Melamine (三聚氰胺) is a pain few can avoid in their memory. It happened in the year 2008 or earlier, when milk farmers put melamine into daily products including baby milk.
And now 16 years had lapsed and another similar tragedy happened. People are using same container tankers to transport cooking oil, without cleaning the previous coal oil, or other industrial chemical waste.
The following is an article I wrote 16 years ago. It is a theory.
But a theory is only a theory.
Important is action.
Otherwise, the issue could never be settled.
All it need is action with a plan, not only to keep foods safe, but to build a new soul.
No more Ah Q again.
Date: 11/27/2008
What are the potential problems with the theory of "Innate Goodness of Human Nature"?
Leechard
(From the Question No.7227 on 2008/11/27)
The debate over whether human nature is inherently good or evil has been a question that Chinese people have discussed for two thousand years. This question may continue to be debated for hundreds more years. Even though statistics are advanced nowadays, studying whether a baby has an innate tendency towards goodness is still extremely difficult.
Perhaps, the Confucian scholars who originally proposed the idea of "innate goodness" had good intentions. Regardless, when you tell your audience that they are inherently good, most people would agree with that statement.
However, the theory of "innate goodness" hides a much larger question: the issue is not whether human nature is inherently good or evil. The question is: do humans have the freedom to choose?
If human nature is inherently good, it implies that humans do not have the freedom to choose. Since human nature is good, then human choices can only be good. If someone chooses evil, it is simply because they made the wrong choice. If they repent and correct their ways, they will choose good again.
Therefore, some traditional Chinese scholars like to say: "There is nowhere to escape between heaven and earth." This means that within the realm of heaven and earth, one can only make one choice, which is the choice of "good" such as loyalty, filial piety, and so on.
The question is: if there is no choice, and if everyone's only choice is "good," then what's the problem? Isn't that good?
As for what constitutes "goodness," although Western scholars have written countless books trying to figure out what "good" means, Confucian scholars have no issues with it. This is because Confucianism has long established a perfect ideological framework: the system of virtues such as loyalty, filial piety, brotherhood, and righteousness is considered good. This is the only choice for Chinese people.
If there is no choice, what's the problem?
Confucian scholars believe that there is no problem at all. The "Doctrine of the Mean" has made it clear: "The mandate of Heaven is called one's nature; following one's nature is called the Way; cultivating the Way is called education." Confucianism believes that as long as the next generation is educated well, as long as they are instilled with Confucian ethical values, there will be no problems.
The prerequisite for the theory of "innate goodness" is education. As long as ethical values are instilled, anyone can be a good person.
However, China is still filled with characters like Ah Q. Various problems keep arising. Even if one puts in a lot of effort, they cannot solve these issues.
Would it work to reintroduce this ethical framework many times, even hundreds of times? It would only worsen the problems.
Because, human nature involves choice. When a person realizes they have autonomy, they gain confidence, maturity, the ability to think, and the ability to care. This brain is truly their own. This heart is truly their own. They can properly utilize them and take responsibility for their choices. Regardless of the choice, the one responsible is themselves.
This is human autonomy.
The ability to choose for oneself is the sole criterion for being human. Zhuangzi's main theoretical foundation is the belief in human's ability to choose. If this ability to choose is taken away, the person will feel deflated and inferior, unable to stand up for themselves. Confucian Chinese culture loves to make choices for others, to be a ruler, to be a teacher. However, Confucianism fails to realize that making choices for others is like trying to prop up rotten wood against a wall – it will never stand.
A person who cannot choose has only one path: obedience. Their only thought is to act like a dog. They do not need to take responsibility, as their superiors will do so for them. They don't care about what happens in the world.
A dog will never think about things like melamine. For the sake of their humble survival, they only have one path: to steal.
This is the root of the Chinese national character. And to solve problems like melamine, the root cause must be addressed here.
「性善論」有何潛在問題？
*李察
(問到底 No.7227 2008 1127 )
到底人性是善是惡，這是中國人爭論了兩千年的問題。或者，這問題仍可以爭論再多幾百年。雖然現在統計學這樣發達，但要研究一個嬰兒是否有天生善
良傾向，仍是絕不容易。
或者，當初提出「性善」的儒家學者們，是一番好心的。無論如何，當你告訴你的聽眾，你本來就是善的。這樣說，會令絕大多數的人同意。
不過，「性善論」卻隱藏了一個更大得多的問題：
因為，問題原來不是人性本來是善的還是惡的。問題是：到底人有沒有抉擇的自由？
如果說人性本善，就意味著：人是沒有抉擇自由的。既然人性本善，那麼，人的抉擇就只能是善的。如果有人選擇了惡，那只是他的選擇錯誤。如果他改
邪歸正，就會從新選擇善。
所以，有的傳統中國士大夫喜歡說：「無所遁逃於天地間」。就是說，在天地間，他只能有一種抉擇，他只能有忠孝等等的「善」的抉擇。
問題是：如果沒有了抉擇，如果一切人的唯一抉擇是「善」，有甚麼問題呢？這樣，不是很好嗎？
至於何之謂「善」，雖然西方學者們寫了無數的書，也無法弄清楚何之謂「善」，但儒家學者們，卻是絕無問題的。因為，儒家早已弄好了一條完美的思想程式：君臣父子、兄友弟恭，忠孝兩全的那一套，就是善。這是中國人的唯一選擇。
沒有了抉擇，有甚麼問題呢？
儒家學者認為，這是毫無問題的。《中庸》上已經說得很清楚：「天命之謂性，率性之謂道，修道之謂教」。儒家認為，只要「教」好了下一代，只要灌注了儒家的倫理程式，就甚麼問題都沒有了。
「性善論」的必要條件，是「教」。只要倫理程式灌注了，任何人都是好人。
但是，中國仍是充滿了阿Q。各種問題，不絕出現。三聚氰胺的問題未過，另外的問題，立即又會出現。只能用「疲於奔命」來描述。無論有心人用了多少心力，無法解決事情。
再要把這條倫理程式重灌一次，以至十次，一百次，行不行呢？只會令問題更加惡化。
因為，人的天性是抉擇。當一個人自覺有自主權的時候，他就有信心了，他就真正成熟了，他就可以用腦了，他就可以用心了。因為，這一個腦，才是他自己的腦。這一顆心，才是他自己的心。他能夠妥為運用，他就會為自己負責。無論抉擇是甚麼，負責的人是自己。
這就是人的自主能力。
能夠自主，才是人之以作為人的唯一標準。莊子的主要理論基礎，就是相信人的抉擇能力。如果這種抉擇能力被取消了，這個人，就會洩氣，覺得自己螻蟻不如。性格上根本就站不起來。儒家的中國文化，最喜歡代人抉擇。要作之君，要作之師。但儒家想不到：代人抉擇，就是扶爛泥上牆。那是永遠都扶不上的。
無法抉擇的人，只有「服從」一條路。唯一的想法，就是當狗熊去。他是不需要負責的，自有上級的「阿爺」為他負責。天下事，管他娘。
而一條狗熊，是絕不會考慮甚麼三聚氰胺，四聚氰胺的。為了卑微的生存，他只能有一條路。那就是搶錢。
中國人的民族性，結穴就是這裡。而要解決三聚氰胺之類問題，根本處也是這裡。
沒有留言:
發佈留言