"Return to a new line does not need to be translated, return as it is, all other Chinese should be translated into English: Do Good to Bring Good: A Dialogue Between Jiang Qing and Sheng Hong -- Series of Tianxia Lunzong

Author: Jiang Qing, Sheng Hong
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 can certainly be solved. 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 prevails" (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 extreme tension of perpetual preparation" 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 eventually reach a state of goodness after being baptized in 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 party in situations of unequal power. However, even logically, Kant's "making good out of evil" path 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 party to maximize its advantage. In human history, power imbalance is the norm, while balance is rare. Even in balanced states, the opposing parties are unwilling to maintain such balance and will 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 is a clear example. Without strong moral constraints, it would be difficult to achieve Kant's envisioned "a strong 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 is rational for powerful countries to use force against other nations. The unilateral actions of the United States after the Cold War illustrate this point. Kant believed that a society could function normally relying solely on a rights-based system, a structure formed through conflict between self-interested individuals. As a philosophical concept, this idea—that people need not restrain their desires but instead possess "purposiveness"—corresponds to the "invisible hand" in economics, meaning "everyone for themselves, and society will be better." However, later economists do not believe this applies to the entire society. Mancur Olson argued that at times, "no matter how hard each individual tries to pursue their own interests, the rational outcome of society will not automatically emerge" (Foreword to Todd Sandler’s Collective Action: Theory and Application, 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 cannot effectively oppose a factory spreading pollution. Collective action problems reveal that without a workable mechanism for 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 solved or provided automatically through self-interested behavior. Olson proposed that corresponding organizations or institutional arrangements, such as governments, trade unions, cartels, or some international alliances, are needed 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 control, it may directly infringe on citizens' interests. Any society's effective operation actually depends on the combination of tangible institutions like a rights-based system and intangible institutions like morality. Morality, as a self-disciplining institution, not only saves on coercive costs but also directly functions in some social domains; moreover, as a social idea and consensus, it lays the constitutional principles for tangible institutions. It is morality that ultimately solves 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 a purely economic person. If the incorrect understanding that "a society only needs a rights-based system and does not need morality" is amplified internationally, believing that perpetual peace does not require morality, 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 the "good" they believe in. Once "evil" means are employed, the goal of "good" will inevitably change. As Kant quoted the Greek proverb, "The harm of war lies in the fact that it creates more bad people than it eliminates." Moreover, people may even present their private interests as "good," even claiming that "evil is good." During China's Spring and Autumn period, those who launched wars were all "armies of benevolence and righteousness." In modern times, which war has not been fought for "justice"? Nevertheless, this path of "making good out of evil" has provided humanity with a moral justification to excuse their own evil actions. For centuries after Kant, wars have continued, and to this day, we have not 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 gun was motivated 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 developed the Haber-Bosch process, solving the problem of mass-producing explosives, perhaps along the same line of thinking. Today, a powerful nation like the United States cannot fulfill its obligations to international peace but instead focuses on 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 people forming nations to avoid efforts to improve moral standards. As a result, not only will a harmonious international society remain distant, but the civilized achievements within nations may 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 Professor 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 quite powerless, but perhaps it is the only path for humanity to move beyond the age of the jungle. And the most ironic part is that this is not humanity's new discovery—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 addressed was ending the years of war and achieving perpetual peace. Its solution was a unified state. But the ideal unifier was not the most powerful person in terms of military strength but the "one who dislikes killing." In other words, the "moral person." It believed that morality is a crucial foundation for society, thus requiring rulers to be morally upright gentlemen. In terms of social institutional structure, Confucianism tended to adopt non-coercive ritual governance. Therefore, from the perspective of Confucianism, society is not just a set of rights-based 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 harmonious order among individuals is already challenging, and morality must also be a crucial foundation for achieving perpetual peace in the world.