing evil again!
of course, the above analysis is all theoretical, and the actual situation is not satisfactory. But we can only do theoretical analysis now, can't we In fact, there is no perfect thing in the world, and there is no perfect plan. The law is not omnipotent, and there may be problems with the rule of law. Let's talk about it later. Therefore, we can't seek "the best", but only "the least bad"; You can't ask for "absolute feasibility", you can only ask for "relative reliability". We can't ask for "absolute feasibility", but only "relative reliability". Relatively speaking, if we want people to feel awe and fear, the law is much more reliable.
people do need social norms, but there is not only one; People really need the bottom line and scruples, but not all of them should be moral. There should be two kinds of social norms, one is moral norms and the other is legal norms. They should also have a division of labor, that is, morality should control the bottom line and law should control scruples.
Morality controls the bottom line, and law controls scruples. The two social norms have their own division of labor and complement each other. This is the conclusion that human beings have reached after thousands of years of exploration. Before that, different nationalities and countries in different periods and cultural backgrounds had different choices, some of which were more inclined to law, while others were more inclined to morality. When it comes to the view of history, we can't help talking about these two choices.
In traditional society, China people advocate morality, or at least it is advocated by Confucianism, because they think morality is more useful. Confucius said that the rule of the country can be governed by morality or criminal law. However, the result of governing the country with criminal law is that "the people have no sense of shame", that is, the people dare not commit crimes, but they have no sense of shame, and they still want to commit crimes in their hearts. This is "treating the headache and treating the foot pain." This is "treating the symptoms, not the root cause". What is the cure? Morality. What is the result of governing the country by virtue? Shame and personality. There are many interpretations of "goods", one of which is "righteousness". The so-called "shame and dignity" means having both a sense of shame and a sense of justice. Therefore, governing the country cannot rely on criminal law, but only on morality, that is, only "rule by virtue".
since it is "ruling the country by virtue", first of all, emperors and officials should design themselves well and advocate and believe in "ruling the country by gentlemen". Because if even the ruler is not a gentleman, how can we expect the ruled to "be honest and upright"? Therefore, it must be assumed that the emperor must be kind and wise and be a "saint"; The prime minister must be upright and wise, and be a "sage"; Local officials must be honest and wise, and be "gentlemen". "The emperor is wise, the prime minister is wise, and the local officials are clever. This is the" Sanming Theory ". This is the thought of China's traditional political system.
this idea cannot be said to be unreasonable. A country, a society, everyone is a gentleman, the streets are full of sages, everyone has morality, isn't it good? Of course, it couldn't be better. The so-called "the age of Yao and Shun" is no exception. However, what if we can't? In fact, after thousands of years of construction, we have not built this "ideal country" and "scholar country" well, but have created many "hypocrites" and even "atypical corruption".
what is "atypical corruption"? Atypical corruption is "abnormal corruption." Atypical corruption means abnormal corruption. For example, my buddy killed someone, and in order to get him out of prison, I paid off the judge, the police and the lawyer, so that he could change from intentional homicide to manslaughter, and then he was released on bail for medical treatment and then he was released. This is the so-called "typical corruption". Because I send money, give gifts and treat people to dinner for a purpose, once such cases are verified, they will be severely punished.
So, what is "atypical corruption"? First of all, it's not that I have something to do. I'll send you a red envelope. Nothing, no specific purpose, the same hair. This can be called "aimless bribery". Second, according to certain time and rules, when to send it, such as three festivals and two lives. What are three sections? Spring Festival, Dragon Boat Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival. What are the two birthdays? It's the birthday of the chief and the birthday of the chief's wife. At that time, there was a joke that there was an officer who was a mouse. On his birthday, his subordinates gave him a mouse made of pure gold. The official was very happy and said, "I tell you, my wife is a cow. This can be called "conventional bribery". Third, this kind of bribe is given by everyone. If you don't accept it, it will be regarded as abnormal, and it is even more ridiculous to report it. There was only one person who didn't accept or send in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and he was Harry. Therefore, the officials sent by Harry are not popular. This can be described as "bribery by the whole people".
so we have to ask: why? System. In Ming and Qing dynasties, the salaries of officials were very low. What is the monthly salary of a county magistrate in Ming Dynasty? According to Mr. Si Wu's calculation, it is equivalent to 113 yuan. This pitiful money will be used to pay for travel expenses, buy official clothes, support the family, and hire a master. What is a master? Is the head of the private secretary. Countries don't