To understand what Maotu said, we must give a chestnut. This is an example seen in Douyin.
A podcaster saw a hole in a wall that had just been repaired on the side of the road. Because the material used is cement, it is incompatible with the surrounding plaster, which greatly affects the appearance of the street. It just so happened that this podcaster was a muralist, so he painted a big Shiba Inu on the cement wall to make the street more beautiful. The final effect is a big and cute Shiba Inu emerging from the dog hole and looking at passers-by in a relaxed and playful manner. I have to say that the originally ugly wall suddenly became much more interesting and beautiful, and many people came here to check in.
But good things never come together, and misfortunes never come alone. Within a few days, the mural was covered in various graffiti and became very ugly. Upon closer inspection, someone even wrote in small letters, "Why can you doodle?"
There are countless people in the comments below complaining about the broadcaster, but what I want to say is that those who complain about the broadcaster in the comment area are all cerebral palsy, and the first person who should be punished is the broadcaster.
This is not sensationalism.
First of all, painting on roadside walls must be approved by relevant departments and can only be carried out after obtaining qualifications. If nothing else, the broadcaster should be punished for this alone. The principle of not following the rules and not being able to achieve perfection is so rotten that I won’t go into it here.
Maybe you want to say that the broadcaster has good intentions and can do that. Didn't you say that good things should be judged by his heart and bad things should be judged? Isn't it a good thing that he wants to make the streets beautiful?
Okay, let's talk about it.
Are there too many examples of good intentions leading to bad things in this world? The behavior of the broadcaster is one of them. It seems that the podcaster has contributed to the beauty of the street, but he made a bad start, that is, as long as it is out of good intentions, you can do things that you are "not qualified" to do. It's the sentence "Why can you doodle?". Obviously the broadcaster can go to the relevant departments to apply for qualifications, but he didn't. This is his mistake. He destroyed order. You must know that the difference between human society and social Darwinism is because of order, and order protects the weakest people.
The harm of disrupting order may not be visible in the short term, but it will eventually be fed back to the weakest people through various means.
Don't understand this sentence? Just imagine, if the relevant departments allow such behavior without qualifications, there will be a second and third person who does not have the qualifications to do things. How can you ensure that the second and third people have good intentions? Are the streets beautiful? Isn’t it the best proof that graffiti appeared a few days later? Does it prove that human nature is inherently evil? And the severity of this incident has far exceeded the level of destroying the beautiful appearance of the street, because it is a violation of order. This is the greatest evil, and it is a crime committed against the weak protected by all orders. .
You say it's just such a trivial matter, why should I be surprised? Do I need to emphasize the principle of "a dike of a thousand miles is destroyed by an ant nest"?
So good things come to the fore and bad things come to pass. From the blogger’s personal perspective, he has done a good thing. For this street, he has done a good thing, but for the order of the entire society, it is indeed a big bad thing. Remember what I said before, what is the angle from which to judge good and bad things? It's someone else! Prioritize others, and you can be yourself without others. Can you still not tell which one is more serious when the beauty of a street and the social order are broken?
If you don’t judge according to this standard, then who is going to judge the good and evil of that blogger’s behavior? Are you going to judge?
Maybe you would say that the relevant departments have to make the judgment. Haha, the relevant departments have to make the judgment. If you go through the process, will you die?
The so-called process is just to clarify the person in charge and leave a name so that the person responsible can be clearly identified. The unification of obligations and power is the operating model of a modern ordered society. That's why we emphasize qualifications. This is also the reason why Ye Feng emphasized "qualifications" countless times.
Suppose again that you are the decision-maker and the choice is before you.
First, if you agree to the unqualified behavior of the broadcaster, you will have to invest more labor costs in the future to maintain, judge and manage whether the second and third will damage the beauty of the street. So how to judge? Remember, there is no actionability without quantitative indicators. It is too easy to get a backdoor by relying on people’s subjective judgment. It is conceivable that in this situation of no rules, order and standards, this will be a huge human cost investment, and the benefits are obviously enough to make up for this huge cost. Simply put, this is simply unmanageable.
So you can only choose to ban the so-called "good deeds" of bloggers to close the door that disrupts order and prevent more people from unmanageable evil deeds.
Are you saying that laws and regulations are not meant to punish evil and encourage good? Yes, this is true, but when there is only one choice between promoting a few good things and eliminating the majority of evils, the law can only choose the latter. Even if it sacrifices to promote a small amount of good, it can still only choose the latter. By.
Otherwise, where do you think the saying "The law is the lowest bottom line of human society" comes from?
Don't tell me that there are many good people in this world. "Although the human heart in this world is chaotic, human nature is inherently evil." The real meaning of this sentence is that although the human heart is chaotic, there are mostly black and evil people and less white good. Simply put, there are fewer good people and more bad people.
I don't believe in the so-called "more good people than bad people", Ye Feng doesn't believe it, society doesn't believe it, the law doesn't believe it, and history doesn't believe it either.
After explaining this, you will understand why although Ye Feng wants to help Mao Tu, which is a reflection of his ability to teach without distinction, he must come secretly, because Ye Feng is not qualified to teach Mao Tu. Ye Feng is Xiruo, Xia Yimo and Xia Xinghe’s teacher is not Mao Tu’s teacher. It was a good thing for Mao Tu and Ye Feng, but it was really a bad thing for the entire academy system in the Great Desolate Immortal Realm. Ye Feng is an outsider, and his nature is even worse. Therefore, he will not bully the weak, nor will he rely on his invincible power to overwhelm the rules that others have followed for a long time.
Because he is Ye Feng,
But he really wanted to help Mao Tu, so he chose this seemingly unnecessary method. On the surface, Ye Feng maintained the rules, but in fact, Mao Tu also benefited. This is the wisdom of doing things based on the principle of "seeing good things based on your heart and bad things based on your behavior."
The essence of Wang Yangming's theory of mind is: the mind is the principle, the unity of knowledge and action leads to conscience. Do you think that once you understand these 10 words, you don’t need to continue studying? Have you mastered Wang Yangming’s Xinxue? Are you too genius? Or too arrogant?
Good things come from your heart, bad things come from your actions. Although the essence of Ye Feng's heresy is only eight short words, it is by no means something you can grasp after understanding these eight words.
You still have a lot to learn, understand?
