This is important because life is even more difficult and complex than word problems. In life, problems are usually not called problems with a solution. Usually, you can see that things don`t go the way you want them to, but you don`t see it as the result of a specific problem that needs to be defined, addressed, and solved. Another significant difference is that in school, if you can`t solve a word problem, you hear about it with a bad grade, but in life you just complain that things are not the way you want them to be – without realizing that if you had understood and understood the cause of the problem, You really could have changed that. how to solve it. I argue that administrations could prevent this kind of behaviour, whether maliciously or jokingly, by pursuing a policy that states that students are expected to behave ethically, including, but not limited to, respecting others and the rights of others, rather than invoking endless rules. often petty. and that any student who intentionally does something wrong that he or she should know is wrong. face consequences commensurate with the seriousness of their infringement. More on this form of politics at the moment, but it should be clear that when students do something like this, they understand the difference between what is right or wrong on the one hand and what the rules say on the other. Only the administration believes that one cannot know what is right or wrong and can be held responsible for what goes wrong without referring to predetermined rules printed in a manual. [4] Just as the Ninth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution states that there are rights beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, I think it would be wise for any list of rules to indicate that, in addition to those listed, there is also bad behavior that will be punished if there is good reason to believe that the person should have known better than to do so. The first to use the term fa jia was Sima Qian`s father, Sima Tan 司馬談 (died 110 BC). In an essay on the “nature of the six schools of thought,” Sima Tan notes that fa jia “are strict and have little kindness” and “make no distinction between relatives and strangers, or between nobles and viles: everything is determined by norm (or law, fa).” Sima Tan criticized the legalists` approach as “a one-off policy that could not be applied constantly,” but also praised Jia Fa for “honoring leaders and devaluing subjects and clearly distinguishing functions so that no one can override [his responsibilities]” (Shiji 130:3289-3291; for translations, see Smith 2003:141; Goldin 2011:89). A century later, the bibliographic category fa jia was created. Han librarian Liu Xiang 劉向 (79-8 BC) identified ten texts from the Han Imperial Library as Fa Jia (Han shu 30:1735). From then on, the “legalistic school” remained a main category of imperial book catalogues. Since the beginning of the 20th century, this term has been widely used to classify and analyze ancient Chinese thought. This passage explains the general principles of Shen Buhai`s “techniques” but does not describe how they worked. “Techniques” and “rules” are described in legalistic texts as the best way to maintain control of the ruler: the enlightened ruler relies on them, while the reckless ruler throws them away and is then misled by the misleading words of his ministers and the inducements of persuaders (shui 說). But amid the emphasis on the power of techniques, rules, laws and regulations, we can discover the sober realization that even these are not always enough and that a perfect administrative system simply cannot emerge.
Thus, one of Lord Shang`s final chapters states: Legalism is a popular—though rather inaccurate—term for an intellectual current that gained considerable popularity in the second half of the Warring States period (Zhanguo, 453-221 BC). The legalists were political realists who wanted to achieve a “rich state and a powerful army” and ensure domestic stability in a period of intense international and national competition. They believed that people – citizens and elites – would always remain selfish and aspire to wealth and fame, and that they should not be expected to behave morally. On the contrary, a viable socio-political system should allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in a way that benefits the state, namely agriculture and war. At the same time, an appropriate administrative system should allow civil servants to benefit from grades and emoluments, but also prevent them from undermining the power of the ruler. Both systems do not care about the individual morality of rulers and ruled; Rather, they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules for promotion and decommissioning, etc. Moreover, the line between prosecuting people who violate them and only laws that are explicitly stated and prosecuting people for conduct that is not expressly prohibited is not as clear as one might think. As I wrote in the essay “Law and Order and Morality” (www.garlikov.com/philosophy/LOM.html), the television series Law and Order portrays a prosecutorial philosophy that seeks to prevent “loophole” miscarriages of justice by arguing that a patently immoral act can in many cases be interpreted as unlawful under a law enacted for an entirely different purpose. The idea is that if someone who has done something manifestly wrong cannot be convicted under a law most directly related to their act, their act can be interpreted as falling under another law that they have broken if the interpretation is in court.
Given the plethora of laws enacted, this brings the criminal justice system one step closer to a system of moral or natural rights, albeit with more restrictions. Nevertheless, there will be a tension between the whim of the prosecutor`s office and the necessary flexibility. But the fact is that the issue of institutional or legal governance through specific rules/laws is a serious problem compared to a more philosophical and moral approach that has serious consequences. And I think we are finding that some of these consequences are now playing out badly in institutional institutions, particularly in education systems or schools, where there is a mistaken assumption that behaviour must be predetermined in order to be reasonably expected and punished fairly if violated. Legalism, a school of Chinese philosophy that rose to prominence during the turbulent Warring States period (475-221 BC) and, through the influence of philosophers Shang Yang, Li Si and Hanfeizi, formed the ideological basis of China`s first imperial dynasty, the Qin (221-207 BC). Although both Confucianism and legalism called for a hierarchy of government and adherence to tradition, the difference between the two schools is that Confucianism advocated a benevolent rule by example. He had an optimistic view of human potential. (Mencius is often cited as a contrasting example of a Confucian philosopher as opposed to the legalistic doctrine of Hsün-tzu.) The difference is also clearly evident in the imagery of the writings of each philosophy. The predominant imagery in the writings of legalism is to straighten or forcibly bend the crooked branches of trees so that they grow perfectly straight, or to use hot irons to burn the branches of trees so that they grow in the desired direction.
But she belonged to a generation, like most generations to this day, that not only learned to follow rules (although they are supposed to follow rules – at least morally good), but learned to “do what is right”, which involves more than just following rules, and which sometimes demands ignoring immoral rules (as the Nuremberg trials showed them). who seemed to think of doing what is instructed, or legally obliged to absolve them of moral guilt if they do wrong). “Doing the right thing” is an open saying that requires insight, effort, experience, reason, thought, sensitivity, and hard work. It`s much harder to understand and follow than just following rules. Many of us have learned to distinguish good behavior from bad behavior through trial and error – admonishment at best, or punishment at worst, usually without trial if we were wrong. A more realistic, but still perverse and humorous, manifestation is the behavior of high school students who scour the student`s rulebook looking for loopholes that allow them to perform actions that they know make administration worse – that is, actions they know are wrong – but that allow them to: to avoid punishment, since the act is not prohibited by the rules. And if the government mistakenly believes that there can be no criminal offences without violating predetermined rules, the only administrative option is to include that rule in next year`s manual. This is a repetitive process that essentially only serves to fatten up the student`s rulebook, but does little to change student behavior.
