尋找“己所不欲，勿施於人”的另一半

來源: 小源於 2012-03-10 07:02:03 [檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀：次 (7210 bytes)

本文內容已被 [ 小源 ] 在 2012-03-10 07:53:29 編輯過。如有問題，請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.

尋找“己所不欲，勿施於人”的另一半

孔子說：“己所不欲，勿施於人”，意思是：自己不希望他人對待自己的言行，自已也不要以那種言行對待他人。對應我剛來美國學到的一句話：You treat people the way you want to be treated，道理一致。

在多數情況下是合適的，但也有不明確之處，它與己欲的標準有關。

舉個小例子來比較按同一觀念處事的兩種態度：

第一：因為甲不喜歡聽批評的意見，所以甲就就不願意批評他人。
（或者用肯定句來陳述：甲喜歡聽好話，所以甲就隻說好話給他人聽，投其所好）

第二：因為乙不喜歡聽不講究方法的批評，所以乙在批評別人時不會不顧方法。
（或者用肯定句來陳述：乙喜歡接受合適的批評方式，所以乙會在批評時注意方法）

注意其中微妙的區別就不難發現，都是用同一種處事哲學，但第二種用的標準比第一種要高，因為個人和社會的進步是需要批評的，但批評的方式極為重要。

這說明人的“欲”，即”喜好”需要調整，要隨認知和境界而提高，標準用對了，才使得這種處世哲學在實際應用中接近完善。因此應將它的另一半找出來：己所欲之，慎施於人。也就是說在施於人之前，即使是滿足了自己喜好的言行也需要審視自己所用的標準。

如果你認同這個道理，就再進一步想想找出另一半的意義何在。

作為普通人，上述兩種情況的微妙差別無大礙，可能隻是生活中為人處世的小事情，但作為決策人就可能會影響多數人。若自身標準低，再依照這條哲理來製定管理他人的規則，就看不見決策的智慧。比如，在公共場合禁煙的問題，如果決策人有煙癮自己不喜歡被限製，再用上“己所不欲，勿施於人” ，就難以製定出合理合情的規則，除非自己意識到了這一點，不斷反思，提高認知，接近真理。再舉一例，幾乎每個人都不喜歡被人監督，不希望增加透明度，那麽是否該用”己所不欲，勿施於人“來指導行為呢？如果無人監督，沒有透明度，就難以防範和杜絕錯誤的苗頭，所以應該是第二種態度更合理，即注意方式地去增加透明度和加強監督，即使你自己也不喜歡被人檢查。

本人的愚見是應將另一半合起來使用：己所不欲，勿施於人；己所欲之，慎施於人

注：”己所欲之，慎施於人”是本人胡思亂想的構詞，若有人使用過，純屬巧合。

(Partial translation)

Confucius said:"If it doesn’t please you, DO NOT apply it to others.”

This sounded very similar to a quote that I learned as I first came to America “You treat people the way you want to be treated”

This advice works pretty well most of the time except when your personal preference conflicts with what’s believed to be a better way, i.e. common sense, or even higher standard based on religious believes.

Let’s look at two scenarios in which this advice is applied:

1)   Assuming you dislike any critiques, therefore you never critique others.
     （or change the statement to a positive tone: You only like compliments so you only make compliments.）

2)   Assuming you dislike destructive critiques, so you never critique others in a destructive manner.
      (or change the statement to a positive tone: You like constructive critiques，so you try to critique in a constructive manner.)

The subtle difference here reflected two different standards in which the second one being relatively higher than the first one. Because in our society, critiques are needed and the manner should be appropriate. This implies that we should constantly learn to improve our standard in order to honor this philosophical view point.

Therefore it’s necessary to add its second part when using it to guide your thoughts and action:“Even it pleases you, but be cautious when applying it to others.”

很感激網友askerfor 翻譯的下一段：http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/yingyuyuanchuang/139434.html

So move one step further to find out the importance of identifying the twin-value if you have agreed on this point of view.

Being an ordinary people, it does not matter either of the twin-values is practiced, what the subtlety between the twin-values can affect, at most, is merely such small things as interpersonal relationship. However, big differences can be made if you are a decision-maker who happens to be a believer of the less positive value (e.g., the first of the twin-values). As such, no wisdom of decision-making would be observed in the devising of public management policies. Take the issue of “no smoking on public occasions” as an example. If the decision-maker is an addicted smoker who hates being restricted, no reasonable smoking rules can be generated by excuating the value (“己所不欲，勿施於人”)unless the smoking decision-maker has been aware of the defect of the value, and meantime he is good at re-examining his conduct, and ready for improving his understanding until the truth is sought. Here is one more illustrating example: Few people like being monitored and wish for offering more transparency of their own. So should the value be applied to guide the social behaviors? Surely no! Since no monitoring, and therefore no transparency would create no chance of preventing and/or eliminating the emerging errors and mistakes. It is therefore more rational to take the second twin-value attitude. Namely, gaining more transparency and enhanced monitoring through smart approaches even if you, the decision-maker, too dislike being inspected.

The point of mine here is synthesizing the twin-values appropriately prior to using the value of ”己所不欲，勿施於人”.

Note: “己所欲之，慎施於人” is a term conceived after a while of working with my wildly immature thoughts. It is just a coincidence in case the term has been used by someone else.