The Unity and Plurality of Values

Today I want to talk about values and norms — in other words, about the relationship between the one and the many. I’d like to begin with a question.

We now live in a high-tech, networked era that brings us great convenience. Yet at times, we also feel confused — even a little lost.

The Internet can connect the world, but it does not necessarily connect our hearts. Sometimes, it can even push us further apart.

With all the recommendations, algorithms, and group chats — family groups, class groups — we gradually find ourselves feeling uncomfortable in some of them, reluctant to speak.

Their values diverge from ours. At first, maybe it was only a small difference, a bit of heterogeneity, but the divergence grows, and communication becomes difficult.

Meanwhile, our devices — phones, computers, and so on — keep being upgraded, more and more advanced. Everyone has the right to speak.

Yet our language does not seem to have improved accordingly.

We see foul words, abuse, personal attacks, insults against women — all over the screen.

How could such a clean screen display such dirty language?

What lies behind these problems or disorders?

Is it that we are not noble enough? Or that we do not follow rules?

That brings us to the issue of value and regulation.

The Transformation of Values from Past to Present

When we speak of “nobility,” that may refer to the pursuit of lofty values.

But values can also include trivial or secondary preferences — what food we like, what car we drive, and so on.

At the highest level, however, they concern ultimate questions — what is good, what is worth pursuing and cherishing.

So, is our problem that we are not noble enough, or that we are undisciplined?

In traditional societies, the answer was simple: one must pursue nobility.

But in different historical contexts, the answer varies.

For example, in medieval Western society, people sought eternal life, saintliness, and holiness.

In China’s long traditional society, what people pursued were Confucian ideals — the moral character of the junzi (the gentleman), the virtues of sages and worthies.

Yet we must not forget that traditional and modern societies differ fundamentally in structure.

Traditional societies, whether in the West or in China, were hierarchical.

A small number ruled or governed.

They did not expect all members of society to pursue nobility.

Confucius once said, “The virtue of the gentleman is like the wind; the virtue of the petty man is like the grass.”

In traditional society, moral cultivation mainly belonged to the gentlemen.

They set the example and influenced the people through conduct.

The common folk rarely discussed morality — they lived by custom.

A few people were held to high standards, and through them, society’s manners were shaped.

In the West, there was also a saying: “Nobles should act nobly.”

They were expected not to be greedy or materialistic, but to value spiritual things — honor above all.

Ordinary commoners, even soldiers, were often excluded from such ideals.

So, in the traditional world, although lofty virtue was reserved for the few, it could still become a dominant social value.

But in the modern world, everything changed.

Modern society advocates equality.

Within the limits of not infringing upon others’ legitimate pursuits, every individual’s values are acceptable and even considered equal.

Each person may seek happiness as they understand it.

Yet the content of happiness differs from person to person.

For some, it is growing wealth.

For others, family joy.

For others still, creative achievement in art or spirit.

Some seek moral self-perfection.

Each is different.

In the past, aspirations — that is, value pursuits — were relatively uniform.

Now they are equally legitimate but diverse.

Value equality implies value pluralism — many directions, each with its own reasonableness.

But then comes a question:

If all are reasonable, are they truly equal in depth?

Can we still speak of higher and lower, even if not “better” and “worse”?

If one adheres strictly to pluralism, one must even deny that.

You cannot judge others’ values.

All are equally valid.

Will One Value System Still Dominate?

Another issue arises:

Even if all values are equal and diverse — at first people feel liberated, each free to pursue their own ideals —

will society, over time, naturally form a new mainstream, a dominant orientation of value?

Unlike traditional societies, where hierarchy imposed moral norms from above, this would emerge organically — yet it might still become one-dimensional.

And then numbers decide — the majority wins.

That can be unfortunate.

If your values belong to the minority, you may feel pressure, alienation, loneliness, or marginalization.

Imagine living in a small county town.

You may feel weary of a world obsessed with profit and material gain.

You feel isolated — with few like-minded friends.

That is why many people move to big cities — becoming Beipiao (“Beijing drifters”) even at the cost of hardship.

Because in big cities, they have a better chance of finding people who share their spirit.

Living in Beijing is hard — as the city’s name suggests, “the northern capital” is not easy to dwell in —

but people still come, driven by an inner longing.

Thus, I often say:

On one hand, we should enjoy value pluralism,

and on the other, we must endure it — including the fact that pluralism can, paradoxically, produce a new de facto unity of values.

In ancient China, too, certain values were suppressed.

For example, scholars of letters and ethics were honored, but craftsmen and inventors were neglected — their creativity silently stifled.

Even today, similar dynamics exist.

At times we feel lonely, desolate, or cold.

How should we respond?

Perhaps by understanding the historical transformation between past and present.

That awareness can bring peace of mind — realizing this is the inevitable result of modern equality.

If we value freedom and individual rights, then this is the price.

We can only keep searching for our companions — those who share our path — and try to keep our hearts open.

Even if we disagree with others’ values, we can still understand and tolerate them — without rage or contempt.

Meanwhile, we strive to live differently — that is our own effort.

Shared Consensus in a Plural World

More importantly, in today’s world, unified faith is no longer possible.

Yet society still needs some consensus to avoid disintegration.

In the past, Western societies were Christian; Chinese society was Confucian.

A shared faith anchored a shared value system.

But now, with equality and pluralism, such unity is impossible.

Nor can we base consensus purely on what arises “naturally,” because what forms naturally may be a flood of materialism and utilitarianism.

In fact, modern societies have already adapted to a certain kind of consensus:

Nearly all governments and nations prioritize economic development,

seeking to raise material living standards.

In a sense, we have accepted that.

But that is not enough.

Material and utilitarian pursuits raise two questions:

First, how much is enough? Is there a limit?

Second, material gain is finite — if you have more, someone else has less — which brings competition and conflict.

Harmony is not automatic.

There may be an invisible hand adjusting the market, but conflict and competition are unavoidable — and even drive economic progress.

Yet such conflicts cannot be solved by interest alone; they must be adjusted by moral principles — by rules.

Justice as a System of Rules

So what is justice?

In a modern, egalitarian society, justice means that people of different goals and pursuits can each find their place, contribute according to their ability, and enjoy the rewards of their efforts.

But some issues are even more fundamental — timeless ones.

The first is life and safety.

In traditional societies, justice began as what might be called the justice of requital (bao).

It had two forms:

One was revenge — when someone harms you, you retaliate.

The other was reciprocity — when someone helps you, you repay them.

This justice of requital was based on equivalence —

“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.”

At first, individuals executed it themselves.

Later, with the rise of the state, the right of retaliation was absorbed by government.

Private revenge became forbidden, except in immediate self-defense.

That was the traditional idea of justice.

In the modern world, justice has shifted toward distributive justice —

the distribution of rights, interests, and opportunities —

moving increasingly toward equality, even uniformity.

Thus, justice today is essentially a system of rules.

In modern society, rules may matter even more than lofty values.

Justice means we cannot violate rules simply because our ideals seem noble.

No matter how sacred our belief feels, it does not justify breaking the law.

The most basic rules are:

Do not kill. Do not deceive. Do not steal or rob. Do not commit rape or sexual violence.

These are universal.

Without them, human civilization could not have survived.

All great religions and constitutions begin with such prohibitions — shared and consistent.

Think of the Charlie Hebdo attack five years ago — a dozen editors killed.

Recently, another incident in France: a history teacher beheaded by a Chechen extremist.

The murderer believed he was defending a sacred faith, the highest value he knew.

But could that justify killing?

No. That’s the line — the rule.

We must remember this.

Do not be deceived by seductive words or utopian theories that say a “higher good” permits what is normally forbidden.

History has paid dearly for such illusions.

Rule awareness begins with small things.

Recently, I saw photos from Tibet — sacred mountains and lakes littered with trash.

Even where bins were nearby, people threw garbage down cliffs where cleaners could hardly reach.

Why do we fail to do such simple, easy things?

I’ve often thought about this in public spaces.

My generation lived through the Cultural Revolution, when rules were shattered.

When it ended, I felt my own sense of rules was still incomplete.

The younger generation is better.

Perhaps this is our new starting point:

We can pursue lofty ideals, but must not impose them on others.

And we must still obey universal norms — rules that every era requires.

Open Mind and Gentle Speech

Returning to where we began —

When our values differ from others’, especially online,

we should try to keep our minds open and our hearts understanding.

There is no need for endless argument.

Often, you cannot persuade others.

Some people only want to argue — “trolls,” as we say — and cannot be convinced.

Above all, never speak with malice.

Never wound others with words.

Today, the Internet is heavily regulated — but why are clear cases of slander, personal attacks, or vicious insults still unchecked?

Perhaps regulation should at least make the online world a little cleaner.

There’s an old saying: “Truth grows clearer through debate.”

But not always.

Sometimes, the more you argue, the murkier it becomes.

Usually, you cannot convince your opponent in words — not immediately.

Perhaps years later, they may understand, or perhaps you only influence the listeners, the bystanders.

We don’t need to get trapped in such fruitless quarrels.

Do your own work.

Live the life you seek.

Thank you.