If the parties have no intention to mediate and conduct mediation without distinguishing right from wrong, they are likely to condone one party to continue engaging in the behavior. In other words, temporary harmony does not mean long-term harmony. What's more, the harmony between the parties does not equal the harmony within a gay community or even a society. Because mediation activities mainly focus on actual cases. Mandatory mediation of individual cases cannot provide clear behavioral consequences for potential conflict participants, and is not conducive to fully guiding people to abide by the law, respect the rights of others, build harmonious relationships between people, and fundamentally reduce the social conflicts and achieve a higher degree of social harmony. The essence of "discussing the truth" is to maintain the seriousness and effectiveness of legal rules, and rules are the fundamental guarantee for maintaining harmony. Harmony is actually an orderly state of order, and to maintain this The prerequisite for harmonious coexistence is that everyone abides by the law. The ancients said, "Without rules, a square and a circle cannot be made." Guanzi said: "The rules are a square and a circle. Even if one has a skillful eye and a sharp hand, it is not as good as a square and round one with clumsy rules... Even though the sage gave birth to the law, the country cannot be ruled by abolishing the law." Therefore, even if you are wise and virtuous, if you rule against the law, you will abolish the rules and make things right." ("Guan Zi Fa Fa") This actually explains the importance of acting according to the rules in maintaining social harmony. Once the rules are violated. Destruction will encourage evil behavior and will inevitably lead to disorder and the law of the jungle. In modern society, laws have been designed into specific behavioral rules. As long as people behave in accordance with the requirements of legal rules, they can live and work in peace and contentment and live in harmony with their neighbors. Even if disputes arise, they can be resolved in accordance with legal procedures. Only in this way can we truly Maintain social harmony. Han Feizi once had a famous saying, which is called "the law is not suitable for both parties" ("Han Feizi·Questions"), which means that the law cannot satisfy the demands of both parties at the same time. In fact, legal rules require a clear distinction between right and wrong and a choice between the parties to the dispute. Of course, this trade-off does not have to be either/or, it can also be a compromise. The making of rules has actually resulted in a trade-off of interests. Therefore, it is in this sense that Qiu Ju's lawsuit is defending the dignity of the law. This is a behavior that we should encourage in the process of building a harmonious social order in the new era.

In any society ruled by law, citizens’ rights cannot be realized naturally by being written into “legal” texts. The realization of rights does not require conscious efforts to fight for them. When negotiations failed, Qiu Ju finally turned to the public power for relief instead of giving in completely. This approach is worthy of recognition. Distinguishing right from wrong is not only important for the fair settlement of specific cases, but also helps to reflect the concept of justice. Combined with the current reality in our country, we should emphasize that the purpose of resolving disputes is ultimately to implement and realize justice by distinguishing right from wrong in order to achieve long-term and stable harmony, rather than in the short-term "pacification" or temporary "harmony" ". From Qiu Ju's behavior, we can interpret the awakening and consciousness of people's rights awareness and the gradual popularization of the concept of the rule of law in our country. Of course, not all disputes need to be resolved through court adjudication. There are many ways to fight for rights. Although it is possible to achieve the purpose of settling disputes through court adjudication, the court adjudication procedure is strict, time-consuming and costly. High, may not be the most effective way to resolve disputes. In this context, submitting any disputes to the courts may not necessarily be the best way to resolve them. We should properly find the most reasonable way to resolve disputes according to local conditions and circumstances from the perspective of integrating emotions, reason and law. At the same time, we also advocate friendly consultation after disputes occur and resolve disputes through voluntary reconciliation and mediation. On the basis of distinguishing right from wrong, we should also encourage communication, consultation and tolerance. As the saying goes, "The sky is brighter when you take a step back." Necessary tolerance and tolerance still need to be promoted. In particular, the law cannot cover all aspects of social life and resolve all life disputes.