The object of philosophy is man, to serve human life and the public good. But there was a time when philosophy turned its gaze to the vast starry sky and the vast universe, ignoring the existence of man. Socrates ridiculed the natural philosophers, saying that they knew the origin of the universe but did not understand the governance of the city-state and the rights of their fellow citizens. To this end, Socrates pulled philosophy back from the sky to the earth, transforming the "physics" of nature into an "ethic" of life, and his disciple Plato systematically studied "justice" in the Republic. But after the decline of Socrates and the whole of ancient Greek philosophy, philosophy once again floated into the sky, including the kingdom of heaven, God, and the Trinity, once again alienating humanity. It was not until the Renaissance brought about the dawn of humanism that Bacon and Descartes launched a second revolution in the philosophical world—bringing philosophy back to earth from heaven and elevating human reason to the main object of philosophy, making epistemology the fundamental problem of philosophy.
Modern philosophy is so speculative that Hegel once thought that morality, ethics, and politics did not belong to philosophy, and he excluded Confucius in the East and Cicero from the ranks of philosophers in the West. Fichte also claimed that the task of philosophy was to solve epistemological problems, and some people followed suit, asserting that "what is philosophy?" Philosophy is epistemology. It is as if one only chooses to be on the side of materialism or idealism to declare the completion of the task of philosophy. In fact, epistemology is only a basic question of philosophy, only a starting point. Philosophy cannot stop at man's knowledge, it also needs to continue to explore man's life. If the theme of modern philosophy is reason, then the theme of modern philosophy is survival. This philosophy was conceived from the Enlightenment.
Philosophy cannot engage in speculative games, but also needs to care about people's interests and lives
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="3" > human nature is selfish and pursues only personal interests</h1>
Man is the object of philosophical investigation, but at the same time he is the object of study of other sciences. For example, painters know people, mainly focusing on color and form; biologists know people, mainly focusing on organization and structure; literary scholars know people, mainly grasping character and morality. Philosophers who know man are concerned with nature and study how to reconcile man's nature with life.
Mencius and Xunzi were not concerned with what kind of animal man was, they debated only "sexual goodness" and "sexual evil"; Locke and Leibniz were not concerned with man's body and form, they debated only with the idea of man's innate nature—that is, philosophy was concerned with the innate "nature" of man. Are people born good? Or was he born evil? Are people born with wisdom? Or start as an idiot and grow into a wise man? This is what philosophy needs to solve.
When philosophy reached the stage of rationalism, the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century creatively answered the question of human nature. Among them, the philosophy of Aier Maintenance is the clearest.
What is human nature? In this regard, Elvis explains in On the Spirit that all human concepts come from sensations. Man is like a machine, the feeling is the clockwork that drives it. Give a happy stimulus, people will make positive actions; and give a disgusting stimulus, people will passively resist, so it is said that "man's driving force is the pleasure and pain of the flesh", and human nature is to pursue happiness and avoid pain. Everyone loves their own body, defends their own interests, and regards this practice as a principle of standing. So, in this sense, human nature is selfish. But selfishness does not equal self-interest, so human nature is neither good nor evil.
French Enlightenment thinker Ier Repair
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="10" > ethical standards are based on the public interest</h1>
Elvis believed that human nature is selfish, and society can use this nature to make people do good or evil.
For example, some religious beliefs contain many moral precepts, taking advantage of people's selfish psychology of thirsting for protection and blessing to guide them to accumulate good deeds and perform merits; for example, some political parties use people's selfishness and ignorance to provoke publicity and mutual harm between them, so as to divert contradictions and defend the regime. At the time of the French Revolution, the same group of people could be heroes and righteous soldiers who defended their homeland, or they could be brutal butchers who killed their compatriots. It all depends only on how the social environment affects them and how it exploits the selfish nature of human beings.
Adhering to the principle of interests is to respect the selfish nature of human beings and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of everyone. It is not the principle of interest that leads to evil, but that some people use it to do evil. The principle of interest governs everyone's judgment, and when faced with a choice, people always weigh it up and consider whether their own interests are satisfied before putting them into action.
What is morality? Elvi said that virtue cannot be separated from interests, and only morality that can maximize the public interest is true morality. Morality that is contrary to the public interest is not noble at all. For example, in feudal society, women's chastity was regarded as a major morality, but this morality was based on the suffering of countless women, contrary to the public interest of countless women, and was not a true morality, but it was repeatedly advocated and preached by moralists, and could not be questioned; Buddhists believed that killing was an evil virtue, rejecting meat, and ordinary people could not recognize their moral standards. Moralists like to pay attention to the debate between righteousness and profit, and try to separate the relationship between justice and interest, as if when it comes to profit, it is bound to violate righteousness. The Enlightenment thinker Elvigne, on the contrary, declared that justice is nothing more than maximizing the public interest, and morality must also be based on the public interest as the minimum standard, and acts that violate the public interest must be immoral, but immoral behavior is not necessarily contrary to the public interest.
In this way, Elvis acknowledges the selfish human nature while at the same time encouraging people to dedicate themselves to the cause of defending the public good, achieving the unity of the two interests. The individual, based on human nature, seeks his own interests without harming others and harming himself, which has nothing to do with morality, is not interfered with by anyone, and must be guaranteed by law; A tolerant society must not only encourage dedication to the common good, but also recognize selfishness and only oppose self-interest. If you only recognize the public good and oppose selfishness, you will fall into the predicament of moral kidnapping.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" Data-track="17" > Why should personal interests be subordinated to the public interest? </h1>
Alvier's ideas were the prototype of utilitarianism, acknowledging the legitimacy of individual interests while elevating the public interest to a very high level. This ideology became jeremy Bentham's theory of legislation in jurisprudence and David Ricardo's in economics.
In On the Spirit, Aier repair gives an example when a ship is adrift at sea for a long time and the seafarers are in a desperate situation due to lack of food, people decide to decide which person will be eaten as food by casting lots. In this case, the public interest of the whole man clashed with the personal interests of the unlucky egg who had been caught, and the people did not hesitate to kill him and eat him. In this case, people's actions are still just, because such behavior is in the public interest and maximizes the benefits. This is a utilitarian thought.
In the view of moralists, killing and eating people is ultimately unjust. They would rather the whole ship die than tolerate cannibalism, and this pursuit of absolute justice cannot guarantee the perpetuation of mankind. In the utilitarian view, cannibalism is sometimes unavoidable and must be done in order to preserve the public interest. The crux of the matter is what to do to reflect fairness and justice, which is why the practice of equal opportunity is adopted, so that everyone can become a victim and everyone has a chance to survive. The one who catches the caste should blame misfortune on the treacherous circumstances and the poor fate, not on the cruelty and ruthlessness of his fellow citizens.
In Chinese history, this kind of similar thing has also appeared, but due to the lack of procedural fairness and justice, it has not really realized the values of utilitarianism, but has whitewashed the crime of bullying the old and weak women and children. During the Three Kingdoms period, Yuan Shao besieged Zang Hong, and all the grain and grass in the city were eaten, and in order to "safeguard" the public interest, Zang Hong killed his concubines and distributed them to the soldiers to fill the hunger. At that time, the status of women was extremely low, and they were not looked at by people at all, so Chen Shou and Fan Ye all admired Zang Hong's narrow meaning and recognized his behavior. At the end of the Ming Dynasty, Wang Fuzhicai was the first to question it, and he said in the "Reading Through the Commentary": "Hong takes private grace as the righteousness of a song, and fights for his own life, and the life of a county is also destined for it, and the so-called hero is with him!" The sin of cannibalism cannot be ignored. "Zang Hong has two major sins: first, for the sake of personal favor, he does not hesitate to take the lives of people in a city; second, he arbitrarily decides the life and death of his concubines, killing people to eat people. It is not in line with utilitarianism, nor is it in line with justice. After Zang Hong, there was a patriotic cannibal in the Tang Dynasty, that is, Zhang Tour. In order to guard Suiyang, Zhang Tour did not hesitate to eat 30,000 old and weak women and children, and his crimes were heinous, but he was regarded as a hero by the Tang Dynasty.
Utilitarianism allows decisions to be made at the expense of individuals in difficult situations, but which individuals to sacrifice must be decided through fair methods such as casting lots and drawing lots. Instead of leaving some people, certain groups, to decide the life and death of others. In the famous "trolley conundrum", it is believed that utilitarians would pull the lever and drive the tram to another track, sacrificing one person to save five people. In fact, this is not in line with the principle of utilitarianism, which will only determine who is the victim by casting lots, and will not arbitrarily designate someone to be the victim according to his own wishes.
In the utilitarian view, it is necessary to sacrifice the individual to defend the whole, but which individual to sacrifice must be determined by fair means— everyone can be a victim, everyone must defend the public interest, and only by doing so is morality and justice.