Social security and stability must be maintained by law

Social stability is mainly maintained by law

1. From the perspective of adapting to the characteristics of the current primary stage of socialism. In the primary stage of socialism, social productivity is still underdeveloped, social material wealth is not rich enough, and morality, as the superstructure of social economy, is far from reaching the ideal level. In other words, morality cannot develop independently and become the main force maintaining the stability of the entire society. A reminder to the other debater: In a communist society, this may become possible, but that is not what we are going to discuss today.

2． From the perspective of class conditions and class struggle situation. In our country, although the exploiting classes have been eliminated, class struggle still exists, and there are still all kinds of hostile elements in the economy, politics, ideology, culture, and social life who are carrying out reactionary activities that deliberately undermine and overthrow the socialist system.

Move. This is a huge factor of social instability. Without effective struggle and sanctions, social stability will be impossible to talk about. The class nature of morality determines that it is powerless. In other words, in a class society, the moral concepts and moral standards of the ruling class are inseparable from the ruled class

If it doesn't work, it can only be replaced by legal sanctions from the ruling class!

3． From the perspective of the role and effectiveness of law. The law is not only a tool to implement the people's democratic dictatorship, not only a sharp weapon to sanction hostile elements, the law is also an important means to adjust and resolve the internal relations and contradictions of the ruling class. In this way, what is beneficial to the ruling class Social relations and social order (that is, what we call social stability) can be truly established and play a role under the coercive power of the state to maintain social stability

. The combination of these two important roles is enough to show that law plays a major role in maintaining social stability.

4. From the comparison of the binding force of law and morality. The coerciveness and authority of law are unmatched by moral norms. The role of moral norms is mainly maintained by public opinion, personal beliefs, habits, traditions and education. Obviously, this is a soft constraint. Existing illegal crimes

criminal behavior does not work, or the real role of morality is purely preventive, but the law can treat both the symptoms and the root causes. It is two-fold, it is both

< p>It has an authoritative punitive effect and a strong deterrent effect, playing an effective preventive role. This makes law play a more important role than morality in maintaining social stability.

5． The topic of the defense emphasizes the maintenance of social stability. Since it is about maintaining social stability, it is obvious that the focus of solving the problem should be on the unstable factors in society, rather than on the favorable factors. The original intention of the debate is to deal with the minority factors that cause social instability. Which is more effective, law or morality?

Our answer is: law. Because the pertinence, coercion, seriousness, and effectiveness of the law are beyond the reach of morality.

To sum up, we have every reason to believe that social stability is mainly maintained by the law. Thanks. ”

Second Defense Questions

“There was once a man who was highly respected by morals and killed a wicked man who was deeply condemned by morals, which greatly pleased people’s hearts. Please use it. Your Tao

Made the following moral judgments:

1. Is the murderer morally noble or not?

(Noble)--The opponent’s fellow debater still thinks his morality is noble after killing someone. What kind of morality do you think this is?

(A murderer here emphasizes the contradiction of morality)

(Not noble)-But why does it please people? Ask the other debater to explain. [In other words, the moral values ??of the opponent's fellow debaters are not consistent with everyone else's. So, should he listen to you or everyone else? 〕

2. It is easy to see from the opponent's fellow debater's answer just now that it is difficult to even judge the merits of a matter using moral standards. Can I ask the other party again how to handle this incident using morality? Please answer clearly!

3． Is it enough to be morally condemned? If this is the case, people can do similar things, such as killing people and robbing banks, etc., and they can just wait for moral condemnation.

In this case, how to maintain social stability?

4. Many living examples tell people that morality cannot really solve problems. The opponent's opponent just shirks the responsibility for the evil consequences caused by his moral inability to the law. Is the opponent's opponent suspected of immorality? ”

Three debate questions:

“1. Does the other debater admit that society is composed of the ruling class and the ruled class?

2. Let me ask my fellow debater, if social stability is maintained by morality, does it depend on the morality of the ruling class or the ruled class?

(The ruled class) Fellow debater, don’t you think your logic is ridiculous? How can the morality of the ruled class be superior to the ruling class and become a tool to maintain social stability? In this way, wouldn't the relationship between the two be reversed? At the same time, doesn’t it contradict your logic again? Obviously, the role of maintaining social stability is not suitable for contradictory morals. Go to 3. (1)

(Ruling class) Go to 3. (2)

3. (1) From what the other debater said just now, I understand that the moral standards and moral concepts of the ruling class can be accepted and recognized by the ruled class. Is that so?

(Yes) The memory of the opponent’s fellow debater is obviously not very good. We have already said in our first defense statement that the morality of unity and being unified is fundamentally opposed.

Fire and water are incompatible, so how do you make one party accept the moral values ??of the other party? If it could, obviously there would be no class. But in the face of reality, the ruled class will continue to cause social instability. What role can morality play in this?

(No) Since it is not the case, then if the ruling class or hostile elements attempt to rebel and cause social chaos, can morality still play a role in safeguarding it?

3. (2) Well, whose social stability do you want to use the morality of the ruling class to maintain? Is it the ruling class or the ruled class? Please tell me clearly

.

(The ruled class) is really a joke. The country is the country of the ruling class, and society is the society of the ruling class. Will they give up their own interests to defend the enemy class?

The enemy class? Go to 3. (1)

(Ruling class) Does the other debater admit that the ruled class will definitely cause damage to social stability? (Don’t admit it, go to 4) (Admit it) Then

Can morality work? How does (can) work? ...I want to tell my fellow debaters that in the face of class conflicts, morality is obviously powerless. How can it play a protective role?

4. After our conclusion, the factors causing social instability in our country are nothing more than: 1. Contradictions among the people, that is, contradictions within the ruling class; 2. Sabotage by a very small number of hostile elements that represent the ruled class. I would like to ask my fellow debaters on the other side, is the morality you are talking about suitable for resolving these two major contradictions?

In the first defense statement, we have clearly pointed out that the law is not only an important means to mediate conflicts among the people, but also a sharp weapon to punish hostile elements.

Only it can It is better to maintain social stability, but morality is far behind. "

Summary of attack and defense: Brief

Arguments for free debate:

"1. Law is the fundamental guarantee for promoting the construction of socialist democracy and realizing that the people are the masters of the country; it is the key to ensuring national stability and long-term peace and order

!

2． The law provides reasonable, effective and safe solutions to conflicts of interest and social contradictions that are difficult to resolve by administrative and moral means. Therefore, the law is the main force in maintaining social stability.

3. The law is a powerful guarantee for the construction of morality, culture, and education. Moral norms must also be protected by the law. The law is the pillar of moral power. To maintain social stability, we mainly rely on the law.

4. Law is the unity of the Party's ideas and the people's will, the crystallization of collective wisdom, and an important content and symbol of human social civilization.

5. The *** notice clearly stated: Ruling the country according to law is an important symbol of social civilization and social progress, and an important guarantee for the long-term stability of the country.

Right

Don’t you know, friend Fang Bian?

6. The law not only adjusts individual behavior, but also has the function of adjusting overall social relations (such as class relations). The law is the most important, frequent and indispensable means to realize the state's functions and build social stability. The law is more Morality must play a leading role!

7. In a social and historical stage where there is class struggle, opposition between moral value systems, and the need for the state and the law, can law not be in a dominant position?

8． The Sixth Plenary Session of the Fourteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China pointed out that we must attach great importance to the dependence of moral construction on the rule of law and the decisive role of the legal system in moral construction

!

9. The law adopts educational methods for lawbreakers that cannot be replaced by other methods, so that criminals, while pleading guilty and obeying the law, can deeply reflect on their crimes, change their minds, rein in the past, and abandon the old and make new plans.

10． The clarity, certainty, and universality of the law enable all members of society to clearly know through the law what the state promotes and protects, and what it opposes and prohibits, thereby maintaining the stability and prosperity of the entire society.

11. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, for a period of time it was precisely because the value and role of the socialist rule of law was ignored or even denied that it failed to prevent and stop the occurrence of the "Cultural Revolution". Such vivid historical experience and lessons, The opposing debater still failed to draw the horse? This makes me deeply regretful!

12. Driven by the interests and desires of the market economy, people's moral concepts and moral behaviors are easily out of touch. This is what we often call "a giant in words and a dwarf in actions." Isn’t it ridiculous that the opponent’s fellow debater also has a soft spot for morality?

13． Marx has a passage in "Das Kapital": "If there is a 20% profit, the capitalist will take risks; if there is a 100% profit, he will be willing to risk jail; if there is a 200% profit, he will risk going to jail." If you want to make profits, you are willing to risk beheading." There is also a saying in China that "money is obsessed with money." This situation is no exception today when the distribution of interests is mainly market-oriented. This is caused by the alienation of commodity society. Yes, this cannot be changed through ideological and moral education!

14． Surveys show that people's level of moral awareness has improved significantly today, but there is still a situation of high awareness, low action, high expectations, and low participation. This is enough to show that such an idealized thing as morality is too impractical. .

15. Morality is about "justice but not benefit". It is a very high "sage" standard and lacks the norms followed by most people in society. In the current market economy environment, this kind of pure Moral standards are often kept at a distance by most people due to lack of concern for rights. Therefore, they cannot become the main force for maintaining social stability.

16. Here I would like to advise the opposing debaters to absorb the spirit of civil law, take into account both justice and interests, and get out of the quagmire of traditional moralism.

17. Here I would like to remind the other debaters to pay attention: 1. The service scope of law is the most important and core part of social order. 2. Law

Law has the coercive power of the state and is conducive to restraining people's behavior. 3. The role of morality on people is limited to educating people, while the law has three characteristics: punishment, protection and prevention.

18. We do not deny that morality is the basis of law, but for a high-quality building, will people choose the foundation or the beautiful building above the foundation? The tangible and intangible meanings are obvious!

If this question makes the other debater even more confused and confused, then I would like to make another analogy. For mice, is a picture of a cat a deterrent or a real cat that can catch mice? Similarly, which one is more repressive to social instability, the invisible and subjective morality or the real law?

I think the opponent’s fellow debaters and everyone here can see this comparison quite clearly, right?

On January 11 this year, a major case of citizens robbing 500,000 in cash occurred in Taizhou City.

After the incident, the public security department tried to let the robbers rely on their own morals

Deban suddenly regretted it, but no one returned the stolen money. As a last resort, the public security department could only use legal means to force detection and punishment before recovering

p>

317,300 yuan in cash. The opposing debater also saw that in the face of such social problems, morality has no role at all, let alone maintaining social stability

Obviously the law can resolve this contradiction very well

There is such an example: Mo Zhuanglong, the main person responsible for the serious water leakage accident in Nandan Mine, was sentenced to jail for corruption. Previously, Mo's father had always trusted his son and told him not to accept bribes. However, when family affection, conscience and morality are still unreliable, who can cure corrupt officials? Except for the ruthless system

Except for severe punishments, no one can stop the progress of corrupt officials

(When the opponent's opponent said that the law is just "making things right")

< p>The opposing debater must deny the preventive role of the law. I can only go with what you say and take ten thousand steps back. The law can at least "make up for the situation after it is lost", while morality can only "make up for it after it is lost". "There is nothing you can do!

2． How many corrupt officials have been severely punished by law for taking bribes? Why do they commit corruption? It's driven by interests and the expansion of selfish desires

. Therefore, morality cannot play a preventive role at all. Morality still does not play a role after the Dong Chuang incident. At this time, the law steps forward to subdue the demon

The demon. Which do you think is more important, morality or law?

3． Many facts can show that morality is very fragile in the face of interests. Without severe punishment and deterrence from the law, morality can only exist in vain

!

4. Anyone who plays with fire in front of the law will surely get burned, will be severely punished by the law, and will eventually meet the fate he deserves.

5． It is precisely because of moral weakness that many people feel emboldened and eventually lead to the abyss of evil.

6． Morality is the basis for making laws, but why should morality be legalized? Isn’t this just because law is more important than morality?

7. When morality judges good and evil, there are personal differences, variability, and ambiguities, and dilemmas often arise, not to mention using morality to deal with problems. "

Summary speech:

"Hello, fellow judges, chairmen, and fellow debaters!

After several sessions of heated debate, I don’t know what everyone here has gained. Maybe everyone, including the audience friends in front of the TV, have a lot of feelings

. I do not deny that today’s opponents left a deep impression on me, that is: despite the great efforts of our fellow debaters, we have sufficient theoretical and factual basis to develop from society Starting from the current situation and my country's national conditions, taking the analysis of class society and class contradictions as the basis, taking the profound analysis of the debate topic as life, and taking the precise understanding of the original meaning of the debate topic Taking a comprehensive and comprehensive comparison of law and morality as the basis, taking the scope of the debate as the battlefield, and taking the deficiencies of the opponent's fellow debaters as a breakthrough, we have taken the trouble, patiently and Detailed, we put ourselves in their shoes, are friendly and well-intentioned. We have several times brought the opposing debater back from distant ideals to the reality of debate. We have asked the other side’s fellow debaters to be careful countless times. We have used analogies, examples, and questions. We have tried our best to be persuasive, but the other side’s fellow debaters have not appreciated it. I really admire it. It's normal not to appreciate it

Because the views of both sides are fundamentally opposed, how can they impose themselves on each other? Just like the moral values ??of the ruling class and the ruled class are fundamentally opposed

and cannot be imposed. If they could be imposed on the other party, then today's debate would automatically produce results and would not be effective at all

p>

Isn’t it because of the labor judge’s driving?

The opponent’s debate partner may have always hoped to stand high and see far away, but today’s competition is like a seesaw, which always follows the pattern of ups and downs

But the opponent’s debate partner stands still You are in the wrong place. It is a pity to know that although you are using a correct theory to guide a misunderstood point of view.

The opponent's fellow debaters are full of literary talent, outstanding talents, clear priorities and clear context. What they just contributed to the debate was a rare "propositional essay", but they never expected that in the end

>

This is just an off-topic article, which makes me deeply regret it again! So, can the mistakes made by the opponent’s fellow debater be forgiven? Morally speaking, they probably shouldn't

be blamed, because they didn't do it deliberately, not to mention that the other opponent's fellow debaters also put in too much effort, but in a legal competition

As a rule, they cannot escape responsibility and they must bear responsibility for it. Rational and ruthless laws, you really make them dare to be angry and dare not speak out.

But you are so helpless with rational and inner morality.