Should morality be legalized?

Morality controls the bottom line, and law controls scruples.

(Quoting Yi Zhongtian's post)

Let's first look at the two concepts of bottom line and scruple.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line belongs to the heart. Even if I don't do evil, I will never do evil. No matter what I do, even if I do something bad, there must be a bottom line that I can't break through. For example, I steal, but I don't kill. Even if someone sees you, you can't kill them. Or I steal, but I don't commit adultery. Even if the woman is beautiful, she can't see her heart. For another example, I steal things, but I only steal from the rich, not from the poor, or I never steal other people's life-saving money, life-saving money and so on. It's called "thieves have a way" Where does this bottom line come from? From its own point of view, it can only come from everyone's own moral and moral sense. So the bottom line is moral responsibility, and we also call it moral bottom line.

So what is scruple? I have more scruples. In other words, it's not that I don't want to do evil, it's not that I don't want to do bad things, it's not that I can't do bad things, it's that I'm afraid.

So we have to ask: can morality really make people have scruples? My conclusion is that I can't.

We know that morality is linked with conscience, and conscience is something hidden in everyone's heart and belongs to everyone. What is morality? What is goodness? Good does not mean that there is no evil. A person, why is there no evil? How can there be no evil? Born not? This is unclear and unreliable. Because we can't know whether human nature is good or evil. So we can only hang up this issue, and we must make the following truth clear, that is: good is not without evil. What is goodness? Even if I am evil, I will do it. I want to do it. I can do it, but I don't do it. I don't want to do it from the bottom of my heart. That's good. This is "true goodness". I wanted to do evil, and I can do evil. I pretend not to do evil. I do evil in a non-evil way, or wait until I can do evil. That's hypocrisy. "Truth, goodness and beauty" means not doing it if you can. I really don't want to. I can't stand the thought of doing evil. Or once you break the bottom line, you can't pass it first, or even want to slap yourself. This bottom line comes from morality. It is internal and does not need the supervision of others.

The bottom line of morality is that others cannot supervise it. Because the bottom line comes from conscience, and conscience belongs to everyone. If a person has no conscience, others can't do anything about him. Zaiyu, a student of Confucius, asked Confucius what was the reason for his three-year mourning? One year is enough. Confucius said: My parents died less than three years ago. Do you feel uneasy about eating that white rice and wearing that satin dress? Jae-woo said, Ann! Confucius had to say angrily, if your conscience is ok, just do it! A gentleman has been filial for three years because during these three years, he didn't feel fragrant after eating a good meal, didn't feel beautiful after listening to music, and didn't feel comfortable living in a comfortable house. Since you feel at ease, you can do whatever you like! It can be seen that conscience does not need supervision, nor can it be supervised. In this sense, conscience has no scruples.

Why is conscience not scruple? Because first, conscience is not "dare" or "can't", but "refuse". Second, conscience comes from the heart, not from others. In fact, all morality and true goodness are beyond the control of others. Therefore, once morality becomes scruples, it must be hypocrisy.

This needs to be discussed again.

It's better to have scruples than no scruples, right? Right and wrong. Why do you say that? Because it depends on the scruples. If it is "moral scruples", it may not be. Why? Because the word "scruple" is contrary to the moral spirit, morality can't really make people have scruples. In order to make this point clear, we might as well ask: What are we afraid of if we dare not do evil out of moral scruples? Nothing more than fear of being told, which is the so-called "moral condemnation". We know that morality is not a law, and there is no such means as "hard control" and "hard punishment" as criminal law. It is a kind of "soft control", and its conventional means is "teaching by example". So, what if no one says? Still can't say it? Still don't care? When a person still feels that "people's words are awesome", moral condemnation will have a binding effect and will make him have scruples. However, once he becomes someone, no one will say that he is out of date, which is terrible. God knows what he will do! This is what the so-called "Wang Mang was humble before he usurped the throne" means. Before usurping the throne, he was humble. What about usurpation? Then I'm sorry. In fact, even if you can't do follwed, there will always be times when others can't see or say anything, such as "behind the scenes" or "in private". Therefore, a grass-roots person might as well "face to face, behind is a ghost"; Big evil and big rape are also "ordinary invisible and occasionally exposed." In short, I usually pick up my tail to be a man, and I will show my true colors as soon as I have the conditions. Is this scruple reliable?

Of course, moral condemnation is completely ineffective and not true. It still has a certain effect. For example, if there are more people talking, there will be pressure from public opinion; If you talk for a long time, you will have psychological pressure; For others, this will be instructive; For the whole society, it can create a moral environment and moral atmosphere. Therefore, we must persist in condemning unethical behavior, but we can't naively think that it will definitely make the wicked have scruples.

Some people may say that when we say "moral scruples", we are not afraid of what others say, but of what we say. Good, that's exactly what we want. But sorry, this is "conscience", not "scruples"; It is "true goodness", not "hypocrisy"; It is a "true gentleman", not a "hypocrite". As I said before, morality should come from the heart, not from outside supervision. Therefore, once you become a scruple, you will be suspected of counterfeiting; Once faked, it breaks the moral bottom line.

There is a problem here, that is: "tell the truth, not tell lies;" Is the principle of being a man and not being a fake a moral bottom line? Yes What is the ultimate goal of morality? It is the happiness of mankind. Is happiness subjective or objective? Subjective. Therefore, if a morality is against human nature, or it forces people to be false, it must be "false morality". Similarly, a person's actions and words go against his own nature and truth, which must be "hypocrisy". Of course, sometimes we have to tell lies or not tell the truth. For example, in order to protect others, we may lie; To protect ourselves, we may not tell the truth. But it must be pointed out that "protecting others" and "protecting yourself" cannot be confused, and "telling some lies" and "not telling the truth" are also two concepts. In order to protect others, you can tell some lies (for example, a gangster pursues a weak person and asks you where he has gone, and you have to point in the opposite direction). In order to protect yourself, you can not tell the truth, but you must never lie. Maybe someone wants to ask, I won't lie or tell the truth. What should I say? It's simple. Don't talk. Tell the truth that won't hurt you if necessary. According to moral principles, what a person says must be true, but he has no obligation and no need to tell the whole truth.

So, can't you lie? Nothing can be said except protecting others and helping others. Moreover, even to protect or help others, not all lies can be told. Why? Because lying is faking, and faking itself is immoral. Moreover, if you dare to tell a lie today and ten sentences tomorrow, it may be a big lie the day after tomorrow. Today you may just have scruples, tomorrow you may be habitually faking, 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, isn't fake, isn't fake. We know that "true villains" and "hypocrites" are evil in essence. "True villain" is a villain, but "hypocrite" is not? That's right. So, what's the difference? Just one word: pretend. "hypocrite" pretends (disguises), "true villain" does not pretend (true). In this sense, "true villain" is closer to kindness.

Maybe someone will ask, then we have no scruples? Yes But not by morality, or mainly by morality. With what? Law. Why is it law and not morality? Because morality is "soft control" and law is "hard control". As I said before, what is "scruple"? That is, I want to do evil, I can do evil, I will do evil, but I dare not. Why not? Because someone is in charge, and must be in charge, will be in charge, will be in charge. Obviously, the "person" mentioned here can't be an individual or a private person. Individuals and individuals do not have this right, this obligation, this ability. When a person does something bad, we may or may not condemn it. It may be because of a sense of justice and indignation, but the Tao is unfair, or it may be because of feelings or fear of authority. Even if you are in charge, the person in charge may not listen. So unreliable.

Only the law is reliable. Because first, the law represents not the will of the individual, but the will of the whole people, the will of society and the will of the country, and it will not swing from side to side because of the distance between individuals. In other words, the law is just. Second, the law relies on the power of the state and uses the power of the public, which is extremely powerful. If a person does evil, even if you hide in the ends of the earth, you can be arrested and brought to justice. As the saying goes, "Skynet is long, but it is not leaking", which is a deterrent. Third, the law has tangible means of punishment, which is more terrible than morality, which can only be condemned. Fourth, the essence of law is that law enforcement is like a mountain and everyone is equal. There will be no such thing as "don't punish the doctor and disrespect Shu Ren". Therefore, as long as it is a country ruled by law and the legal system is sound, then even if you are the heavenly king Lao Zi, you dare to do evil, and naturally someone cares about you, you dare not do evil again!

Of course, the above analysis is theoretical, and the actual situation is not all satisfactory. But now we can only do theoretical analysis, right? In fact, there is no perfect thing and no perfect plan in the world. The law is not omnipotent, and the rule of law will also have problems. We'll talk about this later. Therefore, we can't seek the best, only the least bad, absolutely feasible and relatively reliable. Relatively speaking, the law is much more reliable if people are afraid and have scruples.

People really need social norms, but not just one; People really need the bottom line and scruples, but they can't all be handed over to morality. There should be two kinds of social norms, one is morality and the other is law. They should also have a division of labor, that is, moral control bottom line and legal control scruples.

Morality controls the bottom line, law controls scruples, and the two social norms have their own division of labor, which is the conclusion drawn by human beings after thousands of years of exploration. Prior to this, different nationalities and countries with different periods and cultural backgrounds had different choices, some of which focused more on law and some on morality. If we want to talk about the view of history, we can't help but talk about these two choices.

In the traditional society, China people put special emphasis on morality, at least Confucianism thinks so, because they think morality is more useful. Confucius said that morality and criminal law can be used to govern a country. However, the result of governing the country with criminal law is "the people are shameless", that is, the people dare not commit crimes, but they still want to commit crimes and are shameless. This is "treating the symptoms but not the root cause". What does the cure need? Use morality. What is the result of governing the country by virtue? It is "shameful and qualified." There are various explanations, one of which is "positive". The so-called "shame with dignity" means that there is 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", we must first design emperors and officials as good people 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 "ashamed and qualified"? So it must be assumed that the emperor must be a kind and wise "saint"; The prime minister must be decent and wise, and be a "saint"; Local officials must be honest and clean, and be "gentlemen". The emperor is wise, the prime minister is wise, and the local officials are clever-Sanming Doctrine. This is the thinking of China's traditional political system.

This concept cannot be said to be unreasonable. A country, a society, everyone is a gentleman, and the streets are full of saints. Is it bad for everyone to talk about morality? Of course it's great. It's really great. The so-called "the world of Yao and Shun" is nothing more than this. But what if you can't do it? In fact, we have been building for thousands of years, but this "ideal country" and "scholar country" have not been built. On the contrary, "hypocrites" have caused a lot, even "atypical corruption".

What is "atypical corruption"? It is different from "typical corruption". For example, if my buddy kills someone and wants him out of prison, I will bribe the judge, the police and the lawyer to classify him as manslaughter from intentional homicide, and then I will let him out on parole. This is called "typical corruption". Because I give money, give gifts, treat guests and eat with a set goal, and once this kind of case is discovered, I will pay the bill in hell.

So what is "atypical corruption"? First, it's not that I'm in trouble. I will give you a red envelope. Nothing, no specific purpose, just send it. This can be called "aimless bribery". Second, according to a certain time and law, delivery at that time, such as three quarters and two lives. What are the three verses? Spring Festival, Dragon Boat Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival. What is the second birthday? Today is the birthday of the Chief Executive and his wife. At that time, there was a joke that an officer was a mouse and his subordinates gave him a mouse made of pure gold on his birthday. The village chief said happily, I tell you, my wife is a cow. This can be called "conventional bribery". Third, this kind of bribe is given by everyone and accepted by everyone. If you don't accept it or send it, it will be regarded as a different kind, and the exposure will be even more incredible. There was only one person who didn't accept or send in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and he was Harry. So Harry is not welcome to be an official anywhere. This can be called "universal bribery".

So we have to ask: Why? System. The salaries of officials in Ming and Qing dynasties were extremely low. What is the monthly salary of a county grandfather in Ming Dynasty? According to Mr. Wu Si's calculation, it is equivalent to RMB 1 130. This little money should be used for travelling expenses, buying official clothes, supporting the family and hiring teachers. What is touting? He is the personal secretary of the Chief Executive, and the state does not pay wages. Who will pay for this money? Pay for yourself. And welcome and gifts. Do you think this 1 130 is enough for him? So the only Harry who doesn't accept red envelopes only eats meat once a year, which is his mother's birthday. This was official news at that time. People in officialdom told each other that Harry actually bought two Jin of meat today!

Harry was later regarded as a moral model. But in my opinion, it is not so much an example as an example, because no one learns from him. How to learn? You can't live without a red envelope! Therefore, this kind of corruption is forced corruption, and it is "forcing good people to be enemies." This kind of corruption comes from the system and finally forms an unwritten system, so it is "institutional corruption". I have a book called The Melancholy of the Empire, which is about this problem. Welcome interested friends to read.

However, we still have to ask, in that case, why should wages be set so low that they cannot be raised a little? There are many reasons. One of them is to flaunt the rule of virtue and the rule of gentlemen. We officials are all gentlemen! A gentleman does not love money, is honest, hardworking and simple, and is happy when he is poor. They came out as officials to serve the country, be loyal to the emperor and realize their political ideals and life ambitions. It doesn't matter if they take less! Don't even take money, and don't post money backwards! What was the result? The result is hypocrite and "institutional corruption".

Instead, let's look at countries like the United States. Are all his presidents gentlemen? Some are not. Does his president want to do evil? There are also things I want to do. Didn't Nixon have Watergate? What about Clinton? The zipper door incident. So George W. Bush may have something to do with it. But what happened in the end? He can't do it. Clinton mixed up in the end, and Nixon had to resign. Because Clinton only "does not practice private morality" and Nixon "obstructs judicial justice". This is intolerable. You can do some immoral things (of course, you should apologize after being exposed), but you can't interfere with the judiciary, let alone use the presidency and administrative power to interfere with the judiciary. So he must step down. What about Clinton? After his story was exposed, the support rate rose. Americans say, this guy is good! How did he like a woman like Lewinsky? So tacky, so tasteless, just like me! On the contrary, the support rate has risen. This is the case in a democratic society. Leaders must follow the tastes of ordinary people and cannot pretend to be lofty. The people also don't care whether the leader is a gentleman or a villain. They have knowledge but no knowledge, and they have taste and no taste. Anyway, there is a system in charge, and I'm afraid he can't help it. It may be better to have less knowledge and lower taste.

Here we can also see the differences between Chinese and western cultures. After the last American election, the reporter asked voters, why did you choose George W. Bush instead of Gore? What an old lady said is very representative. She said Gore was too clever and too learned. People with more knowledge are smart and full of twists and turns. I don't trust him with my country. What about George W. Bush? Like the guys at the gas station, it's reliable. We are very strange. According to our point of view in China, the elite should govern the country. People who govern the country should be capable, competent, tasteful and cultured. How can they choose a silly, rustic and uneducated person? How can you rest assured if you choose such a person? Just because they value system more than character. He has been designed by the system, and it is not that easy for you to do evil. You have a lot to worry about! In fact, in the eyes of Americans, the so-called "White House" is just a gas station on the highway. The president is just a mechanic at the gas station. He sells used cars at best. If such a person can do it twice, he might as well be honest.

However, there are still problems. What's the problem? Even though China ancient society advocated "rule by virtue", it did not rely solely on morality. We also have laws and systems. Why don't they work?

There are many reasons, which can only be briefly mentioned here. First of all, whether there were laws in ancient China is a question that can be discussed. My personal view is that there is only "criminal law", no "law", and no "rule of law". In other words, there is no law in the sense of the rule of law. What is "law in the sense of rule of law"? First of all, this law must be a "national convention" formulated by all citizens through the legislature and legislative procedures. It embodies the will of all citizens, not the will of a few people or individuals. In ancient China, there were only "subjects" and no "citizens". Since there are no "citizens", where can there be a "national assembly"? There can only be a "royal law" that reflects the will of the king. The king's law is illegal because it does not represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Second, this law must have the same effect on all people, and all people are equal before it, but the "king law" is obviously not, at least it can't bind the emperor. The so-called "Prince breaks the law and shares the crime with Shu Ren" is just empty talk. Without the approval of the emperor, it is impossible to "be guilty of the same crime", and the result is "rule by man" rather than "rule by law" Third, this law must have the fundamental law of the country-the Constitution. The constitution is above everything, whether it is a general law or a law enforcer. Anyone, including heads of state and government, can only govern the country according to the constitution that embodies the common will of all the people. In other words, it is the law that governs the country, not the people. This is called "the rule of law".

Such an idea and such a law were unheard of in ancient China. Therefore, the so-called "rule of law" in ancient China (as advocated by legalists, for example) can only be called "ruling the country by punishment" or "ruling the country by law", that is, punishment (penalty) is imposed according to certain regulations (laws), and the people still govern the country. At this point, Confucius' statement is more accurate. What he opposes is "punishing them together", not "punishing them together". He didn't say, "Let's do justice together." . It can be seen that the so-called "law" in ancient China is actually "criminal law"; The so-called "rule of law" is actually "punishment". These are two essentially different concepts, which cannot be confused.

In the absence of the concept of the rule of law, the role of the system will become suspicious. Yes, there were various systems in ancient China, including the supervision system to prevent officials from doing evil. And in all fairness, these systems are quite good. For example, it is stipulated that supervisors can exercise their supervisory power independently and are not restricted by superior officials. Therefore, a seven-product (county-level) supervision proposal can also impeach princes and ministers, and his superiors can't control it. Even a person's immediate boss, such as Zhong Cheng, an imperial advisor equivalent to the vice minister of the Ministry of Supervision, or both an imperial advisor and a deputy imperial advisor, can be impeached as a supervisor of subordinate departments. Is this not good?

However, firstly, although the supervisory officials are relatively independent, they are not completely independent. They can be independent of other officials, but not the emperor. Moreover, the emperor is not supervised and cannot be impeached. Second, these systems are used to deal with gentlemen, not villains. So once there are villains in the DPRK, especially those disguised as gentlemen, there is no way out. Of course, there is no way, but that is often "not the way." For example, during the Jiajing period of the Ming Dynasty, courtiers used "little tricks" and "unfair means" to conspire with the Japanese and get rid of the great traitor Yan Song by framing Yan Song's son Yan Shifan for rebellion. How could Yan Song's son collude with the Japanese and betray the motherland? That's impossible. In fact, Lin Run, the whistleblower, made it very clear in his memorial: "When all is said, the two are connected and unpredictable." What do you mean, "All roads lead to Rome"? Even people on the road say so, but it's actually catching shadows, and there is no anonymous report. However, Yan Shifan was not allowed to defend himself, and there was no evidence or confrontation. He just cut off his head in a hurry. At that time, some people thought it was an unjust case. But there is no way. Otherwise, Yan Song and his gang can't be eliminated. No wonder Mr. Huang Renyu's Fifteen Years of Wanli said that the traditional political system in China had reached the end of its tether at this time, because both morality and criminal law were useless. In order to prevent evil, we can only use evil methods.