Why did the ancients say that every righteous slaughter dogs, the negative heart is mostly a schola

Why did the ancients say that every time you slaughter more dogs, you are more likely to be a scholar? What's the point?

Let's talk about the source of this sentence first. There was a person named Cao Xuege in the Ming Dynasty, who was an official in Guilin at that time, and there was a house slave in the local Ming clan who let the dog bite a Xiucai, and was saved by a butcher who killed the dog, and when the case was judged, Xiucai was afraid of power, and took the money to frame the butcher, and Cao Xuege saw through it, and finally the butcher was not guilty, and the person involved and Xiucai were sentenced. Afterwards, Cao Xueyan wrote this sentence.

Such stories are still happening to this day. "Everything is inferior, only reading is high", it seems to be in awe of readers, but there is really friction, we are not talking about reason, but fists, fists may be violence, or power. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether the righteousness of the dog slaughterers is justified or not, what matters is the dog slaughtering knife he is carrying.

First, first of all, Cao Xueyan wrote in a state of anger, which is inevitably a little prejudiced. Righteousness or not has little to do with the level of education. What he meant should be that Xiucai should understand the importance of faith and righteousness after reading books, so readers should be a little more righteous than the dog slaughterers.

Second, we usually seem to have relatively low moral requirements for the "dog slaughterer", so once he does a "righteous" thing, he seems to have a special sense of justice. As for the talent of scholars, the moral expectations are relatively high, and once one is not righteous, he will be sprayed immediately: "Look, there are still intellectuals, and they are not righteous at all."

3. Whether a person can "fight for righteousness" is usually related to his own conditions. The "dog slaughterer" is relatively at the bottom of the society, and has fewer concerns, and the "scholar" has many concerns after years of education, and he will weigh the pros and cons.

You don't see the people who slaughter dogs are ungrateful, but reading and educating people makes people upright.

"Every righteous slaughter dog, negative heart is mostly for readers", this old saying exhausts the complexity between people!

This is a famous couplet by the Ming Dynasty poet Cao Xuejiao. That is to say, most of the people who are righteous are ordinary people engaged in menial work, while the educated and educated people are often able to do things that violate their conscience and betray their feelings.

Even those who seem to be engaged in low-level professions are often more likely to stand up for others and show integrity, while many people who read a lot will also do negative things, which is not in line with their education.

Probably this means that most of the people who talk about righteousness are ordinary people or lowly occupations, and most of the people who read books do things with their conscience.

To say my point:

I think the crux of this question lies in the definition of "righteousness and negativity", that is, "how to count righteousness and how to count negativity?" ”

I think that the butcher knew that helping people might die himself, and still decided that helping people was righteous, and Xiu knew that lying would kill people, and still decided that lying was negative.

The background facts of the story are: the butcher is more emotional, when he sees someone bitten by a dog, his first reaction is to kill the dog to save people, Xiucai knows how to weigh the pros and cons, is more rational, and thinks that it is better to have more people than less, so their subjective will has not reached the level of "righteousness and negative heart", I think it is more inappropriate for the author to say this.

To say more, people are animals with sensibility and rationality, extreme sensibility becomes an animal, extreme rationality becomes a machine, we must learn to balance sensibility and rationality, the author believes that sensibility is greater than rationality when he says this, so it is inappropriate to think about this carefully.

Times are different, the law of the jungle is commonal! This couplet should be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, so it can be handed down. The author deserves to be a conscience in reading!

There is no need to refute it, because most readers are negative people, and a very small number of readers are not.

Actually, it's not wrong to say this sensibly, it's not really satirizing readers, I'm a reader myself. Who is not a scholar these days. People with little culture will have fewer twists and turns in their hearts, but many major rights and wrongs will be very reliable, and because they know more, they will be more concerned about the gains and losses of interests, and how to do what is beneficial to themselves, and their minds are too heavy.

Note: Please do not generalize, just discuss in general.

You will take it for granted that there is a bad person among the poor, but if there is a righteous and courageous person in it, you will remember it vividly, and you will take it for granted that there is a good person among the scholars, but you will also remember it vividly if there is a treacherous villain. There is nothing to refute in this sentence, but it just states a truth, a turbid environment is easier to shine with the brilliance of human nature, but it is also easy to be overwhelmed by a turbid environment.

Conscience depends on the tutor. This sentence is a typical concept of stealing in logical fallacy, don't take it seriously.

Why do you want to refute it, if you are highly educated, then you go back to your hometown and compare the sophistication of your peers, if you are a low education, then you will have to try 100,000 yuan with your highly educated brothers and sisters.

It's the truth, but you're trying to turn black and white upside down?

I contradict you