Unconsciously, it becomes a process in which students ask questions and Ren Feng keeps answering.

"Principal Ren, is our school going to hold a music festival? Can we go up and sing at that time?"

Ren Feng responded: "This is naturally okay, there are several stages, you can also go up, the person in charge of this matter is already arranged, if you want to go up, practice first, and then pass the performance calmly." ”

"Principal Ren, there is a boy who said he likes me, but he hasn't acted, I don't know if he likes me, Principal Ren, I'm so annoyed, what should I do?"

Ren Feng responded: "Judging a person is not based on what he says, but by what he does, since he doesn't even want to do it, what do you like?"

Some of these questions are serious, some are not serious, and some people ask Ren Feng what are the fairy tales in that fairy tale town at that time, and he is very interested in these.

This reminded Ren Feng, so he said directly: "You go to Nanxing Publishing House when the time comes, I also plan to write and publish these fairy tales, and you can be responsible for this content." ”

This time, the student was really overjoyed.

In addition, there are many strange questions, and Ren Feng has answered them one by one.

For example, there are still fewer snacks in the northwest in the food street, and there is no cake cutting, such as when will there be an exchange program in Nanxing College, for example, can there be more philosophy teachers in Nanxing College, and there are all kinds of problems.

……

Naturally, this incident also had a great impact on the students of Nanxing College, at least there were a lot more people learning English.

The days are still slow, and the discussions in the three prefecture-level cities are as stable as ever, and this stability means that the discussions are inconclusive.

At the same time, the first debate competition in South Star College was also held to the quarterfinals.

"The quarter-finals of the debate are here, and this time the topic is whether ethics should be results-oriented. ”

"Shall I take a look?"

"I'm definitely going, I'm still curious. ”

And at the moment, the game scene.

Sitting on the debate table was Chu Zhe and his roommates.

The opposing side was on the debate table again, and at the same time, cameras were set up at the scene.

There were quite a few people sitting at the scene.

Moderator: "The positive view is that the moral code is not based on the final pursuit of the result, and the negative view is that the moral code is based on the final pursuit of the result. Now, I would like to ask for a second argument. ”

"Moral code is not based on the final result, morality is noble because of itself, just like when someone sees someone falling into the water, flies into the water to save them, and finally both of them die. But isn't such a heroic act morally noble?"

The other side argues: "The moral code is to pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, so it must be result-oriented." Let happiness be the most and pain the least. Let happiness outweigh pain. Because life is full of happiness and pain, including family, city, and even human society. Happiness and pain are such dichotomy. What we have to do, of course, is to make more happiness and less pain. Morality should give people happiness and reduce suffering, isn't it?

As mentioned before, the pain of one family has become the pain of two families. Pain increases, happiness decreases, and this is exactly what is true from the point of view of results. ”

There were also a lot of staff and students sitting at the scene, and there were actually many people who were interested in this debate.

"This time, the topic of the debate is not easy to solve. ”

"yes. One of the people next to him frowned, "Each side has the possibility of winning." ”

"Let's see what they say. ”

And the debate between the two sides has also begun to intensify.

Opposed: "In exchange for a thousand, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of millions of people at the expense of one person, may I ask the positive side of the debate, if it were you, would you be willing? The moral code should be result-oriented, for example, the two sides of the army fight each other, and a major commands his soldiers to stand on the defensive line, and he orders the soldiers to die to resist, and if they resist, they can buy time for the main force of the country and win the victory of the entire campaign."

Of course, there is no doubt that the warriors who continue to stay on this fragile line of defense must return to the arms of death. That is to say, for the sake of the great interests of the whole situation, for the victory of this battle, it is necessary to sacrifice the soldiers on this line of defense, these soldiers will definitely die, or in other words, in order to protect himself, a certain general pulls the soldiers on the side to block the gun, and finally the soldiers die, and the general of the inventory leads to win this victory.

It should be said that such a scene is commonplace, and it is not surprising that it is a matter of sacrificing the local part and taking into account the overall situation, can you say that this is immoral? If we are not result-oriented, if we lose this war and bring ruin to the country, do you think this result will be good?"

Everyone is looking at the positive side, and at this time, the opposite side obviously has the absolute upper hand.

Those few opponents are obviously also winning, but on the other hand, the positive side is at an absolute disadvantage.

Free debate is the most important part of the debate competition, and it can even affect the quality of the outcome.

Chu Zhe stood up and said lightly: "The opposite side is a little mistaken, this example is inappropriate, the soldier died on the battlefield, and the general you said pulled the soldier to block the gun in order to protect himself, it is not the same concept." The soldier died, they knew, and the second soldier who was blocked from the gun, was unaware, the former was a sacrifice, and the latter could only be murder.

Knowingly or not, this is the difference between sacrifice and murder.

The relationship between people and people, and the relationship between people and tools, is not the same. People should be equal and respect each other. But this is not the case with tools, which are useful and discarded if they are useless. Man is dignified, and each person, who is an individual life who lives an individual life, deserves respect.

But if we follow the opposing view, then what will people be seen?

People are seen as tools.

Man, and indeed all rational beings, exist because he is an end in himself, and not a tool for this or that will alone! The humanity in one's own person, and the humanity in other people, is at all times regarded as an end in itself, and can never be regarded as a mere means.

Going back to your first question, would I be willing to sacrifice one person for a thousand, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of millions of people?

No, I don't, or the rest of the people don't, unless the person violates the fundamental rights of others, or the person voluntarily gives up. ”

Opposed: "Do you just watch thousands of people lose their basic rights because of one person's selfishness?

Chu Zhe looked at the other party levelly: "Is it just to let the selfishness of thousands of people and let a lonely person lose his basic rights?"

Note that ethics are not a numbers game, nor is it about who is more powerful than whom. The most important and fundamental principle is that the basic rights of a person are inviolable, whether he is a person or a group of people, the rights of a person and a group of people are the same, and they are equal in the scales.

The starting point of the topic of this debate is wrong: to talk about morality, we must first talk about the basic rights of man, and man has three rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property, and these three basic rights cannot be deprived by any government. The ultimate realization of respect for morality in human society is respect for the dignity of human nature itself, and such a moral code is a law worthy of respect.

As for measuring morality by results, it is easy to fall into the realm of utilitarianism. ”

The people on the other side were dumbfounded!