Introduction to Appraisal of Moral Conscience and Encouraging Kindness1. The Origin of Moral Conscience Appraisal
In the beginning, moral conscience only existed in people's hearts. Different spaces, different times, and different groups of people would have different standards of moral conscience. Human beings do not have universal standards of moral conscience. The World Credit Organization [WCO] once Acts of moral conscience are classified as acts of dishonesty. Later, I noticed that some behaviors obviously violated the moral conscience, but they did not violate the mandatory provisions of the law, nor did they violate their promises. It was a bit unreasonable to classify them as dishonest behaviors. Therefore, in February 2011, the World Credit Organization [WCO] issued the "ICE8000 International Credit Standard System Moral Conscience Appraisal and Advice Standards" (Standard No. 111), which officially opened the exploration of universal standards of moral conscience for human beings.
Second, moral conscience, social civilization, law
Social civilization is inseparable from moral conscience. The common law system has always regarded moral conscience as an important source of law, and even the civil law system has made great efforts to use moral conscience as a supplement to the law. Next, we cite a well-known case in which a country with a civil law system regards moral conscience as a supplement to the law.
Before the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany, Wall guard Inge Henrich was tried in February 1992 for shooting an East German youth trying to climb over the wall. Both Henrich and his lawyer argued that the guards acted merely to carry out orders and were not guilty. However, Theodore Seidl, the presiding judge, believed: "As a policeman, it is guilty not to carry out the orders of superiors, but it is not guilty if it is not accurate. As a person of sound mind, at this moment, you have a gun. The sovereignty of raising your mouth by one centimeter is a duty of conscience that you should take the initiative to undertake. In this world, there is conscience beyond the law. When the law and conscience conflict, conscience is the highest code of conduct, not the law. Respect for life, It is a principle that applies everywhere." In the end, guard Henrich was sentenced to three and a half years in prison without parole for intentional shooting. The Henrich case has been widely publicized as a case of "the highest standard of conscience", and the sovereignty of "raising one centimeter" has become a duty of conscience that human beings should take the initiative to undertake in the face of bad governance.
Third, the bottom line of moral conscience
According to the "ICE8000 International Credit Standard System Moral Conscience Appraisal and Advising Good Standards", the bottom line of moral conscience (which can be referred to as the moral bottom line for short) is as follows:
(1) Do not intentionally [damage or potentially damage the legitimate rights and interests of others] subjectively, and sincerely correct and/or apologize if you know that you have [damaged or potentially damaged the legitimate rights and interests of others] objectively. (In short: do not intentionally hurt others, and sincerely correct and/or apologize if you did wrongly.)
(2) Subjectively not to seek or maintain [the rights and interests of another person or a group of people or oneself] at the cost of damaging or potentially damaging [the legitimate rights and interests of another person or a group of people]. (Note: The mayor assigning the police to risk their lives to stop a violent crime does not constitute damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the police [the legitimate rights and interests here refer to: the right to life and health], because a person who chooses the profession of the police is equivalent to using a contract The form transfers part of the legitimate rights and interests of oneself [the legitimate rights and interests here refer to: the right to life and health when performing duties]. Another example: the bank president orders the staff to wear work clothes during work, which does not belong to the damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the employees [here The legitimate rights and interests refer to: the right to dress freely], because a person chooses the profession of a bank employee, which is equivalent to transferring part of his own legitimate rights and interests in the form of a contract [here the legitimate rights and interests refer to: the right to freely decide what to wear during work] ].)
(3) In the event of a conflict [such as: war, civil dispute, etc.], the parties to the conflict subjectively avoid damage or potential damage to the greatest extent [innocent and third parties], and give compensation to the objectively caused damage or potential damage compensation. (Note: Various conflicts are objectively unavoidable sometimes, but regardless of whether the conflict itself violates the moral bottom line, the parties to the conflict should not damage or potentially damage the legitimate rights and interests of [innocent and third parties].)
(4) When it is known that a person or unit has violated the bottom line of morality, and before the person or unit sincerely corrects and/or apologizes, within the scope permitted by objective conditions, do not provide him with support, assistance, and cooperation other than humanitarianism . (In short: do not support [the immoral person] until he sincerely corrects and/or apologizes.)
Welcome to reprint, please indicate the source of the reprint World Credit Organization [WCO]