Moral Yardstick 200

It's too unclear for you to ask questions, how do I know who you're going to talk to, what is the purpose of your speech, if you're giving a very serious speech, and I give you a topic that doesn't fit the atmosphere of your speech, will you be satisfied, even if you're satisfied, will the people listening to it feel good?

And as for novelty, needless to say, if the audience cares about morality, and you say the ruler very innovatively, will people listen, people want to hear you, but you sing very innovatively, isn't it nonsense?

So the speech should be targeted, and the most basic thing is to think about what kind of purpose the speech is intended to achieve, and when the goal is achieved, the speech is considered a success, and you are not a failure, and the most important thing is to speak to the audience, you have to consider their political quality, social status, cultural upbringing, psychological needs, and so on.

Anyway, you didn't mention what kind of morning meeting it was, and you didn't say who the morning meeting was, and that's the problem in your question, so I can't help you, and if there's a bunch of hooligans, I'll give you a very uncomfortable question, I'm afraid they'll beat you.

You're a tendon that I don't understand so much to tell you It's better to give a few thousand points Let me write it for you -- if you don't want to, just read it twice more and see it to know how to write It people choose you to write You don't have to write but you want to write something new here This is writing morality, big brother Morality is very real You just need to be able to express morality to your classmates and friends in words that they like to hear Morality is very simple and simple There is no need for a vivid plot and no flowery rhetoric Morality is related to life So to stay close to life, you can learn from public service announcements.

Tell you the truth, don't be upset, teachers and classmates trust you to write, you're afraid that you can't write well, come to ask for advice, others are enthusiastic to guide you, but you are not satisfied, you have to ask others to help you think about it, do you think this is so moral, maybe the best middle school in the city, this hat is too big, and you don't dare to be yourself.

The topic is better to think about by yourself, I really can't think of it, so let's just call it nameless.

The title is called: The Measure of Moral ---.

Specifically, we should focus on some social phenomena, of course, including topics of interest to middle school students, and give some vivid examples.

It contains a moderate amount of humor, and the title "Morality, what should be measured?" 》

Morality is to do it for others to see, and human nature is the bottom line of being a human being.

Personally, I believe that from a large point of view, morality is acquired, it can regulate people's behavior, and it cannot be replaced by law; For example, if someone says that you "have the opposite sex and no humanity", then he means that you only pay attention to liking the opposite sex and have no thoughts and brains, and you are scolding you for not being human. Of course, some friends said this without malicious intent, just joking.

Morality is socially prescribed, and human nature is innate.

Some passengers are also very tired, but an 80-year-old man just came up, do you say let it go? I don't think the 80-year-old will be tired after standing for a while, so it's okay for the passengers to take care of it

Under normal circumstances, the number of mentally ill people has decreased, the number of disabled people has decreased, there have been fewer fights, hooligans, thefts, robberies, and frauds, fewer petitions, fewer lawsuits, and fewer divorce rates. This is an important yardstick for the people to measure the degree of civilization of the country.

Basically, it can be said that, first of all, economic development is absolutely built on the basis of culture, and it is impossible to develop without a certain culture. However, once the economy has developed to the point where the existing culture can no longer sustain its sustainable development, it means that the culture has fallen behind. Therefore, the level of economy and culture is mutual, as long as a country's economy continues to develop or has great potential for development, it means that culture is also good, and vice versa.

The fact that a foreign country does not have a huge culture means that the country does not have the conditions for development.

However, the level of economy and culture are often relatively independent, and in reality they do not match perfectly. The general development of culture lags behind the economy.

Therefore, the development of foreign cultures proves that the economy is developed, but the development of the economy does not necessarily indicate the development of culture.

These two moral yardsticks cannot be combined, one is giving, the other is giving, the two are like one giving, the other is taking, the giver does not necessarily ask for return, the recipient does not necessarily reciprocate, even if the two ask and reciprocate from each other, it is just a change of position, so the two will not be combined.

It is impossible to merge, first of all, two words and two meanings.

Secondly, one giving and one receiving cannot be compared at all.

Question C Analysis: This question tests the student's ability to make the right choice of behavior according to the requirements of morality and law in a specific situation, option C is about the performance of fighting against violations and crimes, and is fulfilling the obligations stipulated by the law, so option C is the correct answer. None of the other three options is ethically and legally imperative and should be excluded.

Comments: This question combines the actual life of students to guide students to regulate their own behavior in accordance with morality and law, which not only tests students' mastery of relevant knowledge points, but also imperceptibly cultivates students' correct values, which is a rare and good question.

Flipping through the magazine casually, a name named Lin Qingxuan flashed out. Many years ago, he was regarded as the "godfather of morality" by Taiwan. It was not long after I learned about this "title" that I heard that his extramarital affair broke out.

The name of the "godfather of morality" has been blackened. Everywhere there was invective voices. His words are also defiled in connection with his character and morality.

After many years, I read his words again. He still sells him skillfully, and he doesn't feel much vicissitudes. Good words are still good words.

At this moment, if you think about it, did he explain it himself? Or how did he live? Nothing. He's still him. It doesn't matter if you get married, or if you live. He's just him.

Everyone should have a way of life and an attitude. Anyone can do it. Why give people a limit in our hearts? How much do we know about people?

After reading a few other people's texts, I worship them as gods. When he knew that people were mortals, he spoke ill of each other.

Why bother?!

A story came to mind by chance. It is said that it was an old monk who found an abandoned baby when he was sweeping the mountain gate in the morning. He took it back and raised it.

People say: it is his illegitimate son. He replied:

Is that so? When the child grew up, his mother recognized him. And they said:

What a noble character he is! He replied: Is that so?

People are still the same people, but they come and want to go like this. Or noble, or invective. In fact, everyone has a moral yardstick in their hearts.

Hold this ruler in hand, take a good step in life, take life, work, students, relatives and friends seriously, and be a moral person. It's good to be worthy of your heart. Each of us should have a moral yardstick.

Kant rejects the notion that the will is governed by external causes, instead arguing that the will legislates for itself and that the human ability to distinguish between right and wrong is innate, not acquired. This set of natural laws is the supreme command, applicable to all situations, and is a universal moral code.

Kant believed that a true moral act is an act done purely on the basis of obligation, and that doing something to achieve a certain personal utilitarian purpose cannot be considered a moral act.

Thus, Kant argues that the moral conformity of an action does not depend on the consequences of the action, but on the motivation for taking it. Kant also believed that we are only free if we obey the moral law, because we are abiding by the moral code that we have made ourselves, and if we do it only because we want to do it, there is no freedom at all, because you become a slave to all kinds of things.

Cultivate your soul with good morals and understand legal norms.

Choose good role models. Because example is the scale on the scale, and by choosing an example of goodness and righteousness, we can avoid going astray.

Learn to analyze rationally and think about the different consequences of different value choices. Establish a beautiful ideal.