Fan paopao photo
Fan Paopao's blog content:
On May 22nd, Fan Meizhong wrote the article "The Earth shook at that moment-512" Wenchuan Earthquake "on Tianya Forum, in which he described in detail what he did during the earthquake and his mental journey afterwards.
According to the description, he was having a Chinese class at Guangya School in Sichuan, and his desk was shaking, but according to some experience of the earthquake, Fan thought it was a slight earthquake, so he told the students not to panic. But before the words were finished, the teaching building shook violently.
"I instantly react-earthquake! Then suddenly rushed to the stairs. " Later, Fan Meizhong found himself the first person to arrive at the football field. It took a long time to see the students coming to the playground one after another. Then he had a talk with the students:
Fan: "Why don't you come out?"
Student: "we didn't react at first, only to see you run away and disappear." When we reacted, we were all scared to hide under the table! " We didn't come out until the serious earthquake subsided! Teacher, why didn't you take us out before you left? "
Fan: "I have never been a dedicated person. I only care about my own life, don't you know?" Last time there was a fire in the middle of the night, I also ran away quickly! "
Then, Fan Meizhong said to a student who was somewhat disappointed with him: "I am a person who pursues freedom and justice, but I am not a person who dares to sacrifice myself after others!" ! At this moment of life and death choice, I can only consider sacrificing myself for my daughter. Other people, even my mother, don't care in this situation. Because I can't control my adults, there is no point in running away from one without moving it. If it is too dangerous, I will die with you. If there is no danger, I don't care about you, and you are not in danger, let alone you are seventeen or eighteen years old! "
Fan Meizhong wrote: "This may be my self-justification, but I don't feel any moral guilt. I also told my students,' I will never be the one who dares to fight gangsters with a knife!' These words, like stones, stirred up a thousand waves and exploded in the forum.
Fan Meizhong's "running first" incident shocked people's minds like an earthquake, so many netizens discussed such issues as "sacrificing oneself for others", "moral bottom line" and "moral kidnapping".
After the 5 12 earthquake, Fan Meizhong, a teacher from Sichuan, posted "The Moment of Earthshaking-5.12 Wenchuan Earthquake Biography" on the Internet. The article said that when the earthquake started, he thought it was a small earthquake and told students not to be afraid of anything. Later, he thought it was a big earthquake, so he left the students and ran first, and delivered a speech at the scene: "I have never been a person who has the courage to dedicate myself, only caring about my own life. I am instinctive and have a strong sense of crisis. I am a person who pursues freedom and justice, but I am not a person who dares to sacrifice myself in front of others! At this moment of life and death choice, I can only consider sacrificing myself for my daughter. Other people, even my mother, don't care in this situation. Because I can't control my adults, there is no point in running away from one without moving it. If it is too dangerous, I will die with you. If there is no danger, I don't care about you, and you are not in danger, let alone you are seventeen or eighteen years old! "
The "Fan Paopao" incident has unique value.
Recently, the Ministry of Education revised the Regulations on Teachers' Professional Ethics, clearly stipulating that teachers have the responsibility and obligation to protect students in the event of major disasters.
Anyone, at the critical moment of a major disaster, may become a desperate fugitive. Therefore, we should think more deeply: it is difficult to have a strong binding force on teachers at the time of major disasters only by moral constraints in the general sense, so there must be a "convention" written on paper. This kind of contract puts teachers in charge, not ordinary natural persons.
During the earthquake, Sangzao Middle School in Anxian County, Sichuan Province organized teachers and students to evacuate to the playground in an orderly manner, which benefited from an emergency evacuation exercise once every semester. After this institutionalized exercise, how to evacuate students, what position teachers should be in, what relationship teachers and students should maintain, and so on. Everything is done in place, and the safety of teachers and students is guaranteed.
Of course, under this premise, if the school building can be built into the safest building, the safety level will be further improved. Therefore, after the introduction of the new standards for the construction of teachers' morality, there should also be new standards for the construction of school buildings. Campus construction should be placed under public supervision through the relevant sunshine bill, so that every school building has open architects, builders, supervisors and competent officials. And there will be corresponding and legal accountability regulations, which will ensure that every construction link is free from problems with the system, reflecting the ultimate concern for life.
The author notes that moral determinists often only hope to achieve spiritual sublimity through personal sacrifice, which to some extent falls into the superficial pursuit as a symbol of value, without asking about the true meaning of life care and the rational way to realize value. Therefore, moral determinists are often lazy in system construction. They don't know that although the instantaneous moral performance is also related to the usual spiritual cultivation, they still can't rely solely on this instantaneous performance, but must have stronger institutional guarantee.
In this sense, the other side of the Fan Meizhong incident has been realized through news reports: whether through blogs or paper media, or through TV debates or online debates, we can all see a relatively real person. As one of the victims in the disaster area, Fan Meizhong is lucky; But as a teacher, he failed to take better care of his students, but his performance was regrettable.
However, when some people just bash him head-on with moral sticks, the public will take a sympathetic stance towards Fan Meizhong. From this perspective, Fan Meizhong has become a "self-sacrifice". His instantaneous performance at a special moment has aroused the public's thinking and contributed to the improvement of relevant systems.
The "Fan Paopao" incident made countless people turn around, think about their own human weaknesses, think about the defects of relevant systems and regulations, and make benign improvements. This is actually the unique value and positive significance of the "Fan Paopao" incident.
As far as the event itself is concerned, it doesn't seem to have much value, but the problems behind the event are enough for us to think about.
As far as Fan's running behavior is concerned, most people can understand that out of the instinct of survival, he can win the understanding of many people regardless of his students' pioneering running behavior, but it is incomprehensible or even intolerable for people to spread his running thoughts or ideas on the Internet after he runs. Most people think he should be ashamed, but he doesn't seem to apologize for his behavior. It seems that his behavior is justified, which makes people angry.
Fan Paopao's escape behavior, I believe, is by no means the first, nor can it be the last. These behaviors have not been taken seriously by people, because people understand that people have different ideological motives, and there is a natural competition, so they can't be completely consistent. People also admit that people's ideological motives are not noble, and they are not necessarily mean. As a natural person, his survival instinct is understandable, but as a teacher, it obviously violates the teacher's principle and the model of being a teacher by example. Moreover, it is normal for such dereliction of duty to express regret in afterwards reflective behavior, and it is obviously incomprehensible to express that he has no moral responsibility in this respect. Fan Paopao's explanation of his behavior illustrates this point. This is also the root cause of his crusade.
Therefore, people have expressed an attitude towards his behavior: his behavior as a natural person is acceptable, but it is unacceptable as a teacher, and he should resign and leave his post as a teacher. This attitude is certainly understandable. But should the school expel him? I think what the school can tolerate is his behavior, not his motivation, because his motivation does not conform to the teacher's guidance. If such a motive can be forgiven, it means that the teacher's standards have been lowered, and it also provides an excuse for others to behave similarly and defend themselves. Therefore, this precedent must not be set.
If Fan Paopao wants to review the consequences, it should be his behavioral motivation and the publicity of his behavioral motivation. A person can do evil carelessly, but he must not whitewash his evil deeds, let alone flaunt them. This is a challenge to public ethics. This kind of challenge is a challenge to the school's responsibility to spread socially recognized moral norms, which school education cannot tolerate. To this end, he should take responsibility and resign: he can keep his faith, but his faith does not meet the standards of being a teacher!
Should his school be expelled immediately? I think we should educate first. Schools are institutions that educate people, and education comes first, not only for students, but also for teachers, because teachers also have a task to improve their own consciousness and level. If he can receive school education and seriously repent of his actions, then he still belongs to tolerance. If he stubbornly sticks to his position and maintains his lofty posture, the school will persuade him to quit, instead of taking measures of outright expulsion.
Second, why can't Fan Paopao's thought be tolerated?
Fan Paopao's thought can't be forgiven because it doesn't fit the image of the school. School is a place to educate people, and the goal of school education is to cultivate people to become noble people. Even if this goal is ideal and not completely achievable, it is still something that school education should adhere to. This is the so-called utopia that education cannot be ignored.
At any time, it is impossible for school education to cultivate students into people who only care about themselves, people who are completely self-centered, people who are completely self-centered, and people who still have no shame when they violate public morality. If so, education will be a complete failure, or education can not be saved.
As a teacher, you should not be such a person in the first place. This is the expectation of society. A person can do his best to protect himself within his ability and not be judged by morality in an emergency. Under normal circumstances, it is necessary to pass moral judgment. Not only that, but also be punished by corresponding special laws. As a special profession, teachers bear the value, which makes the code of conduct of teachers be adjusted by the special law-teacher law.
The expectation of society for teachers is that teachers have the responsibility to protect society and students from further harm. This expectation is also the responsibility of teachers. If a teacher fails to do his duty on impulse, it is his dereliction of duty as a teacher. For this reason, he will be morally condemned by people, of course, provided that he himself has the intention of repentance. This repentance is also the premise for people to forgive him, because people can hope that his behavior will improve in the future and adopt an inclusive attitude towards him. Because people believe that people will have some non-ideal behaviors under some special circumstances. It is human nature to make mistakes.
If a person thinks that he has no moral burden in this respect at all, it is unsafe or even dangerous for society to entrust his children to him. It is at this point that Fan Paopao violates people's beautiful expectations. Because people are not only worried about Fan Paopao's behavior, but also worried that their children will become people like Fan Paopao because of his influence. People have reason to be so worried, which is the basis of social morality.
Fan Paopao's moral paradigm is selfish ego. "Except my daughter, even my mother …", this kind of confession does not mean that he is still responsible for his daughter, because his feelings for his daughter are probably the expression of his own emotional sustenance, not out of any sense of responsibility. This kind of emotion is not much more noble than the behavior of animals to protect young children. In other words, this behavior is only the expression of emotion, not the expression of moral responsibility. Morality is based on emotion, but it is not the same as emotion, because morality is more out of obligation and responsibility than an emotional choice. Therefore, his feelings for his daughter are not noble love motives, but narrow and selfish motives.
His love for his mother also shows his selfish nature as the scope of exclusion. In China's ethics, the love for parents is natural and has no choice, which belongs to the category of "filial piety". However, his rejection at this time seriously violates China's traditional ethics and is unacceptable to social ethics. Of course, it is also against the expectations of society. As we know, loving parents is the basic moral ethics of being a man. People who completely abandon their parents' safety in an emergency are not qualified to be human. People think that love for parents is a reward for the kindness of parents. How can a person be considered as a person without gratitude and gratitude?
Fan's running behavior mistakes come first, and his speech mistakes come later, and the nature of speech mistakes is more harmful than his behavior, which is why people can't tolerate him. We can't forgive him because he is telling the truth, nor can we forgive him because he doesn't make any big mistakes at ordinary times. The reason why we can't forgive him is that his belief in being a man is problematic. In other words, society does not welcome such people. Of course, as a place to educate people, schools should not allow such people to stand on their feet.
It can be said that in today's society, Fan Paopao belongs to a person with heretical thoughts, or a person with serious paranoia in his thoughts and behaviors. Even if he is talented, he may be able to be as arrogant as himself, but fundamentally, such a person is unpopular in society. This kind of person who seriously violates social moral expectations makes people wonder whether he has serious psychological obstacles and is paranoid. Those who are not crazy generally dare not oppose public ethics. Fear is the performance of normal people, ignoring rules and being fearless is the performance of arrogance. In this sense, people who are psychologically unhealthy are not suitable to be teachers.
Therefore, people's accidental mistakes can be forgiven. But I'm afraid that people who are at fault don't feel that they have it at all. Instead, they flaunt their faults as righteous words, which are a little sophistry, hooliganism and slander. We often show tolerance to some people who have made serious mistakes. The fundamental reason is that they turn over a new leaf and obey social ethics instead of trampling on it. Often many people who make mistakes have a little luck, hoping that they can bypass the trial of social morality and public opinion. They are fundamentally afraid of social morality and public opinion, which also shows the power of justice. Fan Paopao simply ignores social morality, which is obviously inconsistent with his "preaching" status. Because what he teaches is not personal, but social, which is the responsibility entrusted by society, not his own choice. Therefore, the idea that he is suitable to be a teacher is intolerable.
Even though we have entered a pluralistic society, and the values allow pluralism, and the society appears more tolerant and rational, as a special profession, the moral paradigm of teacher communication must be based on mainstream or socially recognized values, and he has no choice here. If there is selectivity, then the purpose of education cannot be guaranteed and education cannot accept the trust of society.
Third, Fan Paopao didn't run too far.
We say that Fan Paopao's behavior and thoughts are too far away from the teacher, which also deviates from the basic morality of being a man, because he can abandon his parents, which is not allowed by social moral standards. Is this a loss of the basic qualification of being a man, or a breakthrough in the moral bottom line of being a man?
No one can make hasty comments on this issue. Because his thoughts are only suitable for dangerous situations, he can tolerate them. Because he is out of biological instinct. If it is his consistent behavior, at any time, he will break through the bottom line of being a man. Fortunately, his usual performance is not like this, only in times of crisis. People can forgive him for treating him as an ordinary person instead of a teacher, even under special circumstances. If it is not a special case, its behavior and motivation are unforgivable.
It can be seen from various reports that his usual behavior is somewhat extreme, but he has not completely deviated from the routine. Of course, not deviating from the routine is also the need for self-protection. We don't usually make such inferences. What we see is that he often shows deviant thoughts and is based on his accepted knowledge. We say that he is a thoughtful man, but this kind of thought is a bit weird and difficult to be accepted by the mainstream. Moreover, his behavior is dominated by an individualistic utilitarian thought, but it is not serious enough to be selfish and selfish, so that people will not condemn him and punish him because he has such and such thoughts, but ask him to choose between his own freedom of thought and professional rules. No matter whether he made this choice voluntarily or passively, he must make a choice.
It is because he insists on his own ideas that he is paranoid. His paranoia seems to think that he has stuck to the truth. As an ordinary person, as long as you don't take practical actions that endanger others, you are within the tolerance range. And as an ordinary person, he has this idea, and people won't care. But being a teacher is very different, because there is a teacher's norm to regulate specific behavior, and he will not be allowed to have absolute personal freedom.
As a man, he is loyal to his own thoughts, so he still has some merits, because he doesn't pretend to be himself or quibble. In this way, he has always maintained the honesty of being a man, even though the people he defends are not really aboveboard people, but narrow-minded people.
But if he wants to spread his thoughts, he must be strictly restricted, because he challenges social morality, not just teachers' professional ethics, so he has no reason to be forgiven. Therefore, it is the social moral power that causes debate and discussion. Although the social moral force is too radical in expression, it generally expresses the voice of society to maintain basic morality. This discussion itself is a manifestation of ideological tolerance, a manifestation of a society moving towards tolerance, and a manifestation of a society moving towards progress. In particular, society also allows him to defend his actions, which is the maintenance of his rights as a human being. There is no doubt that his thoughts are not worth spreading, but exist as the object of criticism, and people should take warning.
Therefore, judging from the western extreme individualism theory to which Fan Paopao is loyal, he didn't go too far, because he didn't make the fact of seriously hurting others, but he just didn't fulfill his due duties and obligations. As a special ideological concept, although his thought is heresy, there is no need to severely punish it, because it can exist as a sharpening tool for ideological evolution and a comparative reader, but it is not completely worthless. It is in the process of identification that people make wise choices and improve public moral rules in their choices. In this sense, Fan Paopao set an example of heresy, but his behavior was not excessive.
It is in this way that we give more tolerance and understanding and promote them to better understand the way of the public, rather than insisting on a completely one-way approach. We can't let the social trend of thought go to heresy because of his heresy. Tolerance is the way of social evolution. It is said that although Fan ran fast, he didn't run too far in order to better reflect the tolerance of society.
Fourth, the confrontation between individual rationality and social rationality.
Even if we forgive Fan for understanding his instinctive impulse to run, his behavior is not the most rational. As we know, survival instinct is the most basic expression of human rational behavior, and it is the choice of people in the unconscious state. In this sense, it is not bound by moral judgment. But if you are very sober, you will inevitably be judged by morality. If it is really what he thinks, then he is not impulsive, but rational. Of course, his rationality belongs to individual rationality, which is the behavior taken by individuals to save themselves. But this kind of behavior is rational from the individual's starting point, because he thinks that he can escape to a safe place with the fastest speed and the least burden, which is not necessarily true rationality, because the individual's rationality will inevitably lead to chaos and conflict, leading to greater irrationality.
We have heard of countless incidents of trampling on shopping malls and temple fairs out of fear. From the starting point, everyone wants to protect themselves, which is an individual's rational behavior, but this rational behavior is disorderly and blind, which eventually leads to greater irrationality. If orderly evacuation or retreat is adopted, the cost will be much smaller. The case of Wenchuan shows that some schools were not damaged in the organized evacuation, but the disorderly self-help behavior suffered heavy casualties and few survivors. This means that the value of collective rationality is much higher than that of individual rationality. Therefore, Fan Paopao incident only illustrates the role of individual rationality, but does not reflect the significance of collective rationality and social rationality.
Fan Paopao represents the values of the supremacy of personal interests, which is not what we advocate. Our society advocates the principle of social value superiority. In other words, individual interests cannot conflict with collective interests. In the case of conflict, individual interests should be subordinated to social interests, that is, to collective interests. Because an individual does not live alone, he must rely on a certain group. If the collective does not exist, the existence of the individual is worthless. And a single organization is subordinate to a larger organization, and this is how society is established. Even though the west emphasizes individualism, in front of the collective, individuals must give up some rights, thus becoming the contract of social organizations. In the face of social contract, we can't blindly emphasize the importance of personal interests, and the importance of personal interests here is limited.
Only by transforming personal interests into social interests can personal values be fully reflected. Therefore, only when individual rationality becomes social rationality can individual rationality become real rationality, otherwise, this rationality is not real rationality, but just a self-interested instinct.
After Fan Paopao incident, we should advocate social rationality instead of blindly affirming individual rationality. The reason why we tolerate Fan Paopao's behavior is because he made it in a collective unconscious state. As a collective and an organization, the school failed to fulfill its due responsibilities or neglected to carry out safety education. At the same time, as teachers, they lack personal constraints and are also responsible for Fan Paopao's thoughts and behaviors. But in the general unconscious state, this kind of accountability is meaningless. That's what the so-called punishment does not blame the public means. But this is enough as a warning model, that is, teachers should be responsible for students, and schools should be responsible for teachers' actions, because schools exist as an organization, a collective, not an unrelated individual.
Therefore, when we completely eliminate the interference of fear, our behavior will be rational, not just individual rational behavior, but collective rational action, so that death as a person will have its value, not just life and death as an organism. Life will inevitably face fear, and personal strength is always small, but only the strength of organization, collective strength and society is great, and fear can be finally overcome. Therefore, the value of individual rationality is limited and final, and individual rationality must return to collective rationality and social rationality. Awakening social rationality should be the ultimate significance of Fan Paopao.
At first, I didn't want to get involved in these discussions about right and wrong. I think the present discussion has lost the essence of rational dialogue, but it is a kind of performance and attack, showing a collective irrational behavior. As an individual event, Fan Paopao doesn't have that great significance, but social concern has greatly enhanced its significance. Fan Paopao dares to defend his behavior and truthfully confess himself, which cannot but attract people's attention. If he is a person who completely ignores social rules, it is no big deal, and society does not have to make a fuss. Because when the forest is big, there will be social birds, and when the society is big, there will be everyone. The problem is that Fan Paopao is promoting an individualistic philosophy with egoism as its essence. This philosophy is not suitable for the teaching profession. If we change our position, we can find that Fan Paopao's thought, as an individual survival philosophy, is not completely worthless. In the market economy society, if people have no selfish instinct and selfish thoughts at all, then the social operation will lack motivation. The institutional norms of society are to control people's excessive self-interest instinct. Therefore, we can't expect everyone's ideological consciousness to be noble and their life goals to be noble. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that some people live mainly for themselves, because everyone's thoughts are based on their own living conditions, which makes sense, and our understanding is a kind of humanitarian concern. As teachers in special occupations, people expect their moral standards to be noble, at least their selfish motives are not publicly exposed, which is social shame. Fan Paopao's behavior has gone beyond this bottom line, because he has become an individual's belief and started to conflict with social ethics, which is the root cause that society cannot forgive. However, social discussions have paid too much attention to him. Everyone seems to be attacking him in a moral model way, as if he were going to die soon. I think this loses the significance of discussion. First of all, we should respect him as an individual, second, we should understand his special situation, third, we should abide by the rules of discussion, and finally, we should be careful not to involve innocent people. What we are most afraid of is to have a critical discussion, so that it has no place of its own, and at the same time, let the wife, children and even the elderly suffer together. The purpose of our discussion and concern is to help people, not to attack them. This is our position. So I don't approve of fighting violence with violence or fighting poison with poison. We should be tolerant of others. As for the teaching profession, there are normative requirements. Fan Paopao must be clear about his choice here, whether to stick to his position or obey the teacher's rules. No matter what choice we make, we respect him, but he has to give up his position and disobey the teacher's rules. For his thoughts, if he were not a teacher, there would not be so many people paying attention to them, and the social pressure would naturally be alleviated. Otherwise, this pressure valve will always exist. Unless he wants to take advantage of this fame or the school regards it as an advertisement, it will only make him notorious and become a capital stock manipulated by businessmen, so there is no significance of an ideological model and a moral model. )