The sixth distinction between good and evil in human nature: three additional questions

First, what is political alienation?

Morality and law, at their origins, should be for the survival and development of the entire human community, for the benefit of everyone. Even now, the moral and legal enacters of the world claim that their morals and legal norms are protecting the interests of all people. But since the day morality and law were born, it has been a double-edged sword; especially after entering class society, all morality and law have been class-oriented, and those in power in all countries have more or less abused their power. Morality and law were originally born for the good, but they became the protectors of the wicked, and the power of state power, which was supposed to be a weapon for protecting the broad masses of the people, became a tool for some people to oppress the people, embezzle and accept bribes. Moral and legal property is flawed, and the state power has produced a cancer. This is what I call the alienation of moral, legal and political activity. The problem is simply political alienation. Political alienation is actually the unfairness of legislation, the injustice of law enforcement, that is, the injustice of society. The cause of political alienation and social injustice is the evil of human nature.

Second, as we said earlier, in ethics it is the right or wrong of political positions to judge the good or evil of human behavior. It now seems that this definition in ethics is not entirely unreasonable. We have learned that man's social attributes are inherently evil, and that his goodness is the result of moral and legal norms. This is actually basically consistent with the teachings in ethics. This shows that the right or wrong of political positions is intrinsically linked to the good or evil of behavioral values. The difference is that the morality and law we speak of mean that they have not been alienated, while the morality and law spoken of in ethics are all the moral and legal norms in real life, which contain the norms with the problem of alienation. Therefore, although the definition in ethics is not good in form, replacing the good or evil of the value of behavior with the right or wrong of political positions, it is only an inaccurate question in terms of practical effect. Under normal circumstances, most of the moral and legal norms in the real society are fair, and the law enforcement is basically just, and the judgment of good and evil is mostly correct, but it is only in the use of those alienated moral and legal provisions to judge good and evil. For example, in feudal society, the act of abiding by this moral code is not good, but the evil of the law enforcers, the disaster of the object of execution, and the call for sin. So when I talked about the causes of goodness earlier, I specifically pointed out that the morality and law that promote the production of good refer to moral and legal norms that have not been alienated. This is precisely the class and limitation of this definition. It is precisely because of this that this criterion for judging good and evil, this habit of judging the question of good and evil in human nature, although somewhat flawed, is still effective. Still, I'd say that the truly scientific definition of good and evil in human nature is the one I propose. The reasons are: First, judging the good or evil of behavior by the right or wrong of the political position of behavior is only an alternative, and the standard of substitution is not the true standard of good and evil, so the definition of good and evil in ethics is not a scientific definition of good and evil. Second, this criterion in ethics, even though in most cases can replace true standards of good and evil in making judgments about good and evil behavior, the alienation of law and morality always makes some judgments incorrect. For example, the example of "three from four virtues" mentioned above. Third, in addition to the alienation of morality and law, there are times when this definition is impossible to judge the good and evil of human behavior. One is the period of great social change, the alternation period of the old and new social systems. For example, the issue of the peasant movement in Hunan mentioned earlier. Moreover, society is constantly evolving, new problems and new contradictions in society will always arise, and new legal norms need to be added, and before new legislation, these problems, these contradictions, cannot be judged by this criterion in ethics. In short, in a word, the definition of good and evil in ethics is an applicable tool, and my definition of good and evil is a scientific concept. Each has its own usefulness.

Third, in history, the Spring and Autumn Warring States period was the peak period for people to study the good and evil of human nature, and scholars of subsequent dynasties and dynasties have discussed the good and evil of human nature, but none of them exceeded the hundreds of sons and hundreds of families in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. I think that in the history of China, in the study of human nature, there are only two and a half sentences that are correct, one is Confucius's: "Sex is close, and habit is far away." (17) Although this sentence is correct, it is of little significance, and the second sentence is said by the confessor: "Sex is not good and there is no goodness." (18) The Confessor believes that the meaning of life is sex, so he said that sex is neither good nor good, that is, human nature (natural attributes) has no distinction between good and evil. He said this two thousand years ago, but for more than two thousand years, no one listened to him, and has been arguing about whether human nature is good or evil. I hope that today's people, modern people, can listen to the teachings of the admonition, which is a big truth. The other half sentence was said by Xun Zi. Xun Zi said, "The nature of man, the evil, the good, the hypocrite." (19) Xunzi said that man's nature is evil, and man's goodness is acquired. The first half of this sentence is incorrect, because the nature of Xunzi refers to nature, natural attributes. But the second half of the sentence is the great truth. Not only that, Xunzi's philosophical thought is the philosophy of upbringing, and he believes that everything that is good and valuable is the result of human efforts. This is a very remarkable idea, but the rulers of successive dynasties were afraid of the truth, so they did not dare to propagate xunzi's ideas, but used Mencius's fallacies as treasures to deceive the masses.

bibliography:

1, Jin Yuelin, editor-in-chief of "Formal Logic", published by Renming Publishing House, p. 15

2, Yu Pengbin et al., editors of Concise Philosophical Dictionary published by Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House, pp. 231, 299

3, from "Mencius Zhizi Shang" from "Xunzi Zhengming"

4, from "Spring and Autumn Prosperity, Deep Examination of The Name" from "On title and nature"

5, from "Mencius Beilou"

6, Chen Shangzhi, editor-in-chief, Principles of Anthropology, published by Beijing Publishing House, p. 91

7, Yu Pengbin et al., editors of Concise Philosophical Dictionary published by Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House, p. 299

8, The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 3, pp. 433-434

9, Wang Minghui edited "What is the Theory of Science", published by China Drama Publishing House

10, Jin Yuelin, editor-in-chief of "Formal Logic", published by Renming Publishing House, page 18 from "Mencius Zhizi Shang"

11, Qian Jin, "The Choice of Survival", China Social Sciences Press, p. 40

12, Li Ming, "Why Chinese Are So "Stupid", Hualing Publishing House, pp. 9-15

13, from the Analects of the Yang Goods seventeenth from mencius confessions