Stories of Observations and Reflections on Legal Events, or Moral Phenomena Around Us 20

Whether from a moral or legal point of view, Uncle Li is at fault, and morally speaking, although he is well-intentioned, he is suspected of moral kidnapping, and he is in public transportation according to his heart.

Young people should indeed take the initiative to give up a seat to the elderly, but as an elderly person, you should also understand this truth: it is a love for others to give you a seat, and it is your duty not to give up. From a legal point of view, Uncle Li took someone else's **, and is suspected of infringing on someone else's portrait, there must be a problem with this behavior, not to mention that the police have already arrived to deal with the problem, so they should take the initiative to delete it, because they did not delete it in time, and they went to the police station, causing a delay in time and affecting the itinerary of both parties.

In fact, what we need to pay attention to in our daily life is: to do good things, we should also pay attention to the method and mastery of the degree, once we go too far, then good things will also be done bad.

Neither side has violated the law, Uncle Li is too extreme to impose his will on others, Uncle Li can go out for a spring outing, which means that he is in good physical condition, then he can give up his seat to other elderly people with limited mobility, instead of blindly accusing others of not giving up their seats, as for young people, respecting the old and loving the young is a virtue, and there may be other reasons for not giving up his seat, and moral kidnapping is not interesting.

Nowadays, it often happens that the elderly ask the young people to give up their seats, and I think that on public transportation, it is a virtue for young people to give up their seats to the elderly, but as an old person, you should not take giving up your seat as your own welfare for the elderly to carry out all kinds of moral kidnapping. And it is not an obligation to give up the seat, the person riding has the right to decide who to give it to, and it is a person's own freedom to let it or not. The elderly should not quarrel with the young people, this kind of behavior also fully proves the immoral behavior of the elderly themselves, and it is also a manifestation of relying on the old and selling the old.

Even if it is a special seat for the elderly, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant on the bus, this seat can be used as usual by ordinary passengers when no one is seated. The label of the old, weak, sick and disabled pregnant is just a polite reminder, not that only the old, weak, sick and pregnant can be seated. Therefore, it is not a legal issue whether to give up a seat to the elderly, and there is no absolute right or wrong.

I think that young people give up their seats to the elderly, it is a polite and educated performance, it is a respect for the elderly, as an elderly person should express gratitude, young people do not give up their seats to the elderly, it is not a heinous thing, young people are not easy to run for life, and they also need to rest. Young people should respect the elderly, and the elderly should also know how to care for the young, respect is mutual, not necessary, and if the young people are not voluntary, but rely on external forces to force them to give up their seats, this behavior has no moral value.

In a word, everyone has spent money, I will give you a seat, you have to say thank you to me, I don't let you stand when you should stand, now it's not the old people who have become bad, but the bad people who have become old.

The case is certain, the case is certain, take the bus, and young people are reluctant to let the old case person sit on it, and this kind of thing happens from time to time. This kind of thing is not illegal, but it can be taken from a moral height, should young people take the bus to give the elderly a seat? The answer is yes, it should!

Respecting the old and loving the young is a virtue of the Chinese nation, and young people are filial to their parents at home and respect their elders outside, which is what our country has created. Young people should understand this basic truth. Uncle Li's approach must be a little extreme, but his courage and practice of upholding social morality are remarkable.

On the contrary, the approach of the two young people is not authentic!

Neither of them has broken the law, but from a moral point of view, Uncle Li's persistence is not accepted by some young people in modern times, giving up the seat is love, not giving up the seat is duty, from this matter, it can be seen that people's quality has to be improved, and the relationship between law and morality can not be used to measure a person's behavior, only if everyone gives a love, there will be a better tomorrow.

Do unto others as you would not have them do unto you, as you can't do it yourself, you can't give love to those who need a seat more, why ask others! Although young people do have low moral quality, they should not need to wait for others to ask, and they will take the initiative to give up their seats, but young people are just a little younger, and we don't know the other party's health at the time, whether they are very tired, or whether they have special circumstances, whether they are pregnant, etc., it is also inappropriate to kidnap others morally, and it is not appropriate to impose their will on others, how can they not say it, this kind of thing, it is good to be willing, oh, you are a good person, but others have to make real concessions, and emotional intelligence is not very high! There is no law that explicitly stipulates that young people must give up their seats, and there must be considerations...

Both the old man and the young couple saw things from their own point of view, without thinking about others.

There is no copy

There is no eternal morality that is immutable and immutable

Constant Law. In today's society, ruling groups representing different interests still exist, but the class interests they represent are fundamentally different or antagonistic. Different ruling groups have their own class interests and morals that are compatible with their class interests.

Since law is the embodiment of the will, and morality certainly belongs to the category of will, then law certainly reflects the moral outlook of the ruling class. From the perspective of focusing on morality, we can define law as: subjectively, law is the embodiment of the will of the state and the ruling class; In the objective aspect, the content of the law is determined by certain social and material living conditions.

The former embodies the will of the state and the ruling class of the law, and the latter embodies the material constraints of the law. Law is the contradictory unity of these two aspects.

What is not allowed by morality is not necessarily illegal, but what is not allowed by general law is not allowed by morality, because the requirements of law are lower than those of morality, and morality is higher than the requirements of law. So generally speaking, the law is the bottom line.

And when it comes to importance... It is not possible to generalize, but if you insist on saying it, the bottom line is that the law is more important.

But on different occasions, the application is different, as an ordinary person, ordinary self-discipline is to be based on morality, not just to the law as the standard, which is too low for oneself, not conducive to growth.

Moral issues are not necessarily in violation of the law, but it is not only moral issues that are in violation of the law. For example, stealing a lotus flower is only a moral issue and does not violate the law, but if you steal the lotus flowers from the entire pond planted by someone else, it is a violation of the law, and it is not just a moral issue.

Law: In fact, the law is the bottom line of morality.

The two are just a low-level requirement and a high-standard pursuit.

So it's the law that's more important.

The debate between morality and law has always been the main proposition of jurisprudence, and the main discussion is "evil law is also law, and whether evil law is illegal". The origin story is that the ancient Greek dramatist Sophocles wrote a very famous tragedy called "Antigone".

Antigone was a woman. Her brother Prenik was sentenced to death by King Cleo for violating the laws of the country and has been executed. Later, the king also announced a law that no one was allowed to hold a funeral for Prenik.

However, it was in this situation that Antigone bravely challenged the king's decree and buried her brother according to the rites prescribed by Greek religion.

The king took Antigone into custody and asked her why she had violated the laws of the country. Antigone said: "I should obey the laws of the land, but even more so the religious laws which are higher than the laws of the land."

According to Greek religion, the love between brothers and sisters is eternal, and when one of them dies, the others have a solemn funeral with religious ceremonies. Antigone said that she would rather be disposed of by the law of the land than have her brother buried in good condition, which was the demand of her own conscience.

This case illustrates the relationship between morality and law, and breaking the bottom line of morality will violate the law. The two are intertwined and have a very close relationship. It can be said that it cannot be said independently, and in general the law is sacrosanct, and morality can only be constrained by personal cultivation.

Similar **, you need to go to the Internet to find it yourself. It is recommended that you go to the China Law Popularization Network, or the China Court Network to have a look.