How do you view Nietzsche as saying, “Moral is just a fiction used by the lower class to block superiors?” Is that correct? – What?
True virtue does not require rhetoric, but action at the cost of love.
I. Qualification for moral condemnation
Of course, people are entitled to moral condemnation, just not to make it easy.
There are many who would have misunderstood that, if you don’t have a moral bar, then we should all “don’t blame” others for their words and behaviour, and we should even ignore them and remain silent.
It’s obviously wrong, and if there’s nothing wrong with people, no matter what, then there’s no more human society.
There’s an example in everyone’s mind of “ideal humans,” which, in Plato’s term, is called “common.” This “ideal man” has a lot of virtues, such as noble, brave and grateful.
When other people’s behavior and behaviour are so serious as to violate the standards of “ideal human beings,” we get angry inside. This anger itself is normal.
Although there are many who say that humans are not like each other, it’s just an assumption, but I prefer to believe that “coexistence” is not an assumption, but an objective reality. Just as humans cannot draw a perfect circle with any instrument, the concept of “round” exists objectively.
It’s this example of “ideal man” that inspires our moral consciousness, and that allows us to walk the path of virtue, the mountains, even though we can’t.
Some say that nothing is absolutely right, nothing is absolutely wrong, so we don’t have the right to say shit to others. This “relativity” view is wrong.
Relativism tells people there’s no absolute right or wrong, and it’s reasonable to exist. But all the world’s failures are rooted in relativism. Relativism completely deprives people of their ability to judge evil. If it’s not absolutely right or wrong, then eating people is just a taste problem, and killing is just an entertainment.
So, of course, people are entitled to moral condemnation.
II. Why do people make moral condemnations?
Well, why would a man make a moral denunciation of that for a variety of motives, I think for at least the following reasons.
The call for the “ideal human” paradigm in our hearts. As stated earlier, some of the acts are in serious violation of the “commonwealth” of people. On the basis of our expectations of the goodness of the Ideal, we will express our anger and condemnation.
I hope others will change their lives. Many times, one important reason why we condemn people is to hope that they can change. The reason why the people are not inclining with Liu is that they want her to be grateful and repent.
Many times, parents’ greatest punishment for a child is to ignore it and let it rot. When people make sincere criticism of others out of a false love, they are actually hoping that others can repent, rather than let them fall into ruin.
Self-righteous, expressing moral superiority. And what I have to admit is that a lot of moral condemnations may also have elements of self-righteousness that reflect their moral superiority. Some people are used to putting themselves at a moral high ground, with a strong sense of moral superiority. They’re characterised by “regulate him, be generous.”
People like this, like telescopes, always see people’s mistakes with small lenses, and they’re big, but they’re used to seeing their mistakes with big lenses, and they’re always tiny. It’s easy for such people to discover others’ problems, but to ignore them.
People get pleasure in accusing others and moral superiority. And when we point to the failure of others, and call them self-righteous, it makes us feel superior, and it constantly fuels our pride and arrogance.
A lot of times, when we find ourselves with other people, we’re trying to judge.
On the one hand, in the process of criticizing others, we can get the pleasure of being self-righteous, which would make us feel no need to repent for our mistakes.
On the other hand, the more harsh the criticism, the more we can cover up our own crimes in front of everyone. So, corrupters tend to blame corruption most severely, and the more debauchery people become accustomed to accusing others of debauchery. This is explained in detail in the last piece. Of course, this is mainly for some “Web Big V.”
4. Other. There are many other motivations, such as eyeballs, marketing, consumption of the pain of others.
The first two motivations are good, but the second two are bad. When we condemn Liu, what are our motives? Sometimes there may be mixed motives. So, every time we pull a moral bar, we have to think twice, and there should be enough room for self-reflection.
The online condemnation of Liu Chiu in the Ganggong case, people want it to be killed, totally “stealed,” or they want her to be rehabilitated.
Even if the punishment is a punishment, it’s the hope that the offender will be able to change his mind and become a human being. The reason Western Hamwendy abolished corporal punishment is because it severed human limbs, disfigured human faces, was an affront to human dignity, and completely eliminated the possibility of rehabilitation of criminals.
So when you save your father, the Emperor, the short words, the tears of the Chinese Emperor — “The concubine is the man who calls him innocent, and is now punished, concubine.” The pain of the dead cannot be reborn, and the torturer cannot be repeated, though he wants to be rehabilitated, and his way is not. The concubines would like to enter the hands of their officers in order to redeem their father’s sins and to rehabilitate themselves. “My father is an official, and everyone in the country says he is innocent and fair, and now he should be punished for a crime.”
I feel sorry for the fact that the people who died were not brought back to life, and the people who were tortured can’t grow new limbs, even if they want to change. I’m willing to walk away as a maid in the palace to redeem my father’s sins and to rehabilitate him.” I’m sorry.
The punishment is the most severe punishment in the country, but it still has to be accompanied by rehabilitation. Therefore, instead of desecrating the offender as a human being, the penalty is to restore the offender’s dignity and to invite the Rational Man back into his own mind.
Even the death penalty is respect for criminals, and in the words of Hegel, “Penal law is contained in the prisoner’s own law, so the punishment is that it is respect for his rational existence. “Skilling his life, the law of nature, and the murderer knows the law, but still commits the crime, so if he is not executed, it is disrespectful.” “Why don’t I kill and die?”
In Hegel’s view, if a murderer can take the death penalty and regret it, then he can regain his dignity. On the contrary, if he chooses to live better than to die, it is the greatest violation of his dignity.
Therefore, all moral condemnations should not be randomly insulting to others, such as the “scum” “dog man and woman” “beast” expression, which insults others as well as insults themselves. At the same time, the moral “stealing death” of others has blocked the possibility of rehabilitation.
I’m not sure if I’m going to change. Is that what we like to see?
III. How to initiate moral condemnation
Unlike the law, morality is essentially self-regulatory. Therefore, when opening the valve of moral condemnation, there must be a self-reflection, so that instinctive anger can run through the right channels and make a positive impact, rather than become a flood.
To be honest, anyone would be angry about the song, and people couldn’t “too much to forget.” But when I get angry, the ideal person in my heart tells me to be brave, to be grateful, to be ashamed, I start with this voice as a reminder to myself.
When I criticize others for being weak, I really wish I could be brave, and the ideal person in my heart tells me, “You’re really not brave enough. When you criticize someone in a hot case, what have you done, apart from joining a mass emotional raving?
When I criticize others for being ungrateful, I really want to be more grateful. My heart’s “Ideal Man” tells me, “A lot of people you forget to thank, even you don’t appreciate your parents, do you think of calling only on holidays?
Every time I condemn someone else, I want to really raise my moral standards. I hope my anger is not just a emotional expression, but a positive result.
I accept these criticisms, which are very accurate when compared to the example of the idealist.
I am, indeed, far from the ideal. So, I’ll grab the power of a life-saving straw like a drowning man.
Some say that one of the advantages (or disadvantages, depending on what position you take) of a legal person is that he neither believes in slogans nor the crowd. The slogans that are clear, or otherwise, are the easiest to gain, but this unipolar thinking has brought untold devastation to human history.
So, the training of the law keeps me alert to any slogan.
As for the crowd, it’s not that the law should not be arrogant enough not to listen to the people, but that he must go beyond the prejudice of the people.
Tocqueville, in Democracy in the United States, has repeatedly warned against the tyranny of the majority and considered it to be a paradox of democracy, which, if it is not properly addressed, will be destroyed by itself.
But Todd was happy to find that in the United States, the most effective weapon against most of these tyrannys is the legal profession, “When the American people let their passions go on, and their ideals go on and on, they feel that there is an invisible constraint on them by the jurists to calm and calm them down.
Jurists secretly use their nobles to fight against the instincts of democracy, with their admiration for old things, against the love of new things, against the joys of democracy with their cautious views, against the contempt of the system with their passion for norms, against the impatience of democracy with their heavy habits. This sentence deserves to be considered by the law.
May we pay a price to truly get into the life of Jiang Ma and help her out of grief and hatred.
May Liu Chia and his family face up to everything.
1 [F] Tocqueville, Democracy in the United States (up), Tung Koolyan Translation, Business Print Library, 1997 Edition, p. 309.
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
