The allusion of "Zi Gong redeems a man, and Zi Gong accepts an ox" is as follows:

The story of "Zigong redeems a man, and Zi Lu accepts an ox" comes from "Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals":

There is a law in the State of Lu. People from the State of Lu have become slaves abroad. If someone can redeem them, they can go to the national treasury to reimburse the ransom.

Once, Zigong, a disciple of Confucius, ransomed a man from Lu abroad and refused to accept the state compensation after returning home. When Confucius learned about it, he said: "Zigong did something wrong. From now on, the people of Lu will not redeem slaves from other countries. Receiving compensation from the state will not damage your character; but if you do not receive compensation, Lu There will be no one in the country to redeem his compatriots who were in distress."

Zilu rescued a drowning man. The man thanked him for sending a cow, and Zilu accepted it. Confucius said happily: "The people of Lu will definitely have the courage to save those who fall into the water."

The story of "Zigong redeemed a man and Zilu received an ox" is very thought-provoking.

According to common sense, Zigong has a noble character. He used his own money to redeem people, refused state compensation, and did a great deed. He should be regarded as a moral model; Zilu is no longer a toy. He saves people. , someone gave him a cow, but he happily accepted it, he was simply a money addict.

We think so, and the ancients probably thought so too.

However, Confucius severely criticized Zigong and praised Zilu well. Looking at Confucius’ reasons, we have to admire him. Sage Confucius is really right!

Confucius’s views are not backward at all even today.

The two stories are about different processing methods. Do you understand? They each explained a problem, and this problem is what happens most often in society today: can you ask for rewards for doing good deeds?

Since childhood, our parents have taught us to be obedient, to take care of our younger brothers and sisters, and not to be disobedient children, otherwise we will not want you; after school, teachers taught us to be obedient, study hard, and help others; after work, society Public ethics tells us to be a good person, dedicate ourselves to enlighten others, and sacrifice ourselves for others without asking for anything in return.

Yes, we have always lived in a world that considers others. If you are selfish, you are not a good person. If you do good things, you cannot ask for rewards from others. Now I want to ask everyone, is this really right? Are you just happy for others and yourself?

Logically speaking, if a person does good deeds, he should be rewarded. For example, if Zigong redeems a person, the state will give you compensation; if Zilu saves a person, someone will give him a cow; even if he gives up a seat, he should get a "thank you". But why do we think Zigong did the right thing by refusing the state compensation? Why do you think Zilu did something wrong by saving someone and taking in a cow?

People often praise the "greatness" of good people doing good deeds, but as soon as they hear that they have been given material rewards, they immediately hold a negative and questioning attitude. It seems that good people are great only when they do good deeds without asking for anything in return. If they are given material rewards, then such good people and good deeds will be overshadowed and no longer worthy of praise. Is this really the case?

Is this kind of propaganda orientation and such ideological concepts correct?

It is indeed a virtue to do good deeds without asking for anything in return, but this virtue is a "private virtue". You can do this personally, but if you ask everyone to do this, you should regard your personal private virtue as Being ethical and raising moral standards infinitely will discourage people who are willing to do good deeds, turn their faces into disgrace when they hear about morality, and then turn away from morality!

If Zigong is really established as a moral model and widely publicized, and Zilu is established as a negative example and severely punished, I estimate that fewer and fewer people will redeem people abroad and take the initiative to save people. There will be fewer and fewer people.

This result may be something we never expected.

Why don’t we understand what Confucius understood more than two thousand years ago?

Such results are still happening today.