Goodness begets goodness: A Dialogue between Jiang Qing and Sheng Hong

Author: Jiang Qing
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-04-01
Features: Kant pointed out in his Perpetual Peace that it is not the state of peace but the state of war that constitutes humanity's "natural state." Yet, the "mechanism of nature" would lead people to perpetual peace through war. He optimistically stated that the problem of perpetual peace "is one that is surely solvable. It does not lie in the improvement of human morality but only in understanding the mechanism of nature and how we can apply it to humanity so as to guide the conflicts of conflicting desires within a nation, compelling them to submit to coercive laws and inevitably leading to a state of peace where law holds sway." The "mechanism of nature," as Kant explained, "can be used by reason as its own purpose, namely the specification of rights, as a tool to clear the way; thus, within the reach of the state itself, it promotes both internal and external peace" (emphasis added by the translator, , Commercial Press, 1996, p. 126). In Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View, Kant stated more bluntly: "Nature brings about perpetual peace through war, through the perpetually tense and unrelenting preparations for war" finally achieves a "great league of peoples" (p. 12). Kant's theory of perpetual peace can be summarized as "making good out of evil." As a philosopher, he may not have been unrealistic about human "evil" nature, and because he discussed the issue from a long-term perspective, he believed that humanity would ultimately reach a state of goodness after being baptized by evil blood, without specifically considering the cost of bloodshed. At the same time, as a Westerner, Kant may not have personally experienced the suffering of the weaker side in situations of unequal power. However, even from a logical standpoint, Kant's "path of making good out of evil" is not without contradictions. Internationally, the scenario where one selfish force can be balanced or countered by another only holds under very special conditions, namely when all parties are evenly matched in power. As soon as the power disparity is significant, reason would drive the stronger side to exploit its advantage to the fullest. In human history, power imbalance is the norm, while balance is rare. Even in balanced states, the opposing parties are unwilling to maintain such equilibrium and seek to break it through various technical or organizational innovations to regain the upper hand. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in the last century serves as clear evidence. Without strong moral restraint, it would be difficult to realize Kant's vision of a "powerful and enlightened nation" as the "center point" of a "peaceful league" (p. 113), because according to the logic of "making good out of evil," it would be "rational" for a powerful nation to use force against other countries. The unilateralism of the United States after the Cold War demonstrates this point. Kant believed that a society could function normally relying solely on a system of rights, which is formed through confrontation between self-interested individuals. As a philosophical concept, this idea—that people need not restrain their desires but instead possess a "telos" (purpose)—corresponds to the "invisible hand" in economics, meaning that "everyone for themselves, and society will be better." However, later economists do not believe this scenario applies to the entire society. Mancur Olson argued that "even if every individual tries to pursue their own interests, the rational outcome of society will not automatically emerge" (Foreword to Collective Action: Theory and Application by Todd Sandler, University of Michigan Press, 1992). This is known as the "second law of economics." It arises from numerous externalities and collective action problems. Externalities refer to situations where conflicting private interests cannot reach equilibrium, such as when scattered residents fail to effectively oppose polluting factories. Collective action problems reveal that without a workable scheme for reasonably distributing costs, collective goods cannot be provided. Clearly, war or plunder is a more direct externality, while perpetual peace is a collective good of the world. They cannot be automatically resolved or provided through self-interested behavior. Olson proposed that corresponding organizational or institutional arrangements, such as governments, trade unions, cartels, or some international alliances, are necessary to address collective action problems. However, in practice, these tangible institutions not only have their own flaws and can only partially solve problems but may also have negative effects. For example, while a government may provide public goods, without regulation, it may directly infringe on citizens' interests. Any society's effective functioning actually depends on the combination of tangible institutions like a system of rights and intangible institutions like morality. Morality, as a self-disciplining institution, not only saves coercive costs but also directly operates in certain social spheres; moreover, as a social idea and consensus, it lays the constitutional principles for tangible institutions. It is precisely morality that finally resolves the "second law of economics" and allows society to exist in reality. For this reason, institutional economics has recently focused on the study of culture and morality; and behavioral economics, which has recently gained popularity, points out that people's willingness to contribute to public goods is higher than the assumption of the economic man. If the wrong understanding that "a society only needs a system of rights and does not need morality" is amplified internationally, believing that perpetual peace does not require moral support, then it is an even more serious error. More importantly, under conditions of unequal power, the banner of "making good out of evil" is more easily exploited by those who hold the advantage. They are willing to use force for what they consider "good." Yet once "evil" means are employed, the purpose of "good" will inevitably change. As Kant quoted the Greek proverb, "The harm of war lies in the fact that it produces more bad people than it eliminates." Moreover, people may even portray their private interests as "good," even claiming that "evil is good." During China's Spring and Autumn period, the wars launched were all by "righteous armies," and in modern times, which war has not been fought for "justice"? Regardless, this path of "making good out of evil" has provided humanity with a moral justification to excuse their evil actions. Despite hundreds of years of war following Kant, we have not yet felt closer to the "goal of goodness." Yet "making good out of evil" remains the dominant philosophical thought in the Western world in dealing with international issues. It is said that the inventor of the Maxim machine gun was motivated by the desire to make Europeans fear war more, thereby ending war and achieving peace. The Nobel Peace Prize, ironically, was awarded in 1918, just after the conclusion of the th World War, to a chemist who invented the nitrogen fixation method, solving the problem of mass-producing explosives, perhaps following the same logic. Today, a powerful nation like the United States, which cannot fulfill its obligations to international peace, is instead dedicated to applying the latest technological inventions to military purposes. This reflects the fundamental orientation of Westerners since modern times: continuously improving killing weapons does not conflict with the pursuit of perpetual peace. This logic of "making good out of evil" prevents moral principles from being used as the constitutional foundation of international relations, allowing the masses who form nations to avoid efforts to elevate moral standards. As a result, not only will a harmonious international society remain distant, but the civilized achievements within nations will be destroyed by barbaric conflicts between them. Realizing that "making good out of evil" cannot lead to "good," one can only "make good out of good." This is simple, but since the Western world has used military power to dominate since modern times, temporary interests have blinded the eyes of most Western intellectuals, preventing them from seeing the flaws of the Kantian path to perpetual peace. Their dominant position has also made their culture the mainstream, making the advocacy of "making good out of good" seem strange. This is also another reason why I was surprised by Mr. Jiang Qing's response. In fact, after the initial surprise, I also realized that this may be the most valuable outcome of our dialogue, as it provides a cultural principle for dealing with the world of social Darwinism. On the surface, it seems rather powerless, but it may be the only path for humanity to move beyond the age of the jungle. And ironically, this is not a new discovery for humanity; it has long been present in Confucianism, which has existed for over two thousand years. Confucianism emerged during the Warring States period. One of the key issues it faced was ending the years of war and achieving perpetual peace. Its solution was unification. However, the ideal unifier was not someone powerful in war but someone "not fond of killing"—in other words, someone moral. It believed that morality is the most important foundation of a society, thus requiring rulers to be morally upright gentlemen. In the structure of social institutions, Confucianism tended to adopt non-coercive ritual governance. Therefore, from the perspective of Confucianism, society is not just a set of rights structures but also a moral culture that promotes goodness. It is said that during the Warring States period, there was a man named Zhao Xiangzi who conquered two cities in the morning but sighed upon entering them. Someone asked why. He replied, "My martial prowess has grown rapidly, but my morality has not kept pace. I am worried about how to govern the conquered cities." This story illustrates his understanding of the role of morality in governance. In a society, establishing harmony among individuals is already challenging, and morality must also be the foundation for achieving perpetual peace in the world.