Many individuals come together to become a society. A large population means a big society and few people, which of course means a small society. Of course, this refers to other conditions being the same. If we compare ancient society with modern society, there are as many people, and the scale of modern society is definitely much larger than that of ancient society. There is no other reason, because the content of modern society is much more than that of ancient society At least there was no electricity, no cars, no trains, no planes and so on in ancient times.
Whether it is a big society or a small society, its basic units are the same, and they are all human individuals. A group of dogs together, although it can also be called society, is not a human society and has nothing to do with the human social problems I am going to talk about now.
Since society is made up of people, we should study society from the perspective of individuals. If you don't understand human nature and talk about human society, more than 99% will make mistakes. If we further talk about human society with wrong conclusions about human nature, 100% will make mistakes.
Speaking of human nature, let's first take a look at the compulsory course of China ancient schoolchildren-Saint Amethyst. The first sentence is: at the beginning of life, human nature is good. In fact, this is not just an idea taught by adults in ancient China. Even if all the adults in ancient China thought so, at the very least, most ancient people dare not deny this idea. This means that the foothold of China ancient society is "the beginning of life, the nature is good".
Having said that, let's take a look at the foothold of today's western society. At this point, according to the opinions I have heard and the impression I have felt for many years, people around China generally believe that the views of westerners are contrary to those of our orientals in China. Westerners believe that life is inherently vice-versa at the beginning. I'm not sure whether westerners really generally agree with the view that "inherent vice was born at the beginning". Maybe this view is wrong.
In fact, during the Warring States period, Xunzi really believed that "inherent vice was born at the beginning" was based on facts and convincing. Just take out Xunzi and have a cursory look, and you will know.
In addition to "at the beginning of life, human nature is good" and "at the beginning of life, inherent vice", there is another point of view, that is, the "white paper" theory, which I call the "at the beginning of life, empty delusion" theory.
In addition to these three views on human nature, few people certainly support other views (if many, they are also widely circulated and meaningless. I haven't seen them for decades. I'm sorry if there really is a widely circulated view that I haven't known for decades. ) I haven't done a thorough investigation-I really don't have the energy and bother to do such a thorough investigation-but it's not entirely because I'm lazy. Think about it. It's not human's business to sort out all the humanistic views in human history-it's hard for people to die because they don't know the language.
Fortunately, I can't understand everything, but it is enough to understand all the mainstream views. Anyway, the people who read this article are in this range. As for those who go beyond this article, it must be very few. If these people have different opinions, you can discuss them with me alone. I think I can handle very few people.
In fact, up to now, I haven't said another little-known but extremely correct theory of human nature, that is, "life is self-interested at the beginning." Yes, the beginning of life is selfish. This is the only correct theory of human nature. Instinctively, everything in one's heart tends to be selfish. No matter "at the beginning of life, nature is good", "at the beginning of life, there is an inherent vice" and "at the beginning of life, there is a blank sheet of paper", it is not comprehensive and one-sided. Only "self-interest at the beginning of life" can satisfactorily explain all human and social phenomena.
When the theorists of good nature prove that "the nature of life is good at the beginning" through examples, they can't refute the examples of evil human nature; When the evil theorists use examples to prove that "the beginning of life is the inherent evil", they can't refute the brilliant and kind examples of human nature. At this time, someone was desperate, so the dog climbed over the wall and said "blank paper" theory.
"White paper" theorists say that children are white paper, and what adults draw on it is what they are. According to this theory, if you draw well, your children will be good in the future; If you draw evil, your children will be evil in the future. Of course, this theory is not completely wrong, but it cannot explain the phenomenon that well-educated children become bad, nor can it explain the phenomenon that good people are among bad people.
Whether it is the theory of good nature, evil nature or blank theory, it is not comprehensive, but only discusses a part of human nature and one-sided side. Only the self-interest theory of human nature is the most accurate and correct explanation of human nature.
In fact, not only human nature is self-interested, but all creatures in nature, from viruses to bacteria to lower organisms to plants to higher animals, are self-interested. Theoretically speaking, selfless creatures have only one consequence: extinction. Individuals are not self-interested, and individuals perish; Racial egoism, genocide. Some people may ask, why do you infer this? I said, logically, forget it. Believe it or not.
When a child is born, it is not a blank sheet of paper. Although they can't speak language, if they are hungry, they will cry loudly and remind their mothers to breastfeed them. If they secretly urinate and shit in the quilt, making their environment worse, they will also cry loudly to remind their parents to change a comfortable environment for them; If they are afraid of the heat, they will still cry loudly; If they are afraid of the cold, they will still cry loudly; If they are sick and uncomfortable, they will still cry loudly. In short, although children don't know the language, they instinctively know how to express it by crying. At this time, no one taught them how to do it. How can they know how to express their wishes by crying? Why, isn't it because of the selfish instinct based on human nature?
Think about it. If the child doesn't cry if he is hungry, sick, frozen or burned, what will happen?
In fact, after adulthood, quite a few behaviors are not controlled by acquired ethics, but by self-interest instinct. Otherwise, people won't say one thing and do another, and there won't be so many hypocritical hypocrites (there are many such examples in my novel War in Dreams).
Think about it, how annoying children cry all day. In the eyes of some parents, they may hate their children's crying behavior-killing them because they can't stand it. I have seen such news twice in my decades of life. Of course, there must be a few people who hate their children crying, so it is even harder to kill them. However, I'm afraid there is no parent who doesn't think the newborn child is too noisy ―― unless he didn't bring up the child after birth.
Speaking of the abomination of the birth of a child, it can definitely be said to be "at the beginning of life, inherent vice"! Of course, children can not only bring pain to parents, but also bring a lot of instinctive pleasure and happiness to parents. Speaking of parents' feelings for their children, it is definitely instinctive pleasure and happiness-it is definitely instinctive pleasure and happiness, not logical pleasure and happiness-logical pleasure and happiness come from obtaining benefits and raising children, and it is really difficult to see any substantial benefits-except the transmission of seeds. Think about it, if it is someone else's child, how much thought can you have to feel happy and happy except crying loudly in your ear all day?
The biological instinct of human beings makes most parents really like their children (there are indeed a few parents who abandon their children, which is beneficial to themselves in the short term, otherwise they will not abandon their children, and this behavior may not be harmful to their long-term influence *). It doesn't seem very selfish. However, a little analysis shows that this is the selfish instinct of human beings. Otherwise, if parents abandon their children who actually have a burden, human beings will be finished long ago. Isn't it?
Speaking of this, it reminds me of a sentence in Laozi: Heaven and earth are cruel, and everything is a grass dog. My understanding of this sentence is that everything in the world, everything in the world, is not based on moral benevolence and righteousness, nor on lewdness. When something happens, it happens, and good and bad things happen, regardless of human will. Everything in the world happens and develops according to its own laws, regardless of 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 that people always think. This is the universal law of nature and human society! ! ! Put it everywhere, in the universe.
Whether human beings are taught to be good or evil, they do not play a decisive role (they do not deny that they have an influential role), and their basic logic is: self-interest. When evil is not self-serving, as long as it is not a psychopath, it will certainly tend not to do evil.
When the result of doing good does harm to your own interests, or prevents you from getting unexpected or expected benefits, you will struggle internally; When evil can avoid harming one's own interests, or make oneself gain unexpected or unexpected benefits, there will also be internal struggles.
When there is a struggle in people's minds, when people are at war that day, it is difficult for us to say which of "good" and "evil" can win, which depends on too many factors. Moreover, when human beings are in a complex society, people's inner judgment of "self-interest" is often extremely complicated. Different people's views and definitions of "self-interest" are not exactly the same, which is more or less limited by many factors, such as human intelligence training, indoctrination of good and evil concepts, social status, and even physical condition at that time.
When many factors affect people's decision-making, even when they make decisions, people don't even have consciousness in their minds. This is the so-called decision made in ignorance. These unwitting decisions even run counter to the truth that is already clear in your mind, which makes the parties feel inexplicable, incredible and even unforgivable. People should know that some incredible or unforgivable decisions they have made, although not in line with their own ideas of good and evil, must be in line with people's self-interest instinct.
Indeed, the decisions made by people in many cases are not controlled by the indoctrination of their usual ideas of good and evil, but by their own selfish interests in biological instinct. Such a truth can be used not only to observe our own behavior, but also to observe the behavior of all other human beings around us. In this way, you can get rid of the complex concept of good and evil and really see the truth behind yourself and other human behaviors.
As mentioned above, the final judgment of self-interest is a complex process, and the determinants or influencing factors are also varied and depend on many aspects. Therefore, different individuals, in different periods, different scenes and different scenarios, finally judge whether they are self-interested, which is very different, even completely opposite. For example, suicide, under normal circumstances, of course, is not selfish. However, if people are suffering from diseases, are in extreme pain and have no hope of treatment, then in this case, people tend to commit suicide. For another example, on the battlefield, a comrade-in-arms was hit by a firebomb, screaming in pain in the raging fire, asking his comrades to shoot himself, or his comrades took the initiative to shoot him. In these cases, suicide or suicide should be self-serving. At the very least, the result of suicide can make yourself less suffering from extreme pain.
Of course, when we say that human nature is self-serving, we do not deny that the indoctrination of the concept of good and evil has an influence on people's final judgment, or even a decisive role. When people are taught more kindness and the good will in their hearts prevails, people are more inclined to be kind between kindness and evil. Of course, it also depends on the size of that interest. If the benefits are too great, even if there is more goodwill, it is easier for people to abandon goodwill and gain benefits. Of course, although some benefits seem huge, people often make good choices because the risks they face are too great (note: different people have different risk assessments).
As mentioned above, decisions that tend to be kind should actually conform to the principle of self-interest in the minds of decision makers. Of course, the main content of self-interest refers to gaining benefits or avoiding losses. However, the content of self-interest is not just these. Exchange money for affection, affection (buy gifts for partners, relatives and friends, invite relatives and friends to participate in certain activities, send money to parents of children, etc.). ), donate their money to charity, poor parents spend more resources on their children, poor children spend more resources on their parents, give officials a lot of money even if they don't ask for anything, and so on. These behaviors seem to be a loss of their own interests, but on the whole, this is definitely a loss of interests.
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 the same.
Generally speaking, people's behavior is really influenced by the concept of good and evil, even decisive. However, the fundamental reason that determines people's behavior is self-interest. When people choose good behavior, he must think it is a good choice for them; When people choose to do evil, he must also think it is a good choice for them. Therefore, we must not simply take good and evil as the standard to judge human behavior. We must not think that people will get better if they are taught well.
Not only can teaching people to be good fail to make everyone be good, but setting an example also fails to lead people to be good. The instinct of human self-interest is stubborn and powerful, and no force can confront it. Whoever opposes it will be crushed to pieces by it. Good can't keep human beings away from the instinct of self-interest, and evil can't keep human beings away from the instinct of self-interest. The only thing in the world and the universe that can resist human self-interest instinct is human self-interest instinct itself. As the saying goes, foreign countries are used to control foreign countries, and China is used to control China.
To tell the truth, from the performance point of view, the instinct of human self-interest is that there are more evils than good ones. Of course, no matter how much evil or good, human beings always don't want to be destroyed-they don't want to be destroyed, nor do they want to be destroyed as a race. Humans instinctively always want to pass on their biological information to their offspring-the biological basis of the existence of parent-child love. This has laid the most solid foundation for the long-term existence and development of mankind.
In fact, the most fundamental criterion of what we usually call good and evil should be whether it is conducive to the survival and development of mankind. Things that are conducive to human survival and development are often judged to be good; Things that are not conducive to human survival and development are often judged as evil. It seems difficult to give a clear definition of good and evil in other ways or languages. In fact, my above statement is also debatable. I can't guarantee that 100% is correct, but I can guarantee that it is 99% correct.
In fact, this "99%" is also debatable. This 99% theory is a dynamic concept. When people are ignorant, this 99% is not 99%, but far less than 99%; People's ideological science has developed, and it can really reach 99%.
To put it bluntly, in ancient society, based on human's speculative ability and insufficient understanding of nature and human society, many concepts of good and evil were worth discussing, or even completely wrong. With the gradual development of human natural science and social science, many human concepts of good and evil have been constantly reviewed, correct concepts of good and evil have been continuously established, and wrong concepts of good and evil have been continuously eliminated.
Because truth has grown stronger and stronger, human society as a whole has become more rational and reasonable, and human beings have more and more courage and ability to recognize their own mistakes and shortcomings.
From the perspective of domestic politics (this premise is very important to remind you), the Nordic countries, Britain, France and the United States have all entered a period of stable and sustainable development, unlike China, which once every few decades or once every two hundred years, at most once every three hundred years. The fundamental reason is that these countries have found the most correct and best way of social action so far. Of course, the social actions of these countries are not flawless, but we have to admit that our China society is far from reaching their level.
China has been reincarnated for three thousand years. The root cause is that China has been on the wrong path. In other words, China society has always been based on a wrong foundation, that is, "the beginning of life is born beautiful". The design of social system is guided by "at the beginning of life, human nature is good", and saints are always expected to appear. Is there any reason not to take the path of reincarnation?
Saints never die, thieves never stop. My interpretation of this sentence is that people expect the sage's heart to be immortal and chaotic. There can never be a real saint in this world. To say the least, even if there are one or two, it will not change the egoism of millions of people. A saint, even an emperor who kills people for food, can't fight against all traitors and thieves; Even if he can fight against all traitors and thieves and manage his own times, he can't manage it forever-unless he can live forever and be right forever.
In the history of China, there are only two truly recognized and well-documented saints, Confucius and Mencius. Unfortunately, even these two saints were ratified, and they were not saints when they were alive. From this perspective, there has never been a real saint in China since it was recorded in writing. If anyone thinks that there was a real saint in China, please come forward and discuss it. If he can convince most people to stand the debate, I will admit that he is right.
China's ancient society was so fucking strange that it lived in its own fairy tale. This is a dream for three thousand years. As the saying goes, sleeping for three thousand years.
Some people say that the society of western (developed) countries is based on the inherent evil theory. I wonder if this is true. Perhaps, they are based on the theory of "people-oriented egoism". Whether they really take the theory of evil nature as the social ethical basis. As long as we analyze it, we can know that taking "inherent bad habits" as the social ethical basis is the same as taking "people-oriented egoism" as the social ethical basis.
Think about it, people's self-interest has two aspects, one is good and the other is evil. Of course, we don't need to do anything about goodness, and we definitely don't need to do anything to stop it; There is only evil, and human beings need to be careful to guard against it. Therefore, in this way, the design of social operation mechanism based on inherent vice is of course the same as that based on human self-interest.
Everyone is selfish, that is to say, everyone has a devil's side. As long as no preventive measures are taken, as long as anyone expands, the devil's side will inevitably appear and enlarge, and the more it expands, the more it enlarges. Based on this, there will certainly be no saints under indulgence in this world. To put it bluntly, there will never be a saint in this world. Even people with great personality will only appear under the constraints of everyone. Social managers are unconstrained and have unlimited power, and the consequences will only lead to demons, not saints-China has a history of 3,000 years, and less than half of the hundreds of emperors have well-documented saints. On the contrary, bastard emperors abound. It can be said that in China's historical records, the conclusion that infinite power leads to demons is proved by bloody facts and facts without exception.
To tell the truth, the history of China for thousands of years is the most vivid example to prove the above passage. Think about it, China's 3,000-year history has a clear written record, and there are many monsters. Think about it, China has a history of 3,000 years since last week. Was there ever a real saint?
What does the sustainable development of society depend on? We don't rely on saints, cynics, domestic slaves and foreign slaves, on moral construction, on people's courage to challenge the moral bottom line, on eternal great and correct theories, thoughts and theories, on Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius, on Confucianism of Dong Zhongshu, on morality, on wearing three watches, on three-character classics, on disciples' rules, on stubborn resistance of vested interests and on human nature (or humanity).
* There is no need to prevent everything in advance at any time (in fact, it is impossible), and timely punishment afterwards can greatly prevent the prevalence of evil in the whole society.
As long as the evil side of human beings is stopped in the design of social system, the goodness of human beings will naturally emerge, and there will be great hope for human society and China society. As long as this is done, everything else is just a cloud, and everything can be solved.