Pro: Cambridge University Team in the UK
VS: Yan Jia: Fudan University Team in China:
Chairman: Li Xueping
Time: the evening of August 25, 1993.
Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! Welcome to the fourth and final preliminary round of the "1993 International College Debate Competition".
The winning team tonight will advance to the semi-finals, where they will compete with the winning team last night, the University of Sydney, for a spot in the final. The two teams we are debating tonight are: Cambridge University and Fudan University. Now let’s introduce the representatives from both sides.
On my right is the representative of Founder Cambridge University. The first is Tang Zhimin, a third-year doctoral student in the Department of Economics; the second is Sun, a second-year doctoral student in the Department of English; the third is Wu, a third-year doctoral student in the Department of Engineering; and the fourth is Ji, a first-year master's student in community medicine. (Applause)
On my left is the representative of the opponent’s Fudan University team. The first is Jiang Feng, a second-year graduate student in Chinese language and literature in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature; the second is Ji Xiang, a second-year law student; the third is Yan Jia, a fourth-year law student; and the fourth is Jiang Changjian, a third-year master's student in international politics. (Applause)
There are five more jurors tonight. They are Dr. Zhong Zhibang, director of research at Trinity Theological College. (Applause) The second lawyer is, Mr Koh is the Director-General of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. (Applause) The third one is Mr. Guo, the artistic director of the National Center for the Performing Arts. (Applause) The fourth one is Dr. Wei Weixian, who is the honorary president of Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. (Applause) The fifth person is Mr. Zhang, Director of the Resources and Public Relations Department of the National Arts Council. (Applause)
Our debate tonight concerns everyone, that is, "food and clothing are necessary conditions for talking about morality." The position of the opposing side is that "food and clothing are not necessary conditions for discussing morality." The positions of both sides are determined by drawing lots. Now I announce the official start of the fourth round of the "1993 International College Debate Competition". First of all, I would like to invite the first square representative Tang Zhimin to express his views and speak. The time is three minutes. (Applause)
Tang Zhimin: Hello everyone! Tonight's topic is "Food and clothing is a necessary condition for morality." Food and clothing are the most basic needs of human beings, and being ethical means being ethical. Food and clothing is a necessary condition for morality. In other words, without food and clothing, there is no morality.
What is morality? Some people say that morality is the value standard for judging right and wrong. I asked my classmates, what is the basis for judging right and wrong? In the final analysis, it still depends on whether this thing meets people's needs. And I will ask other students, what are the most basic needs for human existence? Just food and clothing. Then I would like to ask other students, if we talk about a kind of morality, and everyone cannot guarantee food and clothing, do we still need this kind of morality? Of course not. So we say that food and clothing are necessary conditions for talking about morality.
What is morality? Some people say that morality is the code of conduct for human beings. I asked my classmates, what do people do after formulating a code of conduct? Codes of conduct are developed to meet people's needs. Let me ask other students, what are the most basic and minimum needs for human existence? Just food and clothing. Let me ask other students, if we formulate a code of conduct, the result will be that no one can guarantee food and clothing. Do we need this code of conduct? Of course not. Therefore, food and clothing are necessary conditions for morality.
When you are hungry and cold, how can you talk about morality without food and clothing? Of course not. Let me ask you, what should we do most for the hungry and cold people? What we should do most is to alleviate their hunger and cold. So at this time, what we should talk about most is the morality that can help them have enough food and clothing. What do hungry people like to hear most? It is a principle that can help them relieve hunger and cold, rather than empty preaching that is divorced from the reality of their lives. If you can't even guarantee food and clothing when talking about morality, then you can't succeed in talking about morality. So we say that food and clothing are necessary conditions for talking about morality.
Historically, Boyi and Shu Qi were ashamed of eating Suzhou and would rather starve to death. At that time, wasn't food and clothing a necessary condition for morality? Of course not. Boyi and Shu Qi can be regarded as people with lofty ideals. Whether the morality of people with lofty ideals can be demonstrated and promoted, I ask you, what is the purpose of people with lofty ideals in their life? To save the world. Let me ask you again, what are the most basic and minimum needs for everyone to survive? Just food and clothing.
Let me ask you again, if people with lofty ideals struggle all their lives, and the result is that everyone in the world has no guarantee of food and clothing, will they still do this? No, is it still interesting for them to do this? It’s boring. So, we say that food and clothing are necessary conditions for morality. Thank you. (Applause)
Chairman: Thank you, Mr Tong Chi-man. Next, I invite Jiang Feng, the first representative of the opposition, to speak, which will also last three minutes. (Applause)
Jiang Feng: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all. Just now, the opposing debater put food and clothing in an overwhelming position and asked us a lot of questions. What I want to tell my opponents is that morality is more important than food and clothing. People don't live just to eat.
We believe that having enough food and clothing is not a necessary condition for talking about morality. Rational human existence is a necessary condition for talking about morality. As long as rational humans exist, we can talk about morality in any situation. In the process of having enough food and clothing, we must pay special attention to morality.
First, food and clothing is by no means a prerequisite for talking about morality. Throughout the ages, many societies have failed to solve the problem of food and clothing. Are they unethical? In Ethiopia, a country where people are naked and hungry, there is no moral talk today? How can we not talk about morality in Somalia, where the country is troubled by disasters, its people are in short supply, and wars continue? There is an old saying: "People are different from others and do not like right and wrong." People are rational and can talk about morality. This is the difference between humans and animals. People can and should talk about morality, whether they are hungry or cold, whether they are surrounded by happy eternity or family.
Second, morality is a norm that regulates human behavior and is supported by public opinion and conscience. As we all know, talking about moral practice includes three levels of meaning: personal cultivation, social promotion and government advocacy. Personally, I think there are countless examples of people who insist on their own moral cultivation regardless of food and clothing difficulties. Yan Hui, Kong's good student, only had one piece of food and one scoop of drink. Isn’t he still “a man of his word and a man of his word”? When Du Fu's hut was destroyed by the autumn wind, was he still thinking, "With tens of millions of spacious buildings, all the poor in the world would be happy?" When it comes to government, Singapore has also been struggling. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew warned the people: We have nothing but ourselves. He emphasized that ethics are an important factor in giving competitive edge over others. Just imagine, without the government advocating virtue, how would Singapore be as prosperous and strong as it is today?
Third, the so-called necessary condition, logically speaking, is "not inevitable, naturally not". Therefore, for today's debate, we only need to demonstrate that it is possible to talk about morality without food and clothing. What the other party wants to argue is that without food and clothing, there can never be any talk of morality. The other side’s argument is just not true.
Hugo said: "Good morality is the foundation of society." Morality is a stone that knocks out the fire of hope; morality is a fire that ignites the lamp of life; morality is a lamp that illuminates the path of mankind; Morality is the path that leads us to a glorious tomorrow.
Above, I mainly elaborated our views logically. Next, our debaters will further elaborate on our views from three aspects: theory, facts, and value. Thank you all. (Long applause)
Chairman: Thank you, Jiang Feng. Next, let us listen to Sun, the second square representative, speak for three minutes. (Applause)
Sun: The classmate just now said that food and clothing are more important than morality. She also said that people live not just to eat. But as we all know, how can we live without eating? How can we talk about morality if we are not alive? So in this sense, food and clothing are necessary conditions for talking about morality.
The issue of food, clothing and morality cannot be simplified. This includes not only discussing morality after having enough food and clothing, but also discussing different levels of morality before having enough food and clothing. It is a natural and self-evident fact that we should talk about morality after food and clothing. But before food and clothing, how to deal with the relationship between food and clothing and morality, and how to deal with the relationship between economic construction and moral construction, this is the issue we are going to talk about today, and it is also an issue that people are concerned about. The other party just ignored this issue.
As we all know, food and clothing are the most basic and necessary conditions for human survival. For human society to thrive and develop, it must have sufficient economic strength to sustain people's survival. Therefore, when we talk about morality, we cannot be divorced from the people's food and clothing. The other party seems to be saying that as long as a society has morality, the economy and society will naturally improve. As long as there is morality, everyone's belly will be full. This is ridiculous. This is a naive fantasy. We recognize the importance of ethics to society. But we have more deeply realized the indispensable importance of food and clothing for the survival of every person and every society.
Therefore, we propose that discussing morality cannot be separated from food and clothing.
Building a country is like raising a child. We all know the importance of educating children and teaching them to abide by social ethics and be good people. Yet, what happens if we don’t feed our children? What would happen if we taught our children to eat? If we don’t educate our children at the same time, aren’t we as parents more at fault? From a practical point of view, a country can only succeed if it insists that morality and food and clothing are inseparable. Another friend from mainland China must be deeply touched by the achievements China has made in the past decade of economic transformation. The whole world is well aware of this problem. These achievements have been achieved under the condition that the Chinese government insists on paying equal attention to spiritual civilization and material civilization. If the Chinese government still only cares about moral construction and not economics as it did in the past and during the Cultural Revolution, it is difficult to imagine that China will achieve such achievements. Thank you all. (Applause)
Chairman of the National Committee: Thank you, Sun. Next, we invite Ji Xiang, the second representative of the opposition party, to speak. The time is three minutes. (Applause)
Ji Xiang: Thank you, Chairman, hello! We eat in order to live, but do we live in order to eat? Let me remind the other debater again that what you are going to debate today is that there can never be any morality without food and clothing. No matter whether this morality is a morality that guarantees food and clothing or a morality that cannot guarantee food and clothing. Since the other party does not understand our point of view logically, I will further elaborate on it theoretically.
First, morality appeared with the birth of human beings. When there are rational people and interpersonal relationships, there will be moral norms. Therefore, no matter what stage humans are in, talking about morality is not only possible, but necessary. What is recorded in "Book of Rites·Li Yun" is not a vivid portrayal of the moral situation in ancient China. And the legend of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and original sin in the Old Testament also illustrates the earliest origin of morality? Cultural and anthropological evidence of people talking about morality in poverty abounds in the British Museum. The other party must know all this.
Second, morality is essentially a social and historical category. Although it may provide some convenience for discussing morality while having enough food and clothing, it is by no means a necessary condition. People talk about morality in different historical stages and cultural backgrounds. Darwin discovered during his travels around the world that even if the Bushmen in South Africa were starving to death, they would not leave a small fish they found but would share it with their own tribe. Do they have enough food and clothing? No. Do they talk about morality? Of course. Just as we cannot transcend our own skin, humans cannot transcend or even escape morality. Human beings are moral, and there are ways to be poor, and there are ways to have enough food and clothing. When talking about morality, you can sit down and talk, you can lead by example, and you can even go it alone. Never block the blinds and miss Mount Tai.
Third, from the perspective of function and purpose, morality is used to coordinate interpersonal relationships and achieve a perfect state of life. Morality, from ancient times to the present, has been based on the purpose of "being virtuous, being close to the people, and striving for perfection." As the other side insists, if we talk about morality after food and clothing, but decide the world with teeth and claws, then I am afraid that humans will have disappeared into the wilderness long ago, so why are we still debating any moral issues here today? ?
Finally, I advise my opponents not to turn a deaf ear to a large number of facts, nor to turn a blind eye to human history. Please give an example, even one: when, where, and under what circumstances were humans completely unethical? Thank you. (Applause)
Chairman: Thank you, Jixiang. Let's hear how Wu's third representative of the square refutes it. (Applause)
Wu: Hello everyone! Regarding today's debate, our definition is different from everyone else's. However, the other party did not respond to our definition and only hoped to strengthen the development of the other party's definition. Let’s compare the definitions of both sides.
First of all, regarding food and clothing, the concept of food and clothing we propose is relative food and clothing. The so-called hunger and cold only refers to the definition of hunger and cold by ordinary people and the middle class in society, not what the other party calls hunger and cold. So we didn't recognize each other's definitions. According to this definition, what does being hungry and cold look like? According to biological research, if you are hungry and cold for a long time and have insufficient heat to sustain life, you will mutate and even die. The other side cited the example of Singapore. When Singapore was developing, was it suffering from hunger and cold? Is everyone out of food?
Secondly, when it comes to morality, morality is a norm that everyone can practice.
A norm that no one can practice is not called morality. The other party only gave examples of saints and heroes.
Just because no one can do it, everyone praises him. This is an amoral act and is immoral. For example, a doctor risked his life to practice medicine in a plague-ridden area, and everyone praised him. But if another doctor doesn't go, will everyone morally condemn him? no. Therefore, morality is not supermoral, and the other party has a wrong definition. (Laughter) If this is morality, let's not argue here, let's not listen to arguments here, let's go to Somalia. (Laughs) Regarding the origin of morality, first, there is society first, and only when the resource system is known can morality emerge. Is it possible to have morality if ten people were in the desert with only a piece of bread? No one could catch it in time.
This is how morality comes about. You must know the resources and systems. Resources must be available, and after distribution, people must be fed and clothed in order to produce morality. After distribution, there will be no food and clothing, and no morality will be produced. This is an anthropological study. Judging from the logical relationship between morality and food and clothing, people's need for food and clothing is innate, but morality emerged after humans formed society. The purpose of morality is to maintain social harmony, so only on the premise of human survival can there be society, morality, and moral harmony. Therefore, morality must be based on food and clothing. According to our definition, there is no morality without food and clothing. If I don't have to worry about food and clothing, and I watch middle school students collecting donations on the road, I can donate my change to him, but I can't give him all my money and all my income. Considering my income, this is all I can do. If we consider another situation of hunger and cold, a child is ragged, has not enough to eat, and steals a piece of bread from me, will I condemn him morally? No. So we say: Man's survival, food and clothing are all his needs. You cannot deprive him of a little bit of survival and food and clothing based on social needs. You only have one life and cannot be forced by society. If ten people vote now, they agree to confiscate the wealth of the other party's third argument to satisfy everyone's needs. (Laughter) This is acceptable. Is this right? Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you, Wu. Next, let us listen to how Yan Jia, the third representative of the opposition party, rebutted for three minutes. (Applause)
Yan Jia: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Hello. If my property is confiscated and can benefit many people, then I think I will choose to do so because people should be moral. (Applause) Why are our views and definitions so different today? It's because the opponent's debater confused the concept of subsistence.
If this is achieved, there will be no people in the world who are not fed or clothed, because no one will survive or survive. But there are still many people in the world who do not have enough to eat or clothe themselves. Let me discuss our views further from a factual perspective.
First, in the context of poverty, we can talk about morality. In six years, Confucius and his students "exhausted Chen's grain." In this difficult situation, did Confucius stop being moral? don't want! Confucius said to Lu Zi: "A gentleman is poor, and a villain is poor." In fact, in the course of China's thousands of years of historical evolution, from Boyi and Shu Qi who never ate Suzhou, to Su Wu who herded sheep in Beihai, from not bowing his head to five measures of rice From Tao Yuanming to Zhu Ziqing who refused to eat after eating, many people with lofty ideals have refuted the "gastrointestinal determinism" that believes that morality can only be discussed after food and clothing. During World War II, in the face of fascist air raids, the British people did not give up their tradition of being moral gentlemen. The belief in loving the motherland and upholding justice allowed many British people who were still tepid and hungry to fight tenaciously. In the face of these poor but noble souls, will our opponents from the UK still tell us that "food and clothing are necessary conditions for morality"?
Second, even if you have enough food and clothing and live a prosperous life, your moral level will not naturally improve, and sometimes it will even regress. There is an old saying in China called "warm and cold lust", and the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Babylon and the Roman Empire were precisely the result of their neglect of moral cultivation and moral education, and the overflow of material desires. Japan is considered rich in the world, right? But political scandals abound.
Takeshita Noboru was bribed to step down, Uno Kosuke was seduced by beauty, and Kanemaru Nobu failed to win the trust of the people. (Applause)
Third, for a society that has not yet achieved food and clothing, talking about morality is not only necessary and possible, but also particularly important. Max Weber's theory of Protestant ethics and capitalism, as well as Du Weiming's discussion of New Confucianism and industrial East Asia, both indicate that morality plays an irreplaceable role in social development.
When economic resources are scarce, it should and is possible for conscience and public opinion to shoulder their responsibilities. History and reality have shown us (the bell rings), thank you. (Applause)
Chairman: Thank you, Yan Jia. It's time for them to go head-to-head and show off their eloquence. Before the free debate begins, I remind representatives from both sides that each team has four minutes to speak, and the student who is positive must speak first. Okay, now the free debate officially begins.
Ji: Let me first ask the other student three questions. The first question is, Yan Hui will become a saint after eating and drinking. How many of the four people here can do it? How many people at Fudan University can do this? If only a few people can do it, can this morality be considered to be promoted in society? The second question is, when Chairman Lee Kuan Yew promoted moral construction, did he also develop economic construction? Otherwise, there would not be today's Singaporean society with no worries about food and clothing. Please don't avoid this question. Regarding the third question, I would like to ask the other party to demonstrate it. You quoted in "Book of Rites" that "all those who are orphaned and disabled have someone to support them." Is "there is someone to take care of you" a matter of food and clothing or morality? Please answer.
Jiang Changjian: First of all, let me point out a common-sense mistake: Lee Kuan Yew is the Prime Minister, not the President. (Applause, laughter) We believe that "a gentleman who never eats is against benevolence, and if he has something to ask for, he will return to his profession." I asked the other party a question: Is there morality in a poor society? (Applause)
Wu: Let me ask another person a question. A hungry child steals a piece of bread from you. Will you punish him morally?
Ji Xiang: Is there no concept of morality in law? (Applause)
Sun: Logically speaking, the problems raised by the other three arguments seem to imply that worse morality is better. It's possible. But I think this is a kind of hypocrisy: let the poor be poor, but I can say hello. So you don't have to pay for food and clothing for him. This is convenient hypocrisy. (Applause)
Yan Jia: "Children of the poor have become the masters of their own country very early." Ouyang Xiu, Descartes, and Fan Zhongyan, which one did not cultivate his noble morality in poverty? (Applause)
Wu: We believe that if you let him talk about morality, I am full and the other person is hungry, but everyone is good for me. What's wrong with this? This notion is wrong. Secondly, law is not morality. Divorce is allowed by law.
Is marriage moral? The law can provide for the bankruptcy of a company. Will the company go bankrupt? So law is not morality, it represents the lowest level of morality plus custom and coercion. Law equals morality was Socrates' view at the time, and the two law students on the other side should know it. Thank you.
Ji Xiang: Is there no concept of morality in law? From the "Code of Hammurabi" to the "Regulations of the Qing Dynasty", from the "Criminal Code" to the "Bill of Rights" of the Song Dynasty, which law does not contain moral concepts? (Applause) Sun: Our classmates told you that the morality provided by the law is the lowest level of morality. Let’s put this issue aside for the time being. The other party just said that the British people carried forward the moral spirit in World War II. However, you must know that the society in which the United Kingdom is located has the world’s leading economic status among capitalist countries, and according to recent data, Look, the British people's level of food and clothing during World War II was unprecedented, and the nutritional value was the best under the equal food distribution system at that time. So, you cannot deny through this question that it is moral in terms of food and clothing.
Yan Jia: "The Biography of Churchill" tells us how many poor people supported themselves at that time? I went to queue to buy bird food, but I still couldn’t get it (applause)
Ji: Another classmate has been avoiding a question. You always cite the super-moral behaviors of people with lofty ideals and tell us that everyone in society can do it. I would like to ask the other party, how many people are here today, including you and me, do you think Yan Hui can eat and drink for free? How many people are there in Ouyang Xiu? How many people are Descartes? How many people does Fan Zhongyan have?
Jiang Feng: Since the other debater doesn’t like to talk about people with lofty ideals, let’s talk about ordinary people. In the third debate just now, the other party gave an example of a child. Then I asked my opponent: Isn’t it immoral if you don’t have enough to eat? (Applause)
Wu: The other person is based on the concept that morality is already in his mind. You put yourself in other people’s shoes. You are hungry and have nothing. You want to talk about morality. Is this humane? Is this fair? Thank you.
Jiang Changjian: The other side believes that instigating a person to pursue food and clothing is the most moral.
We instigate a poor man to rob McDonald's. This seems to be the most moral thing!
Sun: But our classmates can help him when he is hungry and cold, but he has nothing on him, so how can we help him? When discussing issues, we must pay attention to practical results and consider the results in everything we do. If he can't achieve anything at all, why should he do it?
Ji Xiang: We have never objected to talking about morality when we have plenty of food and clothing. But today the other party is talking about morality because you ate a bowl of Momo Zaza ten years ago? (Laughter and applause)
Wu: The other party has been avoiding this question: Is ultra-moral behavior moral? Please answer.
Yan Jia: Super morality is certainly not morality. But if you follow the other party's logic, then Petofi's poem "Freedom and Love" should probably be changed to: "Love is precious, and the price of freedom is higher. If it is food and clothing, both can be thrown away." (Long) Applause of time)
Sun: Can we not talk about food and clothing and only talk about morality? Please answer this question.
Jiang Changjian: The other party did not demonstrate what to do if it is warm but not full. Miss Slimming can be described as warm but not full. Isn’t this slimming center going to be turned into a boxing ring according to the opponent’s logic? (Applause) Wu: The other party has admitted that ultra-moral behavior is not moral, and all the arguments and moral arguments of the other party have been proven wrong. The weight loss center has no worries about food and clothing, but the other party misunderstood. Thank you. (Laughter)
Jiang Feng: The other party can't even talk about morality. When have we ever objected to this? The problem is that what the other party wants to argue is that without food and clothing, there can never be any talk of morality. Ask the other person to give an example, even just one, of when, where, and under what circumstances human society was not moral at all.
Sun: Please don’t make a mistake. As we said at the beginning, food and clothing is a necessary condition for morality. In other words, without food and clothing, there is no morality. Can the other party criticize this issue?
Jiang Changjian: It is easier to apply any theory to any historical period than to solve linear equations. Please don't shy away from our questions and give us examples.
Wu: Our argument has not been refuted by the other party, so our definition has been established. (Laughter) Secondly, the other party’s explanation is that you can make moral demands on him when he is hungry and cold. May I? Please answer.
Ji Xiang: You say it is tenable, but your argument is untenable. Otherwise, who are you to judge? (Laughter and applause)
Wu: If the other party does not attack, can that not be true? If there is no attack, will I fail?
Jiang Feng: It’s because the opponent has too many places to attack, but we can’t. (Laughter) (The bells ring in the square)
Chairman: (Other party) Please continue.
Jiang Changjian: If the other party equates survival with food and clothing, and we say that human society has been in a state of hunger and cold from the beginning, then according to the other party's logic, human society would have ceased to exist long ago. I'm afraid we are not debating here, but which underworld.
Yan Jia: Monks and nuns who are supposed to cultivate their moral character will achieve nothing if they believe that "the Buddha pays attention to the heart when wine and meat pass through the intestines". (Laughter, applause)
Ji Xiang: The world does not lack morality, but it lacks the eyes to discover morality. Shakespeare had long warned the British: "If you lose your conscience, even if you wrap it with helmets and armor, you are still naked."
Jiang Feng: Xunzi said very early on, "Strive for There will be chaos, and chaos will lead to poverty. "So in the process of having enough food and clothing, we must pay more attention to morality, otherwise we will become poorer and poorer. When will we have enough food and clothing?
Jiang Changjian: The other side believes that in the process of poverty pursuing food and clothing, morality can be ignored. This tells us a so-called basic theory, that is, the world can only be complete if it is chaotic. (Laughter)
Yan Jia: If this is the case, I am afraid it is not "fighting leads to chaos, and chaos leads to poverty" but "fighting leads to chaos, and chaos leads to contentment." (Laughter)
< p>Ji Xiang: We never deny that there is a relationship between morality and food and clothing, but the key is what the relationship is. Only by being moral can we have food to eat and clothing to wear.Jiang Feng: The opponent’s debater has always been “dropping bombs from planes—air to air.” I asked them many times but they didn't give us an example.
Jiang Changjian: When other debaters answer our questions, they always beat around the bush instead of going straight. I feel like there is a theology teacher here. He must have known that Master Hongyi was not warm and fulfilled when he was practicing.
(The bell rings) But isn’t it true that “Buddha’s heart is always calm and has no place to be contaminated by dust”?
Chairman: Sorry, the time is up. Very good free debate. After this free debate, we asked Jiang Changjian, the fourth representative of the opposition party, to give a four-minute concluding speech. (Applause)
Jiang Changjian: Thank you, Madam President, thank you all. I just said so many angry words, I'm a little hungry, but the moral issue still needs to be explained clearly. (Laughter and applause)
Let me summarize some of the other party’s basic mistakes. The first mistake he made was: "Li is rigid". The other party used food and clothing instead of food and clothing, and used food and clothing as survival to build the basis of his argument. This is obviously wrong. The second mistake the other party made was: "Raise the soup to stop the boil", thinking that a poor person only needs to be instigated to pursue food and clothing, and never asks what means to use. Like I just said, if you go to McDonald's, can you legally pursue food and clothing? This is obviously ridiculous again. The third mistake made by the other party is: "avoiding the truth and turning to the imaginary". The other party always tells us that food and clothing can provide better conditions for discussing morality, but we must not talk about morality without talking about whether we have enough to eat. The fourth mistake made by the other party is to "confuse a deer with a horse" and confuse talking about morality with the effect of talking about morality. The opponent's argument today can be described as smoke and mirrors, leaving us confused and confused. On the contrary, today we have argued from logic, theory and fact that as long as human beings exist based on reason, we can talk about morality. Below I discuss our position mainly from a value perspective.
First, morality is based on rational people. As long as humans exist, we can talk about morality. "Wealth cannot be obscene, power cannot be bent, poverty cannot be moved." An important sign that distinguishes humans from animals is that humans can talk about morality based on their own rationality. Confucius said: "Ill-gotten wealth is as valuable to me as floating clouds." Talking about morality without taking food and clothing as the basic premise just illustrates the greatness and sublimity of human rationality.
Second, being ethical is a value choice based on the overall development of society.
If human beings want to survive and develop, they must be moral. Otherwise, it will inevitably lead to the destruction of human historical life. Actions of group solidarity are the basic way of social survival. And unified action is based on talking about morality. Only by talking about morality in social life can we ensure the relative stability and order of society and give value connotation to all human activities. This is about the social significance of morality as proven by history and experience.
Third, morality is based on people’s desire to escape poverty. We are here today not only to discuss moral concepts, but also to discuss where human beings should go in real society. If you look around the world today, there are millions of people naked and hungry. What should they do?