Does China need a moral legal system now?

There is no one-size-fits-all measure of morality: for example:

One person was knocked to the ground, and 10 people were watching. Only one person called the police.

Are those nine people to blame? What if those 9 people knew that they didn't have the knowledge of rescue and didn't dare to save people casually? They may also be protecting the injured person from secondary injury

If 9 people come to the rescue, 1 person is onlookers. And if the injured die because of improper care, should we condemn the rescuer? In turn, praise the onlookers?

Another example is the problem of giving up seats on the bus:

In our common sense, the elderly, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant have the right to ride first. Young people should give up their seats first

But do young people have to let it?

What if a young person has a hidden illness, such as a fever? Does he have to prove to everyone around him who despises him that he has a fever?

At the extreme, he is a disabled person, does he have to remove one foot or one leg in front of everyone to prove that he has the right to be a seat?

I have seen with my own eyes the old lady who stood in the ** trading market for a long time, and went to the bus to pretend to be dead and ask for a seat for others

I have also seen an old man who is more energetic than a monkey when he runs and dances in the park, but when he gets on the bus, he is depressed and mad when others don't let him do it

Generally speaking, as long as it does not harm the public interest, does not violate the law, and is not indifferent to extreme situations. We should not condemn it.

After all, they have the right to do so

A strong social security system and legal protection and social supervision are far more useful than the promotion of so-called morality.

Human nature is inherently good, if you can do good without worries, I think the vast majority of people are still willing to do good

When it comes to morality, I think today's social morality has reached the most dangerous time, for example, many shops now sell fakes, restaurants and hotels basically use gutter oil, various wineries rarely use grain to roast wine, and the streets and alleys are selling wine, according to the wine sellers, no matter what, it is to make money, and at that time it was okay not to drink to death, these are not supervised by the legal department, and there are now large hospitals, regular tertiary hospitals, seeing a doctor is not to hope that patients are good, but to hope that rich people will enter, and all diseases rely on surgery, Surgery is because patients can spend more money, after surgery patients are traumatized are easy to leave sequelae, greatly shorten the survival rate of life, these most obvious moral problems do not have a correct legal procedure management, the law is used on those small people, what kind of social morality is this, every time there is a movement, the small people will suffer, especially those who sell real goods on the streets and alleys to do small business, and those who have money are not bound by the law, these are related to morality, and social morality forms personal morality.

The morality of the Chinese people is not lacking. What is lacking is the ethics of governance. If the government is not so dark, who would not want to help others.

I think it is very necessary to at least pass a law to severely crack down on those who seek benefits through the compassion of others, otherwise who would dare to be noble!

I think that both should be equally important, and there is no more important conclusion, such a conclusion is more in line with modern society.

A lot of people have been arguing about which is more important, morality or the rule of law, but I have always believed that both are in the same place in one way or another. Ethics and the rule of law go hand in hand, just as the moon and the sun both exist at the same time. Even if it disappears, no human being can survive on Earth.

The same is true of ethics and the rule of law for the stability of society. Morality is the bottom line of the law, and the fundamental purpose of the existence of the rule of law is to restrain people's behavior. A law-abiding person does not necessarily have to be ethical, after all, both have limitations in many ways.

Therefore, there is no more important doctrine. <>

In addition to being in equal positions in terms of status, I think the meaning of the existence of the two is different. We need to understand that laws were made by human beings to restrain a person from doing harm to others. But morality comes from the heart of human beings, and it is human beings themselves who understand what kind of things to do and what not to do.

Therefore, law is to restrain the behavior of others, while morality is to restrain one's own inner dirty thoughts. The two are fundamentally different in the sense of existence, and different moral constraints and different laws are required in different situations. <>

As I said above, morality and law go hand in hand. Both of these are important factors in the formation of society, and without either one, the whole society will fall into chaos. It is necessary to understand that the development of human society has been established on the basis of the rule of law since ancient times, and the survival of human beings in society is constrained by morality.

People who abide by morality are naturally nobler in terms of personality, and are always able to make reasonable choices in the face of anything, rather than acting recklessly. <>

I think that in human society, both morality and the rule of law are very important; Because this is related to people's behavior, and the law restricts their behavior, if it is true that these two things are true, the whole world will become chaotic, and human society will also undergo earth-shaking changes.

The rule of law is more important in human society, and only with the rule of law can we regulate everyone's behavior and avoid bad things from happening.

I think it depends on the situation. Because sometimes morality can override the rule of law, and if morality can't restrain him, then the law will.

China has ("Moral Law of the People's Republic of China").

The excerpts are as follows:1Basic norms of civic morality: patriotism and law-abiding, courtesy, integrity, unity and friendliness, diligence and thrift, self-improvement, dedication and dedication.

2.Social morality.

Main norms: civilized and polite, helping others, caring for public property, and protecting the environment.

Discipline. 3.Professional ethics.

The main norms: dedication, honesty and trustworthiness, fairness, service to the masses, and dedication to society.

4.The main norms of family virtues: respect for the old and love for the young, equality between men and women, harmony between husband and wife, diligence and thrift, and unity in the neighborhood.

FYI.

Ethics is a non-legal code of conduct that is not the same as law.

Morality is morality, morality is morality, how to interpret the law? How is it the other way around? He's not the law.

1. Differences in statecraft.

The ultimate destination of "rule of law" and "rule by virtue" is in governing the country, but the focus of the two is completely different. In other words, the former mainly focuses on "governing the law" first, while the latter mainly focuses on "governing people" first. Theoretically, in terms of the importance of "governing people" and "governing the law", "governing people" should be more important than "governing the law".

This is because, first of all, the content of "governing people" actually contains the requirements of "governing the law", and the ultimate purpose of "governing the law" is still to "govern people". Second, "governing people" is the basis for "governing the law," and "governing people" helps to better "govern the law."

As a norm, law can only constrain people's external behavior, but cannot set foot in people's inner world; To get into people's inner world, we need people themselves.

2. "Rule of law" is the rule of other laws, and "rule by virtue" is the rule of self-discipline.

From the perspective of the fields involved in the "rule of law" and "rule by virtue", the "rule of law" is the rule of other laws, that is, it only restricts people's external behavior, and realizes the governance of people by restricting people's behavior, and it has no way to interfere with people's inner world, which belongs to extraterritoriality;

The "rule of virtue" is the rule of self-discipline, which can not only restrain people's behavior, but also restrain people's ideology, and achieve the purpose of restraining people's behavior by restraining people's ideology, which belongs to the rule of governance. Since people's behavior is always governed by a certain ideology, from this point of view, "rule by virtue" is a higher-level mode of governing the country and a rule that cures the root cause; The "rule of law" is a necessary stage for the eventual realization of the "rule by virtue" and is the rule of the symptoms.

Both morality and law belong to the superstructure and are determined by the economic base. What they all have in common is that they are all norms of behavior that regulate the relationship between people and between people and society. The difference is that law only dictates what cannot be done, while morality dictates what should be done; The law is mandatory, while morality mainly depends on people's consciousness, morality is the spiritual pillar of law, and law is the pillar of moral power.

The two can be converted into each other under certain conditions.

The law is the minimum required morality, and morality is the highest required law.

Law and morality are both in the realm of the superstructure. Law belongs to the realm of the system; Morality, on the other hand, falls under the category of social ideology. There are two important manifestations of the intersection and penetration of law and morality:

First, legal consciousness and moral concepts have the same attribute and are interrelated, and second, the scope of regulation and control of legal norms and moral norms overlaps and tolerates each other. Morality is the evaluation standard and driving force of law, and it is a useful supplement to law; The law must be based on morality, and the law is an effective means of disseminating morality.

The relationship between law and morality is a simple and complex issue. The above views are for reference. If there is any mistake, please correct it.

Morality is the basis of law, and law is the criterion of morality.

Morality is the foundation of law, and law is the bottom line of morality.

The law is the bottom line of morality, and morality is the high standard of the law.

The connection between law and moralityMarxism believes that law and morality are different and related. Without the economic basis and class nature of law and morality, the relationship between the two cannot be properly explained.

Law and morality (the morality of the ruling class) is a superstructure based on some kind of economic base. In the final analysis, they depend on the material living conditions of the ruling class. The law opposes the morality of the ruling class, conforms to the morality of the ruling class, and plays the role of interdependence, mutual promotion, and mutual cooperation.

Generally speaking, any act that is opposed by the law is also condemned by the morality of the ruling class; Any action required by law is also an act advocated by the morality of the ruling class.

Morality is the foundation of law, and law is the guarantee of morality.

Neither of these claims is accurate.

1. In a sense, law is the concretization, standardization and strictness of morality, because in terms of the evolution of law, the original law is the first to be morality.

2. But law is not the same as morality, and law is stricter, more accurate, and narrower than morality.

3. Morality is different from law, morality is based on people's hearts, traditions, etc. But the law is different, and the law is uniform within a country.

4. Morality and law overlap in a small area, such as the concept of maintaining public order and good customs, fairness and justice, equality and mutual benefit, etc.

That's all for a brief.

Morality and law are two different categories, and they are not the relationship between inclusion and inclusion, but two categories that have a certain intersection. For example, abiding by the law is also a manifestation of morality, and immoral behaviors such as cheating and abduction are also not allowed by law.

No one includes anyone, and the two can only be said to be partially intersecting

The law can only be the minimum morality, and the requirements of morality are higher than the law, but the law still needs to be adjusted outside of morality