The following contents are for reference only, and can be deleted（ voidcat@163.com ）
14. Is patriotism a dangerous evil?
For unpatriotic people, the 18th century English poet Walter Scott cursed: "Let him die twice and then let him go to hell." Zimmerman was ironic: "The love for the motherland... in many cases, it is just the love of the donkey for the donkey shed."
Is patriotism a noble virtue or a dangerous evil? Before analyzing this problem, we must first make clear what patriotism is!
The most common meaning of patriotism: loyalty to one's own country is a special love for the country, a special obligation, loyalty and commitment to the country and compatriots. But it still has problems. Does patriotism mean that you support your motherland unconditionally? If so, patriotism is certainly not a virtue. Whether right or wrong, your support first means that you give up your position as a free and independent person, and abandon your independent judgment. Moreover, blind loyalty to the king or the country is morally unacceptable. For example, if your country is involved in an unjust imperialist war, it is likely that you have an ethical obligation to criticize your country. Secondly, blind patriotism is often used to achieve evil goals. Therefore, unconditional support for the motherland is extreme patriotism. This kind of thing, except for being used as a tool for manipulating public opinion by people with ulterior motives, has no recommendation significance for others.
There are two popular American classics: "Taxation without representation is tyranny"; "Where there is freedom, there is my motherland." The latter is closer to cosmopolitanism than patriotism. So between extreme patriotism and cosmopolitanism, there is also a kind of moderate patriotism: "My country, when it is right, keep it right; when it is wrong, reform it."
Of course, extreme patriotism is not advisable. The remaining question is, is moderate patriotism preferable to cosmopolitanism? The best expression of cosmopolitanism is that the Spanish philosopher George Santayana put forward: "In my opinion, it seems to be a terrible shame to have a soul controlled by geographical location." According to cosmopolitanism, I am first a citizen of the world. It doesn't matter where I happened to be born, Birth did not give me any special reason to value one piece of land rather than another. I am a citizen of a certain country. As long as the country is right, I support it; It is wrong, and I try to correct it. However, I have no special obligation to correct the mistakes of my country.
The most obvious scarecrow fallacy about patriotism: if you criticize your country (or leader), you will not support your country, or even hate your country. In some countries, it is said that you are a traitor!
The reasons for supporting moderate patriotism are as follows: 1. Our special obligations to the state are based on our gratitude for the benefits given by the state. We have benefited from the national system and received benefits; 2. We need a common commitment to implement ambitious plans and make personal sacrifices for the national interests; 3. The country gives people a sense of belonging and loyalty to a larger group, which is seen by most people as a bond, and this bond is an important element of a rich and satisfying life.
Reasons for cosmopolitanism: patriotism is arbitrary, and it doesn't matter where you happen to be born; Patriotism usually exaggerates a country's advantages and covers up its shortcomings, and it is easy to slip into militarism and attack outsiders.
Waller's summary: It is a moral mistake to support the government's brutal killing policy in foreign wars; Patriotism is a very dangerous emotion, which will lead to unnecessary and unjust wars; Patriotism can sometimes produce positive results, such as human exploration of the universe, medical inventions, and close cooperation or even common sacrifice to achieve the country's highest ideals. As for the pros and cons, we need to measure them by ourselves!
15. Freedom of speech or speech norms?
In Europe and the United States, freedom of expression has become common sense, and what is restricted is only related to hate speech, such as the use of racial and ethnic discrimination vocabulary, and disdain for others' sexual orientation and religious belief in speech.
Reasons in favor of freedom of speech: 1. Freedom of speech is not always rational, it may also be emotional. Freedom of expression means freedom of expression, including the freedom to express foolish and evil beliefs and ideas, even if these beliefs and ideas are expressed through offensive racial abuse. Indeed, ugly words can cause problems. But the bigger problem is to let the government or other authorities judge the quality of speech and limit it. The price of true freedom of speech is to allow dirty and ignorant speech to have their voices. 2. If we ban hate speech, we will not be able to deal with potential problems, which will only worsen. 3. The prohibition of hate speech tends to benefit the most powerful groups rather than the most vulnerable minority groups.
The reasons in favor of speech norms are: 1. Hatred speech is not just speech, but an act in essence, a threatening act; 2. Hatred speech has destroyed the atmosphere, deprived the real discussion space, and marginalized some people, even excluded them from the discussion.
Waller's conclusion: 1. No one would suggest to prohibit even the most evil and stupid propositions and views. The question is whether abusive and slanderous words should be allowed; 2. Even those who most strongly oppose speech norms agree that threats and harassment are unacceptable under any circumstances; 3. The values of respecting diversity and protecting freedom of expression may fall into conflict, but it is important to remember that this is not a conflict between opposing values, but a problem of different weights in values: the value of freedom of expression and the value of tolerance!
16. Moral obligations and social responsibilities of enterprises
The responsibility of an enterprise is to maximize profits. However, in addition to performing obligations to shareholders, does it also have obligations to society, the country, the world and others?
With regard to the negative obligations of enterprises, both parties to the dispute believe that enterprises should not lie, cheat, steal, harm others or break the law. With regard to the positive obligations of enterprises, we believe that individuals have certain obligations to help others, but enterprises are far from self sacrifice when doing good deeds, because good deeds can enhance the corporate image and increase product sales. There is another kind of complexity. For example, its carbon emissions are within the legal limit, but now it can significantly reduce emissions by installing a purifier, but this will increase investment and reduce profits. So, is it morally obligated to install the purifier?
The scarecrow fallacy about corporate responsibility: it believes that requiring enterprises to assume responsibility requires enterprises to sacrifice all their attention to profits to promote public welfare.
Reasons against corporate responsibility: 1. The purpose of enterprise operation is to make profits, which is an obligation to investors; 2. The company's pursuit of profitability leads to the highest efficiency and ultimately ensures everyone's success; 3. An enterprise's contribution to social welfare is an abuse of power by the company.
Reasons in favor of corporate responsibility: 1. This is a good thing! Even better! Because it is a very good commercial investment, it is also beneficial to the enterprise itself, and will bring a win-win situation; 2. Enterprises should support social interests, even if such support will reduce profits. Because the enterprise's own efforts are by no means the only factor for the enterprise to make profits, its region and society are the social factors for its success in making money, and it is obligated to repay the society. Winning situation; 2. Enterprises should support social interests, even if such support will reduce profits. Because the enterprise's own efforts are by no means the only factor for the enterprise to make profits, its region and society are the social factors for its success in making money, and it is obligated to repay the society.
17. Summary
The 15 cases mentioned above by Waller are all American. Some of these arguments are "American style", which is a bit far away from China at present. However, no matter how much space we have for quarreling, the topic of quarreling is also Chinese style. Waller's personal experience has provided us with enough enlightenment. Again, it mainly depends on the temperament - the quarrel should be more elegant!
