道德沙塵暴與國民性問題 | 易中天1001的BLOG (2010-01-01 10:41:44) | | Moral Sandstorms and the Question of China's National Character | Yì Zhōngtiān's 1001 Blog (2010-01-01 10:41:44) |
| 時代周報: 您如何評價當下中國的道德情況? | | Time Weekly: What is your assessment of the state of morality of China today? |
| 易中天: 我哪有這資格?評價沒有,感覺有一點。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: How am I qualified to answer this? I don't have any assessment, just a bit of a feeling. |
| 時代周報: 甚麼感覺? | | Time Weekly: What kind of feeling? |
| 易中天: 成問題,沒辦法,不甘心。貪官前腐後繼續,企業坑蒙拐騙,高校抄襲成風,球場弄虛作假。從官方到民間,那個領域,那個行業,完全乾乾淨淨,一點事沒有? | | Yì Zhōngtiān: That there is a problem, and that we can't just sit back and do nothing about it. In the aftermath of the initial rot of corrupt officials, we have businesses defrauding, cheating and swindling; then plagiary in high schools becomes the norm; and now there's corruption in sports. From top to bottom [literally, "From government to the people"], is there any place or activity that is completely clean and doesn't have at least one stain? |
| 時代周報: 那您怎麼描述? | | Time Weekly: Well then how would you describe the situation? |
| 易中天: 沙塵暴。我認為當下中國的道德狀況,可稱為“沙塵暴頻發”,就是老有駭人听聞的“缺德事”發生。比如三鹿奶粉案,比如杭州飆車案、鄧玉嬌案等等。但我們不能說,全中國都變成“道德沙漠”了。畢 竟還有那麼多的善舉善行,比如志願者,比如地震捐款行動。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: Sandstorms. I think the moral state of China today could be called a "recurring sandstorm". I mean, appalling "immoralities" are constantly occurring. For example, the Sanlu milk powder incident, the Hangzou drag-racing incident, the Deng Yujiao incident, and so on. And yet, China isn't altogether barren of morality. After all, there are still many kind acts and good deeds, for example, the volunteerism and donation drives after the [Sichuan] earthquake. |
| 但“道德沙塵暴”太凶了,動不動就出人命。更讓人憂慮的,是止不住。比如酒後駕車,成都那邊剛判了個孫偉銘,南京這邊又出了個張明寶,連撞九人,五死四傷。公眾就會想,這樣下去,怎麼得了啊! | | However, these "moral sandstorms" are fearsome, and all too often end up taking human lives. What's also troubling is how they never stop. Look at drunk driving: over in Chengdu they just sentenced Sun Weiming [to death for killing four people], and then here in Nanjing they sentenced Zhang Mingbao [to life imprisonment] for crashing his car into nine pedestrians, killing five and injuring four. People need to consider, if we go on like this, what will the consequences be! |
| 時代周報 政府應會有所作為的啊? | | Time Weekly: What then should the Chinese government do? |
| 易中天: 在道德問題上,政府最好不要管,不該管,不能管,也管不了。政府管道德,對公民和政府都會造成傷害。政府管道德,無非擔任兩個角色,一是倡導者,二是仲裁者。當仲裁者,對公民不利。因為政府手中有公權力呀,權力還很大。這就很容易把道德裁判變成“法外施刑”,把有道德污點的人變成“過街老鼠”。當倡導者,則對政府不利。因為這會對政府官員的道德水平,提出極高的要求。他們甚至必須是全民的道德楷模,否則就不好意思當倡導者。結果是什麼呢?是一旦出現貪腐,則政府威望盡失。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: The government had best not, must not, cannot, and will not administrate the morality issue. If the government tries to administrate morality, it will harm both the people and the government itself. If the government tries to administrate morality, it will have to play two roles: (1) as morality arbiter, and (2) as morality promoter. If the government becomes the arbiter of morality, that will not be good for the people. With public authority in its hands, the government's power is enormous. Governmental moral adjudication could easily turn into an "extra-legal" system of punishment, and make morally tainted people the targets of witch hunts and popular hatred1. On the other hand, being morality promoter will not be good for the government. For it will raise unreasonably high expectations on the ethics of government officials. So much so that they will have to become the very models of morality before the entire population. Otherwise, promoting morality will get very awkward. So what'll happen? Some corruption scandal breaks out, and then the government's standing goes out the window. |
| 時代周報: 設立“國教”,借助宗教的力量行不行? | | Time Weekly: Setting up a "state religion", to leverage the power of religion, would that work? |
| 易中天: 學術界確實有一部分人提出來,說要有信仰,甚至主張建立國教。比方說,將儒學變為儒教,再把儒教定為國教,認為這可以解決道德問題。因為在西方社會,道德的使命很大程度上是由宗教來完成的。可惜這同樣行不通。第一,中華民族是沒有宗教感的,不然早創造出來了。第二,儒學在本質上是反宗教的。儒學的主張,是 “以人為本”,不是“以神為本”;是“人本主義”,不是“神本主義”,怎麼可能變成宗教?第三,一個現代的、民主的、法治的國家,是不能建立國教的。中華人民共和國憲法,也規定公民有信仰的自由。這就包括有信教和不信教的自由,也包括如果信教,信哪個教的自由。如果把儒學定為國教,是違憲的。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: It's true that in academic circles there are some who say we must have religious beliefs, and even go so far as to advocate establishing a state religion. Say, for example, let Confucianism-the-academic-discipline [儒學 Rúxué] become Confucianism-the-religion [儒教 Rújiào], and then make Confucianism the state religion. They think that this would solve the morality problem. For in Western society, morality's job2 was largely accomplished by religion. What a pity then that it won't work in the same way here. First, the Chinese people do not have an affinity for religion, otherwise they would have created one already. Second, Confucianism [the academic discipline] is itself essentially anti-religious. Confucian principles are "people-centered", not "God-centered", "humanist", not "theist". So how could it be made into a religion? Third, a modern, democratic country governed by the rule of law cannot establish a state religion. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China stipulates that citizens have the freedom of belief/faith. This includes the freedom to believe in a religion or not to believe in a religion, and for those who do believe in a religion, it includes the freedom to choose which religion to believe in3. Making Confucianism the state religion would violate the Constitution. |
| 時代周報: 有人說,只有人類共同的弱點,沒什麼中國人特有的“國民劣根性”。所謂“國民劣根性”,是殖民主義者的臆造。你怎麼看? | | Time Weekly: Some say that all weaknesses are shared by all of humanity; that there are no "national character flaws" particular to Chinese people; that these so-called "national character flaws" are colonialist fabrications. How do you see it? |
| 易中天: 我們有三千年的文明史啊!我們是道德感極強的“禮儀之邦”啊!這會兒居然刮起“道德沙塵暴”來,誰甘心啊?所以,我們的態度,是擔憂而不絕望。絕望,這個民族就完了。但要從根本上解決問題,還得改造國民性。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: Our civilization is three-thousand years old. We are a "country of propriety4" with the highest moral sensibility. And now these "moral sandstorms" come sweeping in. Are we going to sit down and take this? We should be worried about our manners, but we mustn't become hopeless. If we become hopeless, then this nation is done for. Still, we have to deal with this problem on a fundamental level, and must transform our national character. |
| 世界各民族,是不是都只有人類共性,沒有民族個性?如果有,就不能說只有人類共同弱點了。再比方說,什麼叫“劣根性”?是不是與生俱來、不可更改的?如果是,那就誰都沒有。所有的缺點和毛病,都是後天的,也都是可以改變的嘛!所以,問題並不在于叫不叫 “國民劣根性”,而在于是否承認我們的國民性有問題。 | | Do the various peoples of the world only have one shared personality, and no unique personalities of their own? If not, then we cannot say that all weaknesses are shared by all of humanity. For example, what are "character flaws"5? Are they something innate, that cannot be changed? If so, then no one has "character flaws" [i.e. innate and unchanging flaws in character5]. For all faults and shortcomings are acquired, and they all can be changed! Therefore, the problem does not lie in what we call or don't call "national character flaws", but rather in whether or not we admit that our national character has problems. |
| 時代周報: 您認為有問題嗎?中國人要站起來,必須破除消滅民族自信心的魔咒,你怎麼看? | | Time Weekly: You think it has problems? Shouldn't the Chinese people stand up, and rid themselves of this curse of vanished national confidence. How do you see this? |
| 易中天: 冰凍三尺,非一日之寒。今天的“道德沙塵暴”,恰恰源于積重難返的“國民性問題”。中國沒有“公德”,也沒有“私德”,只有在熟人之間,才講道德。其他地方,就不講。這樣一種道德,顯然是靠不住的,甚至不是道德。如果利益的誘惑足夠大,為朋友兩肋插刀,就很可能變成“把刀插在朋友肋上”。 | | Yì Zhōngtiān: Rome was not built in a day. The origin of today's "moral sandstorms" lies right in this hard-to-get-rid-of deep-seated6 "national character problem". There isn't any "social/public morality" in China, nor any "personal/private morality". We only talk about morality among people we know. Otherwise, we just don't talk about it. Such a kind of morality is obviously not reliable. When the lure of one's own interests becomes great enough, the friend who would take a bullet for you may well turn into the friend who puts a bullet in you. |
| 真正的自信心,是可以被摧毀的嗎?如果可以,那他並不自信。如果自信,那就不能摧毀。要讓一個人沒有自信,只能在他還沒有建立起自信心的時候,比如小孩子。可是,有著三千年文明史的民族,還是小孩子嗎? | | Genuine self-confidence, can it be destroyed? If so, then that isn't self-confidence at all. If it were real self-confidence, then it just couldn't be destroyed. If you want someone not to have self-confidence, that is only possible when they haven't yet built it up in the first place, as with small children. But is this nation, with its three-thousand year history of civilization, still a small child? |