How to Solve Today's Social Problems with Traditional Chinese Thought and MoralityTheory of Thought and Morality

The topic is huge, and if I were to discuss it in full, I think it would be possible to write a book longer than Capitalism. However, I don't intend to write such a long article, because I don't have the energy to do so, and because no one will read it if I write it.

Several individual human beings are gathered together to form a society. A large number of people means a large society, and a small number of people means a small society. Of course, this is all other things being equal. If you compare the ancient society with the modern society, with the same number of people, the size of the modern society will be much bigger than the size of the ancient society. There is no other reason, because the modern society has much more content than the ancient society, at least, the ancient society did not have electricity, cars, trains, airplanes and so on and so forth.

Whether it is a big society or a small society, the basic unit of its composition is the same, all are human individuals. A group of dogs can be called a society, but it is not a human society and has nothing to do with the issue of human society that I am talking about.

Since society is made up of human beings, if we want to study society, we have to start with human beings as individuals. To talk about human society without understanding human nature is to make a mistake more than 99% of the time. If you talk about human society with wrong conclusions about human nature, you will make a mistake more than one hundred percent of the time.

When it comes to human nature, let's first look at the "Three Character Classic", the first sentence of which is "In the beginning of man, nature is good", which is a mandatory subject for school children in ancient China. In fact, this is not just a concept taught to children by adults in ancient China. Even if not all adults in ancient China believed this, at least most of the ancient people did not dare to deny this idea. What this means is that ancient Chinese society was based on the idea that "man is good in the beginning".

That said, let's take a look at the basis of today's Western society. In this regard, according to the viewpoints I have heard, according to the impression I have felt for many years, is that the Chinese around us generally believe that the Westerners have the opposite viewpoints of the Chinese Orientalists, the Westerners believe that: the beginning of the man, the nature of the evil. I don't know if the Westerners really agree with the idea that "human nature is inherently evil". Perhaps, this view is wrong.

In fact, in the Warring States period, Xunzi did believe that "the beginning of man is inherently evil", which is based on facts, and the words are so strong that one can take out the Xunzi and read it roughly.

Besides "man's nature is good" and "man's nature is evil", there is another point of view, that is, the "blank paper" theory, which I called I call it the "blank paper" theory, "the beginning of man, the empty idiot" theory.

Besides these three views of human nature, there must be very few people who support the other views (if there are quite a few, but they are widely circulated, there is no reason why I haven't seen them in decades. If there is really a wide circulation, but for decades has been unknown to me, that is really sorry), I have not made a full detailed investigation - I really do not have the energy, I am also too lazy to do that full investigation - in fact, is not entirely my I don't have the energy, I'm too lazy to do that kind of research - actually, it's not exactly me, think about it, it's not human to sort through all the humanities since the beginning of mankind - it's hard enough to get through the language barrier alone.

It's good to know all the mainstream views, but not all of them. That's the extent of the people who read this article anyway, and for those who go beyond it, they must be a very, very small minority. If these few have different opinions, they can come to me individually to discuss them, and I think I can handle it with a very small number of people.

In fact, up to now, has not said another little known but extremely correct theory of human nature, that is, "the beginning of man, this self-interest". Yes, man's nature is self-interest. That's the only correct theory of human nature. Man's instincts, what comes out of his heart, tends to be self-interested. Whether it is "man's nature is inherently good", "man's nature is inherently evil", "man's nature is a blank sheet of paper", they are all incomplete and one-sided. Only "the beginning of man, the original self-interest" can explain all human and social phenomena satisfactorily.

Sexual good theorists can't refute instances of human nature's evil when they prove by example that "man's nature is inherently good"; sexual evil theorists can't refute instances of human nature's glorious goodness when they prove by example that "man's nature is inherently evil". This time, when someone is cornered, the dog jumps over the wall and speaks out the theory of "blank paper".

The "blank paper" theory says that a child is a blank piece of paper on which an adult can draw anything. According to this theory, if you draw good, the child will be good, and if you draw evil, the child will be evil. Of course, this theory is not entirely wrong, but it does not explain the phenomenon that even a well-educated child can turn bad, nor does it explain the phenomenon that good people come out of bad people.

Whether it is sex good, sex evil, blank theory, are not comprehensive, are only a part of the discussion of human nature, a certain one-sided. Only the theory of human self-interest is the most accurate and correct description of human nature.

In fact, not only human beings are self-interested by nature, but all creatures in nature, from viruses to bacteria to lower organisms to plants to higher animals, are self-interested by nature. By inference, creatures that are not self-interested face only one consequence: extinction. If the individual is not self-interested, the individual perishes; if the race is not self-interested, the race perishes. One might ask, "What makes you think that? I say, logic. If you don't believe me, forget it. It's up to you.

When children are born, they are not really a blank sheet of paper. They don't speak the language, but if they're hungry, they'll cry out loud to remind their mother to feed them; if they're sneaking around in their blankets and making their environment worse, they'll cry out loud to remind their parents to give them a more comfortable environment; if they're afraid of the heat, they'll cry out loud; if they're afraid of the cold, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud; if they're sick, they'll cry out loud. If they are sick, they will still cry loudly. In short, although children do not understand language, they instinctively know how to express themselves by crying. How can they know how to express themselves by crying without being taught what to do? Why? Isn't it because of the human instinct of self-interest?

Imagine what would happen if children didn't cry when they were hungry, sick, freezing, or burned?

In fact, in adult life, many behaviors are not controlled by acquired ethics and morals, but by self-interested instincts. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lot of people saying one thing and doing another, and there wouldn't be so many hypocrites (there are many examples of this in my novel, Dreaming of Killing).

Imagine how annoying it is to have a child who cries all day long. In the eyes of some parents, I'm afraid that they hate their children's crying behavior to the bone - because they can't stand the children's crying and killed their children, and I've seen such news twice in my decades of life. Of course, the number of people who hate their children's crying is certainly in the minority, and the number of people who kill their children because of it is even in the minority. But I'm afraid there's no parent who doesn't find a newborn child too noisy - unless the child is not in his or her primary care after birth.

When it comes to the abominations of the newborn child, it can definitely be said that "human nature is inherently evil"! Of course, children can bring parents not only pain, but also bring parents a lot of instinctive pleasure and joy. When it comes to parents' feelings for their children, they are definitely instinctive pleasure and joy-absolutely instinctive biological pleasure and joy, not logical pleasure and joy-logical pleasure and joy comes from getting benefits, raising children, etc. It is really hard to see what is so great about it. It's hard to see how there can be any substantial benefit - other than the passing on of the seed. Imagine how much pleasure and joy you would feel if it was someone else's child, crying loudly in your ear all day long?

Human biological instincts make the vast majority of parents love their children from the bottom of their hearts (it is true that a few parents abandon their children - in the short term, this is good for them, otherwise they would not have abandoned their children - the long term effects of this behavior may not necessarily be detrimental to them). long-term effects may not always be harmful*) . This may not seem self-serving . However, a little analysis shows that it is a self-interested instinct for the human race. Otherwise, if parents abandoned their children who were in fact burdensome, the human race would be finished. Wouldn't it?

*This reminds me of the words of Lao Tzu: "If heaven and earth are not kind, all things will be taken as ruminants". My understanding of these words is that all things in heaven and earth, all things under heaven and earth, are not based on morality and benevolence, nor are they based on lust and wickedness, a thing that happens is happening, good, happens, bad, also happens, not subject to the will of man to change. The development of all things under heaven follows their own laws, and is not shifted by good or evil. The development of natural things follows the laws of nature; the development of biological and human things follows the principle of self-interest - not the principle of good and evil as people have always thought. This is the universal law of nature and human society! This is the universal law of nature and human society!

Whether human beings are taught to be good or to be evil, it does not play a decisive role (not denying that it has an influential role), and its basic logic is still the same: to be self-interested. When evil is not self-interested, people who are not psychopaths will tend not to do evil.

When the result of doing good is to jeopardize one's own interests, or to deprive oneself of benefits other than those expected or within those expected, one's heart will struggle; when doing evil avoids one's own interests from being jeopardized, or enables one to obtain benefits other than those expected or within those expected, one's heart will also struggle.

When there is an inner struggle between man and nature, it is difficult to say which of the two, "good" and "evil", will win, as there are too many factors to decide. Moreover, when human beings are in a complex society, people's inner judgment of "self-interest" is often extremely complex. Self-interest is not defined in exactly the same way by different people, depending on their intellectual training, the concepts of good and evil they have been taught, their social status, and even their physical condition at the time, to name a few.

When many factors have an influence on a person's decision, or even a decision, the person's mind is not even aware of it. This is what is known as making decisions in the dark. These uninformed decisions are so contrary to the clear reasoning of the mind that they are inexplicable, unbelievable, and unforgivable to the person himself. People have to realize that some of the decisions they make that are inconceivable or inexcusable do not conform to their own mental concepts of good and evil, but they do conform to their self-interested instincts.

It is true that, in many cases, the decisions that people make are not controlled by the concepts of good and evil that they have been taught, but by their own self-interest that exists in their biological instincts. This is a truth that can be used to observe your own behavior as well as the behavior of all other human beings around you. In this way, you will be able to free yourself from all the confusion of good and evil, and truly see the real truth behind your own behavior and the behavior of other human beings.

As I said before, the final judgment of self-interest is a complex process, and the determining or influencing factors are also various, depending on very, very many aspects. Therefore, different individuals, different individuals at different times, different scenarios, different scenarios, the final judgment of whether self-interest varies greatly, or even completely opposite. For example, suicide, under normal circumstances, certainly does not seem to be self-interested. However, if a person is suffering from a disease, is in extreme pain, and there is no hope for a cure, he or she will tend to commit suicide under such circumstances. For example, on the battlefield, a comrade who has been hit by an incendiary bomb and is screaming in agony in the midst of a blazing fire asks his comrade to shoot him, or his comrade takes the initiative to shoot him. In these cases, it should be self-interested to commit suicide or to be suicided. At the very least, the result of suicide would be to spare oneself extreme pain and suffering.

Of course, when we say that human nature is self-interested, we are not denying that the inculcation of the concepts of good and evil has an influence, or even a decisive role, in the final judgment of human beings. When people are taught to be more kind, and the will to be kind prevails in their hearts, they tend to be more inclined to be kind than to do evil. Of course, this also depends on the size of the benefit, if the benefit is too big, even if the goodness is more, people are more likely to give up the goodness and take the benefit. Of course, there are benefits that may seem too great, but because the risk is too great (note that different people assess risk differently), people will tend to make the good choice.

The decision to favor the good, as mentioned above, is in fact in accordance with the principle of self-interest within the decision-maker. Self-interest, of course, is primarily about gaining a favor or avoiding a loss. However, self-interest is more than that. Exchanging money for affection (buying gifts for one's partner, friends and relatives, paying for friends and relatives to attend certain events, giving money to one's children's parents, etc.), giving one's own money for charity, poor parents spending more resources on their children, poor children spending more resources on their parents, giving large sums of money to an official even though there is nothing else to ask for, etc. may seem to be a loss of profit, but it is not the only thing. It may seem like a loss of profit, but, taken together, it's definitely self-interested behavior.

No matter what choice people make, in their hearts, they must think that it is the most favorable one - although the actual situation may not be.

On the whole, human behavior is indeed influenced by the concepts of good and evil, even decisively. However, the underlying cause of human behavior is self-interest. When people choose good behavior, they must think that it is a good choice for themselves; when people choose to do evil, they must also think that it is a good choice for themselves. Therefore, the basis for judging human behavior must not be simply good or evil. Nor can we assume that if we teach people to be good, they will be good.

Not only can teaching people to be good not achieve the goal of making them all good, but also leading people to do good cannot be achieved by setting a good example. Human self-interested instinct has a stubborn and powerful force, any force can not fight against it, who fights against it, who will inevitably be crushed to pieces. Good cannot keep man away from his self-interested instincts, nor can evil keep him away from his self-interested instincts. The only thing in the whole world and the whole universe that can fight against the self-interested instinct of human beings is the self-interested instinct of human beings themselves. As the saying goes, "Use the barbarians to fight the barbarians, and the Chinese to fight the Chinese".

To be honest, from the point of view of performance, human self-interest instincts are more evil and few are good. Of course, regardless of whether it is more evil or more good, human beings do not want to be destroyed -- not themselves, nor their own race. Human beings instinctively wish to pass on their biological information to their offspring - the biological basis for the existence of parent-child love. This is the most solid foundation for the long term existence and development of human beings.

In fact, the most fundamental criterion for judging what we usually call good and evil should be whether it is conducive to the survival and development of human beings. What is conducive to the survival and development of mankind is often judged to be good; what is not conducive to the survival and development of mankind is often judged to be evil. It seems difficult to give a clear definition of good or evil in any other way or language. In fact, my above statement is also debatable, I can not guarantee that 100% are right, probably can guarantee 99% are right.

In fact, this "99 percent" is also debatable. The 99 percent is a dynamic concept. When people's minds are ignorant, this 99 percent is not 99 percent, but far less than 99 percent; when people's minds are scientifically developed, they can really reach 99 percent.

The above passage puts it bluntly, that is, the ancient society, human beings based on the discursive ability and the insufficient knowledge of nature and human society, many concepts of good and evil are negotiable, or even completely wrong. With the gradual development of natural and social sciences, many human concepts of good and evil have been constantly reviewed, and the correct concepts of good and evil have been established and the wrong concepts of good and evil have been eliminated.

Because of the development of the truth, human society in general tends to be more and more rational and reasonable, and human beings have more and more courage to recognize their own mistakes and shortcomings, and more and more capable of recognizing their own mistakes and shortcomings.

From the point of view of domestic politics (this premise is very important, remind me), the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, France, the United States and other countries to enter a period of stabilization and sustainable development, unlike China in the past two or three thousand years, every few decades, or two hundred years, up to three hundred years on the cycle of a. The fundamental reason is that these countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries to enter a period of stabilization and sustainable development. The fundamental reason for this is that these countries have found the most correct and best way of social action so far. Of course, these countries are not flawless, but we have to admit that Chinese society is still far from their level.

China has been reincarnating for 3,000 years, so what's the point? The fundamental reason is that China has been walking on the wrong path. Or rather, Chinese society has been based on a wrong foundation, that is, "the beginning of man, nature is good". The design of the social system is guided by "the nature of man is good", always hoping for the emergence of saints, so there is no reason not to go down the road of reincarnation?

Saints don't die, thieves don't stop. My interpretation of this statement is that people expect the saint's heart will not die, the chaos will never end. There can never be a true saint in the world, and even if there are one or two, it won't change the self-interested hearts of millions of people. A saint, even if he is the emperor who kills and kills, can't fight against all the traitors; even if he can fight against all the traitors and control his own time, he can't control forever - unless he can live forever and always be right.

There are only two truly recognized and documented saints in Chinese history, one is Confucius and the other is Mencius. Unfortunately, these two saints were recognized posthumously, and they were not saints when they were alive. From this point of view, there has never been a real saint in China since the beginning of written records. If anyone thinks that there has been a real saint in China, please come forward and argue. If he can convince the majority of people and stand up to debate, I will recognize that he is right.

Ancient Chinese society is so fucking strange, living in a mythological fiction of its own creation. And it's been dreaming for 3,000 years. It's like sleeping for 3,000 years.

People say that Western (developed) societies are based on the theory that sex is inherently evil. I don't know if this is true. Perhaps they are based on the theory of "human self-interest". Whether it's true or not that they base their social ethics on the theory of sexual evil. If we analyze them, we can see that the basis of social ethics on the theory of "sex is inherently evil" and the basis of social ethics on the theory of "man is inherently self-interested" are essentially the same.

There are two aspects of human self-interest, one is good and the other is evil. For good, of course, we do not need to do anything, never need to do what measures to prevent; only evil, human beings need to be careful to prevent, everywhere on guard. Therefore, in this way, the design of social operation mechanism based on the nature of evil as the basis of social ethics, of course, and human nature self-interest as the basis of social ethics to design the mechanism of social operation, the result is the same.

Everyone is self-interested, that is to say, everyone has a devilish side, as long as it is not guarded against, as long as anyone expands, the devilish side is bound to appear, and magnify, the more it expands, the more it magnifies. For this reason, there will be no saints under indulgence in this world. To put it bluntly, there will never be a saint in this world. Even if there are great personalities, they will only appear under the constraints of everyone. Unrestrained social managers, unlimited power, the consequences will only lead to the devil, not saints - China's 3,000 years of history, hundreds of emperors have not appeared half of the documented saints, on the contrary, everywhere you can find the bastard emperors, you can say that the Chinese historical records, with the bloody facts, with the fact that there is not a single counter-example of the facts proved that Unrestricted power leads to the conclusion of the devil.

To be honest, China's thousands of years of history is the most vivid example of the above statement. Consider how many devils have come out of China in the 3,000 years of clearly documented history. Think about it, in the 3,000 years of recorded history since the Zhou Dynasty, how many saints have actually appeared?

What is the sustainable development of society? Do not rely on saints, do not rely on cynics, do not rely on domestic slaves, do not rely on foreign slaves, do not rely on moral construction, do not rely on people's courage to challenge the moral bottom line, do not rely on the ever-great and correct doctrine, ideas, theories, do not rely on Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius, do not rely on Confucianism of Dong Zhongshu, do not rely on Mr. Morality, do not rely on wearing three watches, do not rely on the Three Character Classic, do not rely on the rules of the disciples, do not rely on the vested interests of the group of resistance, rely on human nature is self-interested (or human nature is evil) as the cornerstone of the human nature, the human nature is self-serving (or human nature is evil) as the cornerstone of the human nature. Human nature is evil) as the cornerstone of the design of the social system, to prevent the hearts of the various ways of evil*, which is the only way out of the Chinese society.

*It is not necessary to prevent everything all the time beforehand (in fact, this is impossible), but to give timely punishment after the fact, as can be greatly prevented the prevalence of evil in the whole society.

As long as the design of the social system to prevent the evil side of human beings, human goodness will naturally appear, human society will be very hopeful, Chinese society will be very hopeful. As long as we do this, everything else is floating clouds, everything can be solved.