When national interests and moral conscience conflict, who gives concessions to whom?

As the old saying goes: Parents are here, don't travel far. This is the embodiment of filial piety.

However, soldiers (or conscripts) who fought for their country, and even died on the battlefield, although they did not fulfill their filial piety, were admired. What is the difference between national interest and moral conscience? What is the scope of the definition of moral conscience?

Does moral conscience fall within the realm of personal interest under certain circumstances? I think that if a person protects the interests of the country, he is protecting the interests of the people, and at this time, the conscience of seeking benefits for the people is already obvious. A humble opinion, forgive me, hehe.

I remember Nicolas Cage once acted in a movie called "Heretics", where the people of the island thought that God needed them to sacrifice someone who was related to them but was not an islander, so the protagonist's ex-girlfriend tricked the protagonist into going to the island, and finally the protagonist and his girlfriend's daughter lit a fire to kill him. For the islanders, it is moral to burn the protagonist, but to the outside world, it is immoral to burn him. So how should our morals judge the act of this burning man?

The previous few examples are obviously not demonstrated, and it is better to put out theories. As for the "national interest" and "moral conscience" in the debate, there are naturally different boundaries in different civilizations, so we might as well look at this issue in general, or in the same cultural environment. In addition, the question upstairs has little to do with the debate......

Well, I think about it, ahem. It may be that your parents are too strict with you, you don't have time to go out to play, or it may be that your parents are not in good health. You don't have time to go out because you have to take care of them.

Filial piety comes first. . . Accompany your parents... Don't travel far 、、、

Law can provide a beneficial institutional framework for the generation of social morality and a good living environment for the cultivation of individual morality. Although the law is not morality, it can purify people's hearts, make people agitate and purify, eliminate evil and retain good. Thus, while the rule of law is not the same as a moral conscience, it can nurture and stimulate people's moral conscience.

In a society, if everyone speaks of rules and acts according to the rules of the law, then this society is not a bad society, although it may not be a good society. In order for the law to be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people and play a role, it must also conform to the moral pursuit of society. In other words, the rules of law need to be moral.

This morality is not the growth of legal rules themselves, but the absorption of moral concepts by legal rules, thus highlighting the moral values of a society.

At the same time, the improvement of social morality, professional ethics, family virtues, and personal morality can enable people to strengthen their awareness of rules and the spirit of contract, promote social order and good customs, and consciously abide by the law. In addition, moral requirements that are widely recognized in practice, relatively mature and operational, may also be elevated to legal rules.

The relationship between law and morality cannot simply be divided or integrated. It is certainly not possible to insulate or even oppose the two, but neither will the mixing of the two. It should be made clear that the just order established by relying on the law is the foundation that no society can do without.

Today, we need to celebrate morality as well as the law.

The rule of law society has never excluded the role of morality in it, and even the morality of the traditional society in the past that evolved from natural emotions must be sublimated into a sense of social responsibility that can only be possessed through rational edification, so as to complement the rule of law, to bridge the gap between the law and reality, to lubricate the cold social relations built by the law between people, so as to greatly reduce the cost of a good operation of a society.

Law and morality have always cooperated with each other. Ancient Confucian scholars in China paid special attention to the role of virtue and emphasized the combination of etiquette and law. Confucius advocated the rule of virtue, "taking government as virtue, such as Beichen, where the stars live together".

This idea was adopted by thousands of years of feudal dynasties, proving its strong vitality. The Qin Dynasty only attached importance to "governing the government by law", burning books and pit Confucianism, although it was unified for a while, but finally forced the common people to rise up. History has clearly warned those in power:

While emphasizing the importance of the law, virtue should not be ignored either.

The collision of law and morality does not mean that the two are mutually exclusive, but it can be regarded as the run-in and reference in the process of blending the two.

If the law is regarded as a warrior and morality as a literati, the delicate relationship between the two is the same as that between He Shen and Ji Xiaolan: no matter how strong He Shen is, sometimes he needs Ji Xiaolan's tepid fine-tuning, and no matter how resourceful Ji Xiaolan is, sometimes he needs He Shen's courage and toughness to be appropriately balanced. Only when law and morality complement each other can they truly paint an excellent blueprint for social governance.

Both morality and law have norms that regulate a specific social relationship, but the difference is that moral norms are higher than legal norms, and law is the lowest bottom line; Morality depends on people's conscious observance, and the law is the coercive power of the state to ensure its implementation. However, there are differences, and the law should be used as the standard.

Where there is a law, follow the law. Because morality is formed by specific social customs and habits in a certain period of time, morality will also change with the change of people's values and social customs. For example, in the old society, if a wife did not allow her husband to take a concubine, it was considered a violation of morality, but now morality and law advocate monogamy.

According to the rank, first of all, it is necessary to determine that moral problems are self-restraint from the heart, and are regulated through social morality and other behavioral standards, he and the law belong to the category of social norms, but compared with the law, he has greater freedom space, if he cannot correctly handle his relationship with the law, it is bound to bring many problems to the development of society, for example, using moral problems to solve legal problems, it is bound to affect the authority of the law, so that the law becomes a dead letter, It is difficult to achieve long-term social harmony and stability through the use of public power and coercive safeguard measures; Second, it is necessary to face up to the fact that the law is not omnipotent, and that moral factors assist the process of the rule of law to a large extent, and even that in a certain period of time, moral factors replace part of the functions of the law, and since law and morality are both social norms, they must have their similarities and differences, and only by correctly facing up to their relationship can they better enable them to play their due role in the progress of society; Thirdly, when dealing with the conflict between morality and law, we should be good at finding contact points from their relationship, and through rational thinking, we should reasonably combine the needs of the real society to deal with the problems between them in a timely manner, and the law is very important in a society under the rule of law, but morality reflects the good and evil of the law from another angle, such as whether basic human rights are protected by law, whether social ethics conflict with the law, whether the law conflicts with the moral bottom line, and a series of issues, if you can't think through rational thinking and from multiple angles, It's hard to handle their relationship well; Finally, it is necessary to be good at using their common role to promote sound and rapid social and economic development. After all, the law is the bottom line of defense, and if the law is used in everything, it will not only bring a lot of inconvenience to both parties, but also a kind of destruction of the rational allocation of social resources, which not only leads to the waste of material resources, but also may intensify social contradictions, which is not conducive to social development and progress.

Personal interests include the satisfaction of the needs of personal material and spiritual life, the preservation and health of the individual's body, and the utilization and development of personal talents. National and collective interests, like individual interests, exist objectively.

The principle of collectivism asserts that the interests of the collective take precedence over the interests of the individual. advocate that when there is a conflict between individual interests and collective interests, individual interests should be subordinated to collective interests; When necessary, personal interests are sacrificed for the sake of the collective interest, or even to dedicate oneself to defending the collective interest.

Collectivism emphasizes both the unity of collective interests and individual interests, and also emphasizes that collective interests are higher than individual interests. This does not mean that in any case, whenever there is a contradiction between individual interests and collective interests, it is necessary for individuals to make sacrifices, still less is it arbitrarily required to unconditionally sacrifice individual interests no matter what the circumstances. This self-sacrifice is conditionally necessary.

The principle of socialist collectivism calls for the sacrifice of such individual interests, and such sacrifices are necessary, when individual interests conflict with collective interests, and individual interests have lost their legitimacy, without sacrificing such individual interests.

Individual interests conflict with collective interests, and individual interests are legitimate and can be satisfied under other conditions. And in the here and now, when collective interests cannot be realized without sacrificing the legitimate interests of individuals, the principle of socialist collectivism requires that individual interests must be sacrificed. This sacrifice shows a noble moral spirit.

The acquisition of personal benefits should not contradict the basic requirements of social morality. We must try our best to unify personal interests with social morality, and if we choose between social morality and personal interests, we must not hesitate to give up personal interests. (Insist on originality, I hope it helps, welcome to ask).

Interests are everything that individuals think is beneficial to themselves, and there are ways to fight for this so-called interest, and when we compare legitimate methods with means (i.e., improper methods), we become aware of social morality, that is, we become aware of social morality when we have interests. Social morality is the correct ideological quality recognized by people, and interests are the cause of social morality, but interests are not the reason that affects social morality. It is not so much the contradiction between personal interests and social morality, but the contradiction between human beings and social morality, that is, the contradiction between social morality and social morality.

Without people's corrupt (this is a bad word, I can't think of it) thinking, there is no contradiction between personal interests and social morality!! This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, just understand it, and don't care about the words and order.

If you want to understand the contradiction between the two, you must first understand what is personal interest and what is social morality. You say contradictory, I wonder if it can be understood that personal interests and social morality will inevitably contradict? I presumptuously interpret these two as:

Profit is that anything is beneficial to oneself, and it is the pursuit of one's own self; Ethics is a code of conduct that has been passed down through history and has been recognized by everyone. In this way, we can see that when the pursuit of the individual contradicts the pursuit of the public, our understanding of our own values is not comprehensive enough. My personal opinion is that everyone has their own values, good or bad, and when we contradict each other, we should make decisions based on our own values.

This is the view of the individual facing the conflict between the two.

The interests of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state. 1. Definition of collectivism.

Collectivism is the idea of putting the collective good first.

The Hui system is the core of the proletarian outlook on life and values, and is the basic principle of socialist morality.

2. The scientific connotation of collectivism.

The collective interest is higher than the individual interest;

collective protection of the legitimate interests of individuals;

Pursue a high degree of unity between the two interests.

Conscience is a code of conduct and value standard that is generally recognized by the real society and recognized by oneself. Conscience is the basic form of moral sentiment and a prominent manifestation of personal self-discipline.

Conscience, a Confucian term. It is the behavioral norms and value standards that are generally recognized by the real society and recognized by oneself.

Conscience is the basic form of moral sentiment and a prominent manifestation of personal self-discipline.

Conscience is the perception of one's actions, intentions, or character, and is often thought to cause guilt and remorse for doing bad things.

Many times we hear the phrase "touch your conscience and think about it". What does that mean? It means that you should ask yourself whether this is right or wrong, and whether your conscience will be condemned. Don't do bad things, don't be afraid of ghosts knocking on the door, that's what you say.

Be a man with a conscience, and never forget the people who have helped you, otherwise you will have fewer and fewer friends and the road will become narrower and narrower. To be a man must be worthy of conscience, conscience is the bottom line, and you can't lose your conscience if you lose anything. People can't live without virtue, can't have no conscience, the road is their own walking, being a man and doing things is their own experience, don't use the lack of virtue to pay every time, don't forget the true meaning of life with conscience in every place, people live a lifetime, what hurts, don't hurt people's hearts, don't cool feelings, be human, don't deceive people, do things, don't chill people's hearts, be deceived, don't believe it anymore, the heart is cold, people will be far away, don't wait for the loss to cherish again, don't wait for people to go away and regret it, be a man to be upright, Don't play with the heart, go far to see the truth, don't hurt the harmony to be considered complete, do things worthy of conscience, do not lack sincerity, do not hurt the heavens and reason, is the greatest positive energy in life.

Conscience generally refers to the moral standards that a social group collectively recognizes and strives to maintain. It represents the level of morality reached by a nation, a social tribe. Different countries and regions have different perceptions of conscience.