How should morality be used?

I am the only program that provides a platform for young people to show themselves. Let many young people who have just walked out of campus realize the hardship of competitive employment in the workplace, which plays a certain guiding role in guiding the health and safety of college students. Recently, however, I have found that the growing Chinese characteristics of this program can easily lead young people who have just entered the society astray, paying too much attention to the public opinion effect of honesty and neglecting the integrity cultivation of their outlook on life.

Morality should be a self-discipline, not a tool to attack others. For the phenomenon of loss of social morality, the whole society should be given merciless whipping, but for the specific parties, it can not go beyond the scope of human rights of the law to attack. Everyone can reject immorality and attack the phenomenon, but there is no reason to attack the specific parties. This view has been opposed by many Chinese people, who think that it is justified to defend social morality. But from the unified media to the moral guardians of Wei Tao, what about social morality after defending it for so many years? We can't just enjoy the process of defense and ignore the reflection on the depraved reality of social morality. Of course, there are institutional reasons, which is not what we want to discuss today. This article talks about how morality should be used only from a social point of view.

In recent episodes, honesty seems to have become a core topic. Indeed, honesty should be the core idea of enterprise management. But how on earth should we understand honesty?

There are two episodes of the program, there are two vain college students. He exaggerated his personal experience and was severely criticized by the boss and host at the scene. Most bosses even left at the scene as a sign of refusal and dishonesty. However, this kind of behavior has gradually deviated from the purpose of promoting integrity, and it seems to have become a moral show.

Yesterday, this scene reappeared. As before, the two bosses of 23-year-old college students who did not turn off the lights and were willing to continue to hire 23-year-old college students who exaggerated their personal experiences and were labelled as dishonest were mercilessly attacked and even insulted by the departing bosses. Aggressive programmers and departing bosses do not even give the two bosses who are willing to hire the frivolous people they regard as dishonest to express their views. What's this? Special features? Or positive energy?

Accumulating positive energy is a necessary procedure for every civilized society. But what is positive energy? The unity of the whole society and one voice is the reflection of positive energy?

Although, each program has its core theme. But all the program participants have the right to express their personal opinions. Even if this view is eventually denied. The fact that different voices are not allowed to exist has been proved to be against the development of human civilization. This is also one of the reasons for the author to write this article.

Morality is pushed to the extreme, which is often equated with sin. The treatment of young people who exaggerate their personal experiences and honors should be rejected by most candidates. Bosses' refusal by leaving the table is a powerful education for this kind of young people, and it is also a necessary act to promote positive energy. But the merciless attack on two bosses who are still willing to hire such young people is a reflection of the legacy of the Cultural Revolution. Honesty must not be built on the basis of infringing upon people's legitimate rights. There is a principle difference between dishonesty and business dishonesty among young people who exaggerate their personal experiences and honors. In an enterprise, there is nothing wrong with choosing employees with the virtue of honesty. But first of all, we should find out which kind of integrity is the bottom line of the enterprise. And there is no right to force other enterprises to adopt the same standards, even under the banner of media orientation, it is necessary to pay attention to the realistic social effects of the media.

One boss said publicly on the show that she thought that the boss who accepted such dishonest employees was the same as such people (dishonest). If this kind of boss did not abide by the same rules of the game, she would not play with him. For those bosses who share the same view, you have the right not to play with operators who run counter to your own business philosophy, but you have no right to draw a dishonest conclusion. What do you use to prove that other people's business behavior is dishonest? Your employees, or even you, have not vainly exaggerated your achievements? Tolerance for dishonesty cannot be a kind of boasting. An enterprise's zero tolerance should be commercial dishonesty (for example, work exaggerating one's achievements, etc.). If there is zero tolerance for the integrity of employees in the competitive recruitment process, which does not have a direct causal relationship with the job. It is hard to imagine that any of our Chinese mainland enterprises can be sustained.

When it comes to hiring employees, honesty (truthfully providing a true resume) is only an orientation, not the bottom line. In order to choose excellent employees, any enterprise has the right to refuse such dishonesty, but it is immoral to kidnap other enterprises with the same morality.

In the process of competitive employment, it is common for college students to exaggerate their personal experience and honor. A boycott by bosses leaving the table is enough to deter vain young people, and it is also a necessary move. However, the attack on two bosses who are willing to continue to hire such young people without lights out is as likely as they accuse the two bosses of moral show. One of the bosses wanted to explain why he was willing to hire this kind of young man by leaving the light for him, but he was brutally cut off by the program. Only one of the bosses said, "my personal experience is also very tortuous."

Without listening to the full reasons of the boss, the author cannot make subjective assumptions. It can only be explained from the perspective of personal understanding. Perhaps the two bosses think that the education of this vain young job seeker by hosts and bosses in the course of the program has already affected their future life orientation, and this kind of young man is also malleable. His ability is competent for the work of this enterprise, and he is willing to give this young man a chance to his own enterprise. This should be at least one of the many reasons! Isn't it possible? Does this have anything to do with morality? Those young people who are honest (provide real personal resumes) are bound to be honest at work in the future? Will such vain young people be doomed to be dishonest in their work in the future? This kind of confused logic, but also high-minded, standing at the highest point of morality, acting as a moral guardian!

Media-oriented, media-oriented is only for the audience? Honesty is a virtue, tolerance is also a virtue. The tolerance of treating employees with unprincipled moral defects is precisely the charm of an enterprise. I didn't know the real business experience of the two bosses who gave lights to such young people, so I dared not draw any conclusions about them. Even if there are any moral flaws in their business, it does not mean that this tolerance is not a corporate virtue.

For college students, the main energy is study, and the energy of social practice is limited. Some employers, however, frequently criticize

College students have no longevity in starting a business for only a few months or more than half a year, forcing them to use some abnormal means to enrich their resumes. Of course, this should not be a reason for college graduates to exaggerate their resumes, but at least it should not be a reason for being refused employment by society as a whole. The host's view is that this kind of college graduates should go through some twists and turns in society and learn a lesson. But it's just his personal opinion. Since the on-site employment unit has been given the right to choose employees, as the host should stand on a neutral position, although in the end, the host did not leave the host post to express his views as those bosses did, but his attitude towards competitive college students is also very disrespectful.

The negative social effects of young people who have been on this program, especially those who have exaggerated their personal experiences and honors and are characterized as dishonest, are incalculable. Even if such young people are reformed, it will be more difficult to apply for a job. If the host warns those candidates who are dishonest in providing their resumes with the attitude of being young and caring for others, warning them that their competitive behavior is seriously flawed, it is disrespect for the employer, and they have to bear setbacks such as rejection. But there is no right to condemn employers who are still willing to hire such university graduates. The orientation of the media must be effective. Our unified media, almost a voice from all over the country, is strong enough, but what is the result? At this point, the author thinks of a sentence that has been popular for a long time, but it seems to be rarely applied: learn from past mistakes and avoid future ones, cure diseases and save lives. As a host, what you should do is to remind job seekers who cheat on their resumes that the fake will never be true, that the vast majority will come out sooner or later, and that life will not end as a result. All dishonest lies come at a price, and the price may be heavy. Some employers leave lights for such college graduates and are willing to hire them. They should thank these employers for their tolerance and repay the employers and the society with sincerity. This program will track their integrity records. We can't just learn from past mistakes and forget to save lives.

If the applicant is an adult with considerable work experience, falsifies his resume and has a history of dishonesty at work, he or she should be zero-tolerated. If everyone doesn't give young people like dishonest applicants a chance, does anyone in China still have a chance? For those who swear to talk about ideas and bottom lines, don't you have the slightest dishonesty?

Vanity is certainly not a good character, but is it necessary to beat a college graduate to death with a stick? Most people get up and exit, and have expressed the attitude of the people, enough to warn vain young people, is it necessary to force others to zero tolerance? This kind of moral kidnapping is very immoral. What's the difference between this kind of moral kidnapping and that vain college student? Even if it can not be said that vanity has nothing to do with business integrity, will people who are not vain always talk about business integrity? Is a dishonest enterprise that employs young people who exaggerate their personal experience and honor? From state-owned enterprises to private enterprises, how many honest enterprises are there in China? Is this a media-oriented influence? The correct view of right and wrong is used to discipline oneself, and it is the effective media guidance to guide the world to face up to their own (lack of integrity) defects and be strict with themselves.

It is only me that the program's focus on integrity is the right orientation, but not the current zero tolerance. The program should track the employee's work integrity record through the employer, especially the job integrity record of such young job seekers who have provided exaggerated personal experience and honor, and verified and exposed through the program. This is the true zero tolerance and the effective media orientation. The kind of vain job applicants who offer exaggerated personal experiences and honors to the society, and they will be honest when they apply for jobs in the society? Isn't the program about media duty and orientation? Provide a platform to establish a relationship between employment and employment, even if you fulfill your obligations and fulfill your guidance? What should be reflected on is not only those college graduates who provide exaggerated personal experiences and honors to the employees in the program, but also the directors and hosts of the entire program as well as the supervisors of many employers. How on earth should we fulfill our social obligations? How on earth should morality be used?