Address the gap between rich and poor in a legal and ethical way

The problem of the gap between the rich and the poor is caused by our basic economic system. China's basic economic system is an economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and economies of various ownership systems coexist. Therefore, this leads to the fact that China's income distribution system is based on distribution according to work, with a variety of distribution methods coexisting, and each factor of production participates in the distribution according to its contribution.

This has created a gap between the rich and the poor.

Therefore, legal and moral means cannot solve this problem. It cannot be solved in any of the social systems that exist at the present time. When communism comes, it can be solved theoretically.

Moreover, China is now in the initial stage of socialism, and there is still a long way to go before a communist society.

Law and morality can only play a role in maintaining and regulating social relations. In a market economy, laws and ethics restrain and regulate illegal and immoral behavior. It has played a role in promoting the narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor. Moreover, the gap between rich and poor is closely related to national and local policies.

I don't know if I understand, hehe

The moral settlement is somewhat too ethereal.

In fact, to solve this problem, we should still implement marketization, and this requires the role of law.

The disparity between the rich and the poor in contemporary China is not at all caused by the market, but precisely because the allocation of resources is unfair, not in accordance with the laws of the market, and artificially controlled too much. As a result, inequality of resources and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

At this time, relevant laws and regulations should be improved to ensure a fair and reasonable competition mechanism.

At the same time, the state should formulate policies to supplement some temporarily vulnerable groups, and at the same time curb the concentration of resources through measures such as taxation. However, we must get rid of the traditional concept of "robbing the rich and helping the poor".

This is a problem that can never be solved, believe it or not?

Your question itself contains a point of view that should be clarified first, and the evaluation criteria of law and morality are different.

This view, in an uncivilized society, is not civilized enough for the legislator to make moral laws.

The theory of connection expounds the relationship between law and morality: moral norms naturally originate from people's conscience, and in the process of people's transactions, people who abide by moral norms naturally uphold the civilization of the connection of justice. People according toMoral bottom lineThe establishment of laws that require everyone to comply with them, the coercion they have, the universal requirements of self-recognition and social identity of good people, and the basic relationship of equality for all.

In a civilized society, law and morality are the same, and the difference in standards is only a difference in quantitative hierarchy. For example, the crime of verbal abuse (subjective negligence) is immoral, but not illegal; Therefore, the crime of assault (subjective negligence) is immoral and illegal, but it does not necessarily constitute a crime (sentencing). When the injury reaches a certain degree (subjective negligence) crime, immorality, illegality, (sentencing) crime.

The legal evaluation of human behavior is based on moral evaluation, and moral evaluation generally adopts a moral paradigm of connection:

Doctrine principle: The essence of moral norms, which determines the subject's goal form, norms, and moral choices, that is, morality. Efficacy Criteria:

The by-laws of the Code of Ethics measure the values of the actions that are taken to achieve the goal, i.e., merit. Fame and fortune: The first moral view.

Recognize the value of realistic goals and ethical values. Honor and Disgrace: The second moral view.

Recognize the value of human goals and the choice of ethical means and means. Justice Expectations: Affirmation of ethical goals.

Moral hazard: There is a subjective factor that undermines justice and violates morality to grab goals. Civilized Pact:

An ethical contract in which the form and content of the subject matter and the transaction are conducted. Rights and Obligations: The point of the contract.

The agreement revolves around the specific actions of the current goal and the distribution of benefits after the goal is achieved. Common Order: The core rules of ethics that stipulate how people can trade together to determine their goals.

Self-Maintenance: Establish permanent goals, specific values. The individual spirit under the common order includes the display and maintenance of interests, character, dignity, reputation, and characteristics.

On this basis, the way of legal evaluator is reflected in the focus of the contract, that is, the agreement and performance of rights and obligations.

Criminal sentencing is embodied in qualitative sentencing: confirmation of subjective negligence, that is, the nature of the act, the quantitative criteria, and the results and impact of the act.

The difference between law and morality is mainly manifested in the following aspects: (1) The origin time of the two is different. (2) The formation of the two is different.

3) And this differs in manifestation. (4) And this differs in the scope of adjustment. (5) And this is implemented in a different way.

Main Differences:

1. The law is externally mandatory, and the external punishment after violating it is punitive; Morality, on the other hand, mainly relies on self-realization, and the consequences of violating it are generally one's own condemnation and punishment of oneself.

2. The law mainly regulates people's physical behavior, while morality mostly regulates people's inner thoughts.

Morality is the spiritual guarantee that makes this society more harmonious and beautiful, and law is the compulsory guarantee that makes this society more orderly. You can think of bad things but you can't show action, thinking is your spirit, and if you become an action then the law will force you to change this action and pay for it!

Law is mandatory, while morality is arbitrary! The law is the bottom line of morality!

The law is human, and morality is emotional.

One is the principle and the other is the bottom line.

The law can bind you and protect your rights.

Whether it is harmful to society and the public.

Single choice or multiple choice?!

If you choose a single choice, I think it's B