Original title: When will Wu Jing be forced to donate 100 million to the robbers
Reading guide:
Standing wolf 2: Wu Jing was forced to donate when the fire broke out. There is no doubt that this film has made Wu Jing famous and rich, but this is not the reason why Wu Jing should make a huge donation. Wu Jing is not the only star forced to donate, and the logic behind it is not difficult to understand. However, when can this robber logic
Standing wolf 2: Wu Jing was forced to donate when the fire broke out. There is no doubt that this film has made Wu Jing famous and rich, but this is not the reason why Wu Jing should make a huge donation. Wu Jing is not the only star forced to donate, and the logic behind it is not difficult to understand. However, when can this bandit logic draw a rest?
Three logics behind "forced donation"
In human society, helping others is a virtue worthy of respect and praise, so all societies advocate and encourage charitable acts such as donation. But in life, can we ask or force others to do charity? Or can the whole society force others to do charity by law? Many people may give a negative answer to this, but when natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or typhoons occur, the phenomenon of "forced donation" often occurs.
Recently, Wu Jing, an actor who has attracted much attention because of the movie "War Wolf 2", has been trapped in the vortex of "forced donation". After the Jiuzhaigou earthquake, he sent a microblog to pray for the safety of the earthquake area. Many netizens left messages behind saying, "How much money is Mr. Wu going to give to the disaster area with such high box office and high profits?"
Wu Jing is not the only star or public figure who has been "forced to donate". Since similar phenomena often occur, we can't help thinking: What wrong logic needs to be opposed behind the "forced donation" phenomenon? What correct logic do we need to adhere to?
The phenomenon of "forced donation" reflects a deformed logic of "moral kidnapping". From the individual level, it is commendable for everyone to pursue moral improvement, such as self-examination and helping others. Further, whether we can ask others to pursue virtue as we do, the answer to this question is not so sure, because it not only involves different understanding of morality, but also involves the expansion of morality from individual self-improvement to behavior guidance between groups. "Moral kidnapping" is to impose one's own moral standards on others and use them as the basis for accusing or forcing others. In practice, "moral kidnapping" tends to appear in two diametrically opposite ways. One is to put oneself on the moral high ground and accuse others of not doing something is immoral, such as saying that it is immoral to say stars do not donate money; The other is to put the other party on the moral high ground, accusing others of not doing something is hypocrisy, such as saying that money is not worthy of being a social elite.
Behind the phenomenon of "forced donation", there is a lack of real charitable logic in our society. For example, the core of charitable acts such as donating money to help others is voluntary. On the contrary, there is another way to do good deeds is to pay taxes. For the latter, the state collects funds through taxation to help people in need in society, such as welfare rights or policies in contemporary society, which are mostly realized in this way. If charity can also be enforced, what is the difference between charity and tax payment? When China's charity legal system was established, relevant departments had proposed that every citizen should be allowed to contribute part of his salary to charity every month, but it was not recognized.
The phenomenon of "forced donation" shows the lack of a real right logic in our society. It is often reported in the media that this is an era of rights, and even a society of rights generalization. However, the increase of rights does not make us understand the nature of rights more deeply, and individual rights should be regarded as the "trump card" against the utilitarian majority. Each of us has the right to own property, which is a basic right protected by the Constitution. Restrictions on property rights need to be justified with sufficient reasons. The mentality of "hating the rich" in society is the biggest harm to property rights. The logic of "forced donation" believes that people in disaster areas need help, and the rich naturally need to donate more money when they are rich, which is almost another version of "big eaters". The result of this logic expansion is that anyone's property can be taken away under this pretext, including those who are in favor of "forced donation".
We are more willing to believe that the "forced donation" phenomenon on the Internet is just an emotional vent of the "keyboard party", rather than a common social phenomenon, but the "forced donation" behavior is definitely not a promotion of philanthropy, but a harm. Therefore, a mature charity culture needs to be well developed on the basis of respect for rights and voluntariness.
This article is transferred from: Hexun（ http://news.hexun.com/2017-08-25/190581504.html ）
