What Is a Credit Circle?

Credit behavior refers to the activities that can be performed by the subject and object of the credit. In general, it includes: credit media, credit transformation, credit replacement, credit transfer, credit creation, credit enhancement, and credit offset.

Credit behavior

Right!

Credit behavior refers to the activities that can be performed by the subject and object of the credit. In general, it includes: credit media, credit transformation, credit replacement, credit transfer, credit creation, credit enhancement, and credit offset.

Chinese name

Credit behavior

Attributes

Judgment of negative moral value of credit behavior

Nature

Higher moral value

Provenance

"Mencius Lixia"

Judgment of negative moral value of credit behavior

I. Judgment of the negative moral value of credit behavior ^[1]

As the most basic social morality, everyone should abide by, but some credit behaviors do not have any moral value. This principle is not understood by everyone. On the one hand, Confucianism regards faith as the most basic morality, but on the other hand, it says, "adults, you don't have to believe in words, you don't have to do things in a word, but you have righteousness." From the perspective of Confucianism, "righteousness" has a higher moral value than "belief". In the case of contradiction between faith and righteousness, you should insist on righteousness and discard it. Inadequate. Credit behavior has negative moral value, which is not uncommon in social moral life. The following three situations are worth analyzing.

(1) Credit actions that harm higher moral principles have no positive moral value

In the social moral system, credit is one of many social morals. Above integrity and credit ethics, there are higher ethics. For example, in the Chinese traditional moral code system, the most important is the so-called "five constants", that is, "benefits, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, and faith", and faith is at the bottom. In today's 20-character basic ethics of citizens, "patriotism" and "observance of law" are obviously higher than "integrity." As far as traditional morality is concerned, credit is harmful to the four virtues of "benefits, justice, courtesy, and wisdom." As far as socialist citizen morality is concerned, if honesty harms patriotism and abides by the law, then the moral value of such honesty behavior is also questionable.

Here is an example to illustrate this problem. There is a well-known story in the history of "The End of Life Drowning for Faith": the end of life and the woman live under the beam, and the long-awaited woman does not arrive, but the river skyrocketed, and the end of the life drowned and died. Obi is dating a woman under a bridge. The other party is not yet there, and Obi is waiting hard. It is a sincere gentleman who talks about credit. However, as the river skyrocketed, people could no longer stop under the bridge, and people with a little brain would leave quickly. But Obi was stuck with credit and refused to leave, and as a result there was only a dead end. Although some people take the end of life as a model of credit, this behavior does not have any moral value.

If we analyze this behavior, we will find that it has many misconducts. First, this rebel behavior departs from the purpose of the behavior itself. Secondly, this rebel behavior deviates from "intelligence". Thirdly, this behavior of rebel faith hurts "benevolent" morality and "filial piety" morality. It can be seen that if the act of keeping promises violates other higher moral principles or hurts higher moral values, then this kind of keeping promises has no positive moral significance. In real life, similar behavior can make the same value judgment. If a doctor disregards the occasion and objective situation, regardless of the patient's psychological capacity, and tells the patient the true condition of the patient casually, "we can't judge this behavior as behavior with good moral value anyway."

(2) Credit between private individuals has harmed the public interest but has no positive moral value

In terms of credit, we need to distinguish between public and private, personal interests and collective interests. In real life, we often see that some people are generous in order to fulfill their promises to relatives and friends, often in violation of national regulations in order to show their credit. A person in charge of the project may tell the other party of the project in order to fulfill the promise to a close person, a tax collector may collect less taxes for the faithfulness of a friend, and a reviewer may vote for an acquaintance. One vote. In all these cases, the so-called credit behavior cannot receive moral praise.

Credit is divided into grades and sizes. A person is not only a unit person, but also a person in the circle of relatives and friends. There is a question as to who his behavioral credit is. If a person deals with matters that must be handled in the job, then his identity and role is a unit person, he represents the interests and will of the unit and the collective, and he must jump out of the circle of personal interaction and must forget the private Friendship. It is the duty of the "unit person" to be responsible to the collective or unit, and to give credit to the collective or unit. On the contrary, if he abandons the unity and the group's faithfulness for the sake of personal faithfulness, he renounces his post responsibilities, that is, the small letter hurts the big letter and the private letter hurts the public letter.

In this piece of land in China, there has never been a lack of credibility between individuals. What is lacking is credibility to safeguard collective interests. Because the credit education we've been receiving for a long time comes mainly from tradition. For a long time, the letter was defined on the letter of friends. Modern society has undergone earth-shaking changes. People have left their families and devoted themselves to individual units, becoming veritable "unit people." People's work is the job of the unit, which represents the interests and will of the unit. Therefore, when talking about credit, we must talk about collective credibility. This sense of credibility has been realized by the thinker Han Feizi at the end of the Warring States Period. He once pointed out that filial piety to his parents and trust in the township party friends would hinder the interests of the public. Of course, the public interests he talked about mainly refer to the interests of feudal states and feudal monarchs, which are the private interests of feudal monarchs and the ruling class, not real public interests. Under socialist conditions, collectives and public families are collectives and public families of all citizens. Collective and public interests are the collection of the interests of each "unit person" and the collection of the interests of all citizens. Therefore, this is the true public interest. However, the credibility education that is actually needed is too small, so that it becomes a common thing to take advantage of the public and damage public welfare. We specifically point out the distinction between public and private credit, and emphasize that credit behavior between private individuals does not have a positive moral value when it hurts the public interest, that is, to establish the subordinate status of private credit to public credit.

(3) Credit behaviors starting from evil purposes have no positive moral value

There are good and evil in society, and there are good and evil. Doing things for evil purposes is for evil things, and those who are used to doing evil things are for evil people. Evil is soft and evil. Weak will, timidity to do evil, insignificance, lack of integrity, lying to deceive others, is for tenderness and evil. People already know this kind of wicked and evil things very clearly and need not repeat them. However, people do not know very well about some hard and evil behaviors. While praising credit behaviors, they intentionally or unintentionally, more or less affirm certain hard and evil behaviors, so we need to analyze from the perspective of credit.

CCTV No. 2 reported a message in the "First Time" column at 8 am on November 4, 2005: a residential building in Harbin had a security door theft. These thieves stealing the security door is not stealthily doing it, but unloading the security door of the residential building during the daytime. Police discovered more than 30 theft-proof doors from their residences at one time.

The thief stealing the security door during the day is really a blatant provocation to the public order! This kind of behavior by the thief is blatant and under the broad daylight, and it can be said to be extremely honest, but we cannot be sure that it is positive Moral value. This is not integrity, but a madness. There are many similar behaviors in society. "I'm a hooligan, who am I afraid of!" This is not the hooligan's credibility, but the hooligan's madness. Thugs who threaten people are often put into action. This kind of strong-behavioral behavior with bad purpose, although it may be said to do it, cannot be considered good.

Between the wicked and the wicked, credit is often spoken. Underground transactions such as drugs, smuggling, and money laundering may not necessarily be creditless; terrorists dropping bombs in public places and claiming to be responsible for the incident afterwards can also be said to be a type of "credit"; the invaders openly made their intentions , Purpose and requirements tell the aggressed that it also seems to have some kind of credit. However, precisely because these actions are for evil purposes, their credit has become a means to achieve evil goals, so they cannot be affirmed that they have good value because of their credit content.

In short, we cannot generalize that all credit behavior is ethical, but we must examine the purpose of the behavior. With this in mind, we can judge the value of credit behavior. Of course, we can generally affirm that credit behavior has good value, but it must be under the premise of affirming that the purpose of credit behavior is good.

2. Judgment of positive moral value of non-credit behavior

Since integrity or credit is a basic morality, then an act of good faith or trustworthiness is a kind of good behavior. On the contrary, an act of dishonesty or trustworthiness is an evil or immoral behavior. This is arguably the most common view in society. This view is usually correct, but not dishonest or untrustworthy under any circumstances is unethical. For some special areas of social life, under certain special circumstances, dishonesty or lying, dishonesty or non-credit behavior still has positive moral value. We analyze the following three situations.

(1) "Dishonest" words and deeds that appear during price negotiations during market transactions cannot be judged to have negative moral value

The market is the product of exchange behavior. Since human beings have surplus products, in order to communicate the existence of people, they have traded goods with each other. Over time, a fixed place where goods are tradedthe market has also formed. Market behavior can be said to have acquired a nature from the first day of its birth, that is, trading. For buyers and sellers who make a living in the market, buying cheap and selling expensive is the only way for them to obtain benefits. The modern market has long transcended the concept of the place where goods are traded, and has become a way of allocating resources for society. However, the nature acquired when it was born is still the most fundamental characteristic of market behavior.

There are two main ways of market transaction behaviors. One is bilateral or multilateral trading in accordance with the existing contract. The other is that there is no established contract before the transaction. Agreement is reached through bilateral or multilateral verbal bargaining, and then the transaction is completed. . In this way, the transaction has two stages before the contract or agreement is reached and after the contract or agreement is reached. Whether it is honest and trustworthy is very different between the two stages before and after, and the value judgment of whether the behavior is honest or trustworthy is also very different in these two stages.

For market behavior that has reached a contract or agreement, both parties to the transaction must abide by the written contract or verbal agreement. They must not tear up the contract and fail to keep their promises. For market behaviors that have not reached a contract or agreement, the two parties to the transaction first have a process of how to approach the transaction. In this process, the buyer must understand the performance and price of the seller's goods. Only when the performance and price ratio of the goods is most suitable for him, he will consider to enter into a deal with the seller. In addition to this factor, the seller's attitude, appearance and goodwill are also important factors in the transaction. The buyer and the seller have no blood relatives and no friends. He deals with the seller entirely because his goods are in his favor. The seller should understand the needs and psychology of the buyer in order to maximize the sale of the goods. The seller also has no blood relatives and no friendship with the buyer. He only deals with the buyer in order to sell the goods to the other party and sell them at the highest price. There is neither a buyer nor a seller in the market. Which one can reach a sales contract or verbal agreement for a particular seller and buyer depends on bargaining before the sale is realized.

In the course of the negotiation between the seller and the buyer, in order to realize their own best interests, the buyer and the seller will almost always speak to the other party in the best way. Sellers are always praising how good their products are, how their prices are better than other merchants, how their services will be in the future, how their products will be in short supply, how high the prices will be for the customers they sell to, etc. All of this is to reach a sales agreement with the buyer who came to negotiate. It is in the seller's interest to reach an agreement on the sale at the highest price. The seller had quite a few rhetoric in the negotiations and was not very honest. In the introduction of this genuine and fake product and the bargaining negotiation of high and low prices, although there may be many false words, if it is not a good charge, a waste of new or after-sales service commitments, Failure to honor is not a violation of the moral standard of integrity. Especially in terms of the price of goods, you can ask for it all over the sky. If you can sell the highest price of similar products of similar businesses, it is a demonstration of the seller's ability. The disparity between the bargain and transaction price of certain special commodities such as antiques, calligraphy and paintings with high cultural content is often unexpected. In order to obtain goods of low quality and good price, the buyer is often critical of the seller's goods, comparing the prices offered by other merchants that do not actually exist and negate the prices offered by the seller. It also does not violate the moral standard of integrity.

(2) Dishonest words and deeds generated by good faith cannot be judged to have negative moral value

Morality has a mission to pursue the good. Because integrity and trustworthiness can achieve or achieve good interpersonal relationships, integrity and trustworthiness have been promoted to a moral standard. On specific occasions, if honesty and trustworthiness cannot be achieved, it is not necessary to insist on integrity and creditworthiness. As long as it is of good faith and can really achieve the effect of good, dishonest words and deeds cannot be judged as evil. In actual social life, this kind of dishonest behavior by good faith is commonplace, and we should give it the correct value positioning.

Good-faith actions for the purpose of saving lives, although they may be dishonest, have no evil value. We know that the doctor's bounden duty is to save lives, as long as it is an action that is conducive to saving lives, it should be morally affirmed. A person suffering from incurable diseases is often extremely vulnerable. If the doctor is thinking about the patient, starting from the patient's actual situation, starting from the patient's ability to bear, telling the patient's condition selectively according to occasion, degree, strategy, or even telling lies that are contrary to the facts, Overcoming disease can help, and it is by no means immoral.

You should not make bad value judgments about words and deeds that are based on respect for others. Human beings are different from other animals. Their lives are not only for the sake of being alive, they must and should be living with dignity. Personal dignity is linked not only to morality but also to law. Therefore, in daily communication, citizens should always think of their love and respect for others. For example, on some occasions, if you tell someone that you ve done something bad, it may be objectively consistent with the facts, but it hurts someone s dignity and reputation, and for someone s future life And work has had an adverse effect. This "good faith" behavior does not actually have good moral value. If one speaks of others' faults in the name of good faith, it is not honesty, but a kind of malicious propaganda and slander against others. On the other hand, when talking about others, do nt just talk about their faults. In order to maintain the reputation and dignity of others, you may or may not know it. This is not only of bad value, but also of good value.

(3) No last resort lies that violate moral principles cannot be judged to have negative moral value

Man is a social being, so interpersonal harmony and the orderly operation of society are very important for everyone. Interpersonal harmony and the orderly operation of society need everyone to maintain. Words and deeds in people's daily life have an impact on others and society, so we cannot ignore the consequences of speech acts. To achieve interpersonal harmony and the orderly operation of society requires multiple efforts, and upholding the principles of justice and maintaining the most basic legal and moral norms of society are important conditions for achieving interpersonal harmony. On the premise of satisfying the first condition, we must also do some strategic reconciliation in some small aspects. Under certain special circumstances, to a certain extent and degree, saying some lies that are not harmful to moral principles is of positive significance to harmonious interpersonal relationships.

People living in society often encounter some helpless things. Among them, telling the truth or telling the truth is the dilemma that people often face. On some major or more important issues, dishonesty and falsehood can have serious negative consequences and affect people's evaluation of the speaker's image and morality. Of course, the truth should be told, the truth should not be false. words. In this regard, people often have easier choices because of the magnitude of the matter. But in some small matters, the choice is not so easy. Shouldn't people lie at all times, and should they be absolutely honest at all times? If not, under what circumstances and to what extent can a little lie be told? This is something we need to explore. .

First, in daily life, there is no need to talk too much about integrity in certain life chores. For example, when a friend says hello to someone, he usually says, "Everything is OK?" If the respondent literally understood this sentence, he would report to the friend everything that happened recently and tell him in detail what was happening. OK, what is better, what is not so good, what is bad, chattering endlessly. Imagine, would a friend be impatient? It can be seen that if a person puts integrity in the end, it would seem pedantic.

Second, in order to make the other party have a good mood, telling a little "lie" does not violate the virtue of good faith. In daily life, we often see some colleagues or friends wearing a new style of clothes that they are proud of, and they hope to get approval from others. This is especially true for lesbians. If she is not discovered within a day, she may feel depressed. If she asks you, "How is my dress?" Even if you don't take it seriously, then you might say, "Yeah! That's great, you look younger and beautiful today! Where did you buy it?" For Make people happy, don't talk too much into praise. These insignificant compliments may be insincere, but it is not bad to say it.

Third, in order to encourage people to be motivated, telling a little "lie" is also not against moral integrity. In the process of growing up, people will always encounter one set of frustrations, and on some occasions they will be frightened and hindered. At this time, people's help and encouragement are particularly needed. Young mothers always encourage their toddlers: "Baby, how brave! Take two steps forward!" "Geer sings really nice! Come again." Encouraging and praise behavior It may be very common, and the words of praise and encouragement may also be exaggerated. Seriously investigating it may have a "lie" element, but it will often play a huge role in encouraging people's growth and progress. Therefore, such words and deeds should not be condemned by "dishonesty" morals.

Fourth, sometimes in order to avoid embarrassment in the relationship between people and me, telling a little "lie" does not mean that it is due to virtue. In this regard, there are usually at least two situations: one is that they have a certain discretionary power, and the person who has been judged invites guests for dinner in order to get approval. It is normal in China that the adjudicated person treats guests for their own purposes. It is the duty of the person in control of the right to preside over justice and select the best. If you go to an appointment, it is the so-called "one who eats others has a short mouth; the one who takes others' hands is soft." To uphold justice, to eat others and fail to rate others, I am embarrassed; if I do not hold justice for my own personal interests, I have a shame. If you don't go to an appointment and blame your friends, you will hurt your friends. At this time, it is really a dilemma for the parties. Under such helpless circumstances, many people have chosen the strategy of telling a little lie. For example, if you have an important meeting, you are not in the unit, your body is uncomfortable, etc., in order to push off the banquet without hurting your friendship. There are no important meetings that say yes, that they originally said they were absent from the unit, but said they were physically unwell, but they said they were uncomfortable. This is certainly a lie, but it is a lie that does not violate moral principles. Since it does not violate moral principles, it cannot be said to be an evil act.

The above judges the value of honest or trustworthy behavior and dishonest or non-credit behavior, and points out that some honest or trustworthy behavior may not have good moral value, and some dishonest or untrustworthy behavior does not. It must have evil moral value. This analysis and judgment is not to confuse the moral boundaries between good and evil, nor to encourage people to do something that does not speak of integrity and trustworthiness, but to point out that integrity or credit has its ethical position. Ethical principles are needed to determine the moral value of credit behavior.

In summary, there are three principles: First, the principle of public trust. In modern society, integrity and credit are not primarily credit between individuals, but more importantly, credit in public life. It mainly manifests itself in the compliance with various systems, rules, laws, regulations, guidelines, and codes. The observance of contracts or contracts is manifested by respect for the public interest and loyalty to their duties. It is positive moral value not to harm public credibility by private faith, and negative moral value otherwise. The second is the principle of justice. Integrity and credit are a basic morality, and they need to be commanded by the moral principles of justice. The foundation of righteousness lies in safeguarding and promoting the interests of the country, the people, and all mankind. Any credit behavior that is consistent with it has positive moral value, otherwise it has negative moral value. Proceeding from righteousness, telling the truth when you are telling the truth and telling lies when you are telling the truth does not hinder one's integrity. The third is the principle of economic power. The determination of the value of credit behavior should be considered from two aspects: "economic" and "right". The so-called Jing refers to the principle or principle; the so-called power refers to the flexibility in the process of changing or implementing the principle. The ancients taught that separation from the "Scripture" and "Tao" means "right." Integrity and credibility, as the most basic morals, must be implemented in the daily life of individuals, and in the system, principles and policies of the country. This is an unshakable principle. However, in the ordinary trivia, there must be some contingency, and absolute and credit are not absolute. If honesty might violate higher moral principles, then work around it. That is to say, the contingency is not a deliberate departure from the principle, but to better conform to the higher principle. If the violation of the "Scriptures" also deviates from the "Tao" and leads to moral evil, then it is not what we call a change of power.