Original title: kidnapping kindness is also selfish in the final analysis.
Recently, a well-known lawyer on the train to change the event, triggered a big wave of discussion. The lawyer bought two upper berths for taking two children on a long-distance train and got on the train to discuss changing the lower berth. After two boys refused, two girls changed his shop and did not ask for a price difference.
Later, the lawyer with 2 million fans wrote a piece of "train changing shop feeling". Between words, it is wrong for a boy to give up his seat to himself, or even to complain. Should such a moral abduction be justified in his eyes, where help is, of course, the object of ridicule? I believe that the "kindness" imposed is not selfish.
Is it natural to bring children to the lower berth? This obviously exaggerates personal grievances. As a result, there are many people with children sitting on the upper or middle berth, although this is more difficult, but this kind of suffering is not ordinary people can not bear. Secondly, if it is intolerable to take children to the upper or middle berths, why not think twice when buying tickets, or take other means of transportation? Thirdly, if other shops have children, or are they old and weak? Besides, is it necessary to give up the right to enjoy the lower berth when seeing a passenger with children?
It's nice to help others, but it's more important not to trouble others easily within your ability. The lawyer first talked to a lower berth boy about changing shop: "he hesitated and agreed. When we started packing, the boy said I would not change, and my leg was hurt. The boy's hesitation was most likely due to a leg injury, but he was also considering giving up his rights to help others. Though he didn't want to change after that, was he wrong? Is he not kind? I'm afraid not. Here, I would like to ask a well-known lawyer: "If your child had leg injuries, not suitable for climbing stairs, you can not easily buy him a lower berth, but was"kind"kidnapped to change the upper berth, what do you think?"
Hu Shih once said: "A dirty country, if everyone talks about rules instead of morality, will eventually become a normal country with humanity, and morality will naturally gradually return. And a clean country, if everyone talks about morality without rules, will eventually degenerate into a dirty country full of hypocrites." As it said, if we insist on individual difficulties and force each other to be "kind", it will inevitably lead to the failure of rules and chaos. For example, should every passing good man give an umbrella for the raining party? Must every good man give up his seat for the elderly? Must every good person have to jump the queue with the children? It can be imagined that when goodness is the only choice, our rights will not be guaranteed. As a well known lawyer, it should be clear.
In fact, in their own difficulties to overcome the trouble of others, is a claim to the rights of others. But there is a kind of person in society who thinks he is very kind and asks the whole world to give back to him. Think others pull a window for themselves, pour a glass of water, turn on a light, is a show of hands; think that with children ride, others must give up their seats; think they want to "wait for the husband", you can let the entire high-speed train people "wait"... These so-called "good" people, how do not want to think that they are just "good" as a tool to obtain!
Kindness should be a moral from the heart rather than a weapon for accusing and hurting others. You know, others are good for you, not for you. If good, please give others the right to choose good, do not use the so-called "good" everywhere covet the peace and happiness of others.
Wen / Hu Hui
Editor in chief: Zhang Di
Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens