Abstract The original meaning of good is the characteristic of other people's actions or consciousness which is favorable to the subject. Public opinion can be engendered by everyone praising good and cursing evil, and objective meaning of good can then be formed: The good is the characteristic of a person's action or consciousness which is favorable to others. Various criterions in history all regarded actions which were resisted the least and supported the most as justice. All choice may be just when benefits of different people conflict and the total benefit is not possible to increase. The maximization of the total benefit is the criterion of justice, when benefits conflict and the total benefit may be increased on someone's sacrifice. The law, moral and all other rules are justice only when they are able to help people to raise benefit or decrease loss. Human do not have rights endowed by nature, let alone embryo of people, chimera and animals. Rights come from struggle. Equality and humanitarianism are results of struggle and compromise. The law of jungle still works in a large degree, after the foundation of the principle of equality.

Key words ethics, justice, human rights, utilitarianism, good and evil

Ⅰ. Start with the Right of Embryo and Chimera

Not only the right of adult and children of human but also that of embryo, chimera and animals is concerned by modern ethics. Do embryo of human and chimera as the medical instrument¹ have same rights as adults? What kind of rights should animals possess? These arguments come from the need of modern science. It has been found among these arguments that some common basis is necessary for all problems. For instance, where do the human rights come from? What is the criterion of justice? What is justice? What is good?

Ⅱ. Utilitarianism

Sigmund Freud believed that sexual desire determines social history,² while Karl H. Marx had faith on physiologic needs for food, clothes and so on which determine social history.³ All these theories are reasonable, and therefore have much influence, but all these theories are not complete. The complete theory of history can only be obtained when the needs of people are pointed out completely as Abraham H. Maslow did. Maslow described that people have five levels of needs: physiological needs, safety needs, belonging and love needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.⁴

It has been concluded in my book Philosophy of Life with Self-organization that self-reproduction is the suffi- cient and necessary condition of the origin of life, so the essence of life is breeding. And therefore the purpose of human life is concluded: the purpose of human life is to survive, breed and meet needs of themselves, which is the final source of all values and significance.⁵ According to John S. Mill, the principle of utility is, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends.”⁶ The happiness, according to Jeremy Bentham, include not only happiness of sense and wealth, but also amity, benevolence and skill, etc.⁷ These are similar to Maslow's love and self-actulization.⁸ Bentham pointed out profoundly that “common sense”, “rule of right”, “law of nature”, etc, are all reducible to the principle of utility, asceticism is only a misuse of the principle of utility.⁹ David Hume proved that morality cannot originate from reason, reason ought to be the slave of sensibility.¹⁰ The super-ego, which Sigmund Freud mentioned, is the slave of id, too.

Jacques P. Thiroux distinguished egoism with utili- tarianism. Universal ethical egoism states as its basic principle that everyone should always act in his own self-interest regardless of the interests of others unless their interests also serve his. Utilitarianism try to figure out which act would bring about the greatest amount of good consequences not just for himself or herself, but for everyone involved in the situation. Both egoism and utilitarianism are consequentialism. One of the reasons, which Jacques P. Thiroux and some other philosophers opposed consequentialism, is that benefit is difficult to assess.¹¹ It is difficult indeed, especially when different benefits of a person or of different people are contradictory. But we have to assess no matter how difficult it is, and in fact, everyone is calculating his benefit every day. For example, we always calculate gains and losses again and again when we go shopping, marry, or look for a work. Companies always forecast before investment, governments always assess the result before practise a policy or sign a treaty. There are usually mistakes among these assessments, but people are always learning from mistakes.

Bentham, Hume, Mill, Han Feizi (lived in China more than 2200 years ago), and many other philosophers have implied the principle of utility, but few of them explained the basis of it correctly. Bentham and Mill believed that the principle of utility cannot prove.¹² In fact, this principle is only able to be proved by the knowledge of the essence of life. Adam Smith cited the theory of Zeno, the founder of the Stoical doctrine, to explain the origin of utility principle: Every animal was by nature recommended to its own care, and was endowed with the principle of self-love, that it might endeavor to preserve, not only its existence, but all the different parts of its nature, in the best and most perfect state of which they were capable. ¹³

The principle of egoism of animals leads to the law of jungle. Similarly, the principle of egoism of people also leads to the law of jungle, which is practiced in politics, military, economy, sports and so on, in history and now. Why do not I get my benefit by force, which is often the simplest way, if I can? Why should I care about others and learn to be gentle?

Ⅲ. Definition of Good and Evil

The concept good has two different meanings, one is beneficence opposite evil, another is utility opposite bad or loss. The good as beneficence is different from utility and happiness completely. Happiness belongs to the subject (person who is able to make decisions) himself, while good and evil are characteristics of actions between people. Good and evil, instead of happiness, is the moral criterion of society. Murder and drug trafficking are actions for happiness of the subject, but not agree with virtues.

Confucius noted that the meaning of beneficence is “to love others”. Adam Smith said, “Concern for our own happiness recommends to us the virtue of prudence; concern for that of other people, the virtue of justice and beneficence.”¹⁴ The virtues (like wisdom, bravery, abstinence, hope and faith) are often used as instruments of selfishness in battles against others, though they can be used for beneficence, too.

Adam Smith said, “Nature, too, had taught us, that as the prosperity of two was preferable to that of one, that of many, or of all, must be infinitely more so.”¹⁵ Most emperors, however, considered their own happiness more important than the total happiness of public, and did not mind to sacrifice hundreds and thousands of lives for it. Good and justice are not surely come from nature.

Why do not we murder or fire? An important reason is our fear in mind, though each has good characters in nature. Fear to what? To punishment. Each good person may kill others on certain conditions like revenge or seeking to survive. History stories tell us that bad deeds, as well as good, may rebound upon the doer. That is why we advocate good. The idea of altruism is possible to emerge automati- cally, but it may disappear easily if not be encouraged. Peter Singer listed four reasons for not killing people (the effects of the killing on others; the frustration of the victim's desires and plans for the future; the capacity to conceive of oneself as existing over time; and respect for autonomy),¹⁶ but no one of them is able to stop Hitler from killing Jews. The only way is to resist force by force. Punishment is a kind of negative feedback, which is one of major tools to maintain the order of society. Army, police and the alarm of the Judgement Day are always necessary to guard justice.

Punishment is originally made when people resist others for their utility, not by leaders as Bentham said. The basic law of the world is the law of jungle, and there is no natural human right at all.

The original meanings of good and evil are their subjective meaning, which is the valuation on other people's actions for the benefit of the subject.

The subjective definition of good and evil：The good is the characteristic of other people's actions or consciousness which is favorable to the subject. The evil is the characteristic of other people's actions or consciousness which is harmful to the subject.

It is clear in the subjective definition that good and evil are valuations of subject as egoist without any objectivity in it. Where does the unified criterion of good and evil come from then? Everyone praises good and curses evil. Public opinion comes into being from everyone's voice, therefore consistent praise to altruism and consistent curse to mean actions originates in society. In this way the objective definition of good and evil is accepted.

The objective definition of good and evil: The good is the characteristic of a person's action or conscious- ness which is favorable to others. The evil is the characteristic of a person's action or consciousness which is harmful to others.

Good actions include helping others, being courtesy, in good faith, etc; virtue is the willing to increase benefits of others. It is said in the Matthew of the Bible, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them”. Confucius said in the Analects, “Do not impose upon others what you your- self do not desire.”¹⁷

The reason why people praise good and curse evil is that everyone hopes to be benefited and avoid to be harmed. So the egoism is the reason why good becomes the public criterion of morality. Each one knows that selfishness is the motive of evil, while few know that selfishness is the motive of good. The second reason, which Jacques P. Thiroux and Brian Medlin opposed egoism, is that egoism contradicts altruism¹⁸. But they are, in fact, unified. The fact that we now live in a society which worships virtue mainly owes to selfishness of people, instead of preaches of priests.

W. D. Hamilton, the British biologist, produced the concept of Kin Selection to explain that many altruistic actions of animals are, in fact, selfishness.¹⁹ It is similar for human being. No matter whether the motive of altruistic action is altruism or selfishness, the action is good. Good people may be respected by others, and therefore own larger competitive power to make them win. As a result, good becomes the aim and fashionable idea of public. Confucius said, “Desiring to take his stand, one who is ren help others to take their stand; wanting to realize himself, he helps others to realize themselves.”²⁰ The egoism makes us want praise and fear curse and punishment, therefore manage to obtain other's respect and increase our competitive power by altruistic actions.

Though people have good nature, it does not have enough power to defeat selfishness. It is only selfishness that is able to defeat selfishness, only struggle and balance among people have enough power to make our society worship virtue.

Ⅳ. The Definition and Criterion of Justice

The ethic characteristics of some actions are difficult to judge by definitions of good and evil. There are two kinds of them. One is what neither benefit nor harm others, all of this kind of actions are just. Just actions include good and other actions which meet benefit of oneself with no harm of others. Good is not necessary for each, but no evil is allowed. All of actions are just if only no harm of others.

The other one of the two is what both benefit and harm others. One thing or action may be good and evil at the same time. For example, evil should be punished though the punishment is to harm people. No one wants to be punished and would definitely resist, but the punishment is just when it is resisted by few people and be supported by the most. This is the premise and extent of punishment.

In countries of democracy and equality, the principles in The Declaration of Rights are accepted generally to be the criterion of justice. The first article of it is fundamental, “That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Bentham criticized, “every order, for example, to pay money on the score of taxation, or of debt from individual to individual, or otherwise, is void; for the effect of it, complied with, is ‘to deprive and divest him', of the enjoyment of liberty.”²¹

Bentham's words are profound, the criterion of justice is not so simple. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was signed in 2007, solves this problem by saying “No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law.”²² In this way, not only the problem is not solved, but also the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union loses the basic standing to provide foundation for other laws, and every law is able to deprive people of their rights in the public interest. There should be a definite unified criterion of justice in the Chapter instead of giving the right to other laws.

The action is just to erect an institution to benefit people, while evil to erect an institution to harm people. Most social institutions, however, benefit some people when they harm the others. Which actions are just when erecting these institutions? Or which institutions are just?

The core of ethics is justice, while the core of morality is good and evil. The criterion of justice is the code of conduct, including law and moral. The main content of institutions is responsibilities, rights and interests people should have. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that the justice is founded on the contract.²³ This was criticized by Jeremy S. Mill, who proved that no kind of criterion of justice has natural foundation.²⁴ The only natural foundation is the benefit of the subject.

Definition: Justice is the characteristics of other people's actions and social relations which is acceptable for the subject.

It is clear that the definition of justice accords with the egoism, as well as the subjective definition of good and evil. This is the natural criterion of justice, but a subjective one. Different subject has different criterion, and therefore support his justice. There are, in fact, many criterions of justice in the world, most of which are contradictory. A certain institution is supported by some people and resisted by others. In the history, however, all the justice criterions which were ever practised for long time had a generality: they regarded actions as justice when they were resisted the least and supported the most. Therefore, this is the objective criterion of justice we have been searching.

Theorem: The criterion of justice is the quantity of resistance and support to certain actions. Actions that are less resisted and more supported are justice.

Many lives may be sacrificed to set up a government, which is possible to be supported by public, because a strong government is able to create and maintain a large system of society. Large system is better in many ways than a small one, including building irrigation works, resisting invasions, unifying money and words. The government, set up on the pool of blood, is able to maximize public interest. Consequently, might is right in this case, as it is instrument to protect public interest. The criterion of right and wrong is the benefit of the strong, namely, the governor. In English, Justum is a form of jussum,²⁵ namely order. The dictatorship and the law of jungle were all ever helpful to human progress, and were justice to a certain degree.

It is always said that the justice will eventually conquer the evil, while slavery system and autarchy were practise for thousands of years. In fact, justice is the winner itself, only that justice contains more and more benefits of public when society develops. The slavery system and autarchy were just in certain period, unless it was possible to build a system which was more efficient to promote the interest of the public, and therefore most people did not support these old systems any longer.

Ⅴ. Justice Criterion on Different Relations

of Benefits

Bentham, Plato and some others supposed that the criterion of justice is the maximum of benefit of the most people. This is almost right, but not precise.

Benefits of people have different relations, which may be divided into two kinds: (a) conflict, one rises as the other fall (up-down); (b) not conflict, one rise with the other rise or remain fixed (up-up). They often transform toward each other when conditions change. What is more, there are two kinds of up-down: (a) the total benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall; (b) the total benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall.

Both choices on benefit of the subject and others may be justice, when the total of benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall. For example, there is only one champion and there is always someone to be victim.

Theorem: Both choices on benefit between the subject and others may be justice when benefits conflict and the total benefit is not able to rise or avoid to fall.

This conclusion accords the principle of utility and equality. On the other hand, when the total of benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall with one side sacrificed, the maximization of the total benefit is the justice.

Theorem: The maximization of benefit is justice when benefits conflict and the total benefit is able to rise or avoid to fall.

People are always counting the total of benefit though it is difficult. For example, Americans felt that the benefit of the Nation had been over-valuated after the Vietnam War, and were not willing to sacrifice individual for the benefit of the Nation any longer. After “9.11”, however, Americans realized the importance of the National benefit again and were willing to pay more tax for the national security. The different opinions of the valuation cause the quarrel in the Congress every year about the budget.

It is necessary to note that the maximization of benefit is different from the Majority Rule. For instance, it is to sacrifice benefit of majority that many people contribute money to save a life, but also maximization of the benefit, because the changes of benefits of different people are different.

The Greatest Happiness Principle of Mill and Bentham²⁶ can be concluded from upper conclusion, when the change of each one's benefit is the same.

Theorem: Benefit of majority is the criterion of justice, when benefits conflict and each one's change of benefit is almost the same.

It is always possible for one side to sacrifice when benefit of different people conflict, no matter whether the total of benefit can rise. There are three ways to sacrifice: by force, will or deal. It is struggle to sacrifice one's benefit by force. It is justice struggle when the aim is to raise the total of benefit, which fit the upper theorem, and the opposite is not justice. The struggle cannot be designated as justice or not but can be designated as good or evil, when the total of benefit cannot rise or avoid to fall.

Struggles include peaceful ones or not peaceful ones. Struggle is not possible to avoid in society, and it is possible to trigger positive feedback, namely vicious cycle or revenge on each other, which can always bring catastrophe.

Consequently, a lot of laws, conventions and rules are created to decrease the loss and realize fair play as far as possible. Rules also make it easy for people to make decisions, prevent assessing gains and losses from start every time. Rules are useful to realize maximization of benefit, though no present rules are prior criterion of justice. The rule, which is not able to help us to raise benefit or decrease loss, is not justice.

Theorem: The law, moral and all other rules are justice only when they are able to help people to raise benefit or decrease loss.

This is the basis of Rule Utilitarianism which Jacques Thiroux mentioned.²⁷ 

To sacrifice one's benefit by deal means to alienate some interest of beneficiary to victim. In this way benefit contradiction may be transformed to unification, which is ideal but not possible in all kinds of conditions. To sacrifice by will is dedication, which is necessary for social progress. But it is not so good when there are too many dedications.

It is evil to harm others no matter how much it does, and is possible to be understood and admitted only when gain is bigger than loss. It is evil to save yourself with blood of others, unless it is admitted in advance and compensated.

The practical imperative of Immanuel Kant is, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”²⁸ This rule is not right,sometimes people can be treated as means to reach other's aim. For example, there are many medical experiments using people as object, surely enough without danger of life. Otherwise people should not be used, unless there is no other ways and it is able to save many lives. Generally, however, solutions are able to be found, like using animals to do medical experiments. Sacrifice of soldiers on the battle fields is the means to protect others.

There are up-up relations everywhere, which is accepted willingly and almost never arouse contradiction, and is the basis of cooperation and unification of benefit. In this case, benefit of each person is the criterion of justice and ought to be improved.

Theorem: Benefit of each person is the criterion of justice when benefits of people are in the up-up relation.

The up-down relation is able to be transformed into up-up, if people change the conditions in a proper way, to realize win-win and avoid struggle. For example, everyone obey the transportation rules and build some flyovers. The concrete ways to make win-win, therefore, should be sought and made as more as possible, which is also a kind of justice, a more important justice.

Theorem: The effort to seek and make concrete ways to realize win-win is justice.

The win-win is harmony, which is possible to reach the Pareto Optimality. Everyone is keen on wealth, and the best way is by up-up.

Love or benevolence is an important way to change the up-down to the up-up besides even bargain. Confucius and Jesus discovered the function of love, so they dedicated their lives to promote it.

The even bargain is also an important way to win-win. Adam Smith submitted, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations, the principle of personal utility, invisible hand and even bargain. As a result, the British Premier at that time called him “teacher”.

Immanuel Kant was wrong to say that it has not genuine moral worth to help others from inclination.²⁹ In fact, this kind of action is one of the best ways to realize win-win, and should be advocated．Kant regard the good, not from inclination but from duty, as a moral worth and beyond all comparison the highest.³⁰ As a matter of fact, this kind of good was advocated in Mao Zedong's era, but produced the reverse, the public morals declined greatly, which would not have happened if the good from inclination had been advocated. To help others from inclination is usually a fair bargain. The dedication from duty is unfair bargain, which is impossible to be permanence. The society gives dedicating people great honor to make the bargain fair, but still many people do not regard the honor worthy enough for the material loss.

Justice is the general and basic criterion, to which no violation is allowed. Good is a higher criterion which is not general. The society reward good, but should not force everybody to perform it. Kant and Mao were not strong enough to fight against the principle of utility.

Ⅵ. The Source of Human Rights

Justice is realized mostly by selfishness in competition, many of which are very cruel with sacrifice of many lives. By comparison, good is to offer one's own benefit to others, and therefore possibly makes him lose in competition. So justice can not be realized only rely on good characters.

Bentham said, “whatever is given for law by the person or persons recognized as possessing the power of making laws, is law.”³¹ But Bentham did not explain who possess the power of making laws. In fact, everyone wishes to have power to make laws in order to control others. Different people or throngs, however, have different strength. Powerful throng got rights in struggle first, which meant they could make laws to enslave others, while others had to resist and strive for their rights.

The weaker the people had resisted, the more difficult they obtained human rights. Many throngs have not got equal rights until now. Nations with large population got rights first, while minorities later. Animals have little intellect and are still engaged and killed now.

Theorem: Rights come from struggle.

People do not have natural rights, nor do the embryo of people, chimera and animals. People protect animals now because their extinction has threatened the existence of human being. The rights embryo and chimera should get depend on the effect they bring to adult. This is the inevitable result though you are very kind and hope to give them as more rights as possible.

Marxism has faith on the theory of class struggle. The struggle in society, however, is not only between classes, but also between people and organizations. In this way, the word class struggle should be replaced by social struggle.

The social confusion is not always bad, nor is it the doomsday. New orders are definitely founded after confusion. The foundations of most orders have the premise of a period of confusion. People and organizations struggle for their benefits within the confusion, someone wins and others lose, and then the new order is able to found. The winners build the governments of autarchy if they have faith on their power. Otherwise, the winners build willingly the governments of democracy and equality if they have learnt the lessons of previous autarchy. No savior from on high delivers, the social struggle based on utility unites the human race.³²

It is necessary to notice that Peter Singer was wrong when he put infant into the same range as animals according to rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness, there- fore he thought killing infant cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.³³ Infant is possible to become rational when he grows up, and hate those who ever planned to throw him away or kill him, although he is not rational at the moment, while animals are never rational. Reason and self- consciousness are right criteria, because the more reason a person is, the more capable he is to resist others. So the more possible a body is to have full reason, the more rights should a body enjoy. Singer resist to count the potential of a fetus to become rational, self-conscious being when he suggested that killing infants cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, because sperm and ovum also have this possibility while we never regard contraception and celibacy as encroaching on human right.³⁴ This argument is not reasonable, because sperm and ovum only have an extremely low possibility to become a person, quite lower than that of embryo. The quantitative change brings about the qualitative change. John Noonan ever judged the right of embryo by probability, though he did not believe the theory of social struggle.³⁵

The equal rights can only be enjoyed by those who have full reason or have a certain possibility to have full reason in the future. The possibility, as the standard of a person, is lower than that of infants and higher than embryo in some countries while lower in other countries. Animals will never enjoy the same rights as human, as long as meat is necessary food of people. Most chimera cannot enjoy the equal rights, either, except some of them have big possibilities to have reason, like a mouse with a head of human.

The second reason to criticize Peter Singer is that benefits of children connect closely with that of their parents, because breeding is the essence of creature. Parents always regard the harm to their children or infants as that to themselves. The third and the most important reason is that all of people, including infants and deformed men, ought to share equal rights, after the foundation of the principle of equality with the social progress. How did the principle of equality found, then?

Ⅶ. The Principle of Equality

There are two reasons for society to accept the idea of equality as the criterion of justice. Firstly, equality and humanitarianism are results of struggle and compromise, a scheme with the least loss to realize equilibrium of social game. So it is supported the most. Americans cost two hundred years to learn how to treat the black equally, though Immanuel Kant had indicated, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”³⁶ Han ethnic group costs four thousand years to learn how to treat Chinese minorities equally.

Secondly, the social organizations with the culture of equality have higher efficiency. Social organizations include company, party, country, class, art and athletic organization, etc. The power of organization is larger than person. Therefore, organizations are governors in society, and the competitions are almost carried on among organizations.

The laws within organizations were the law of jungle originally. There are different kinds of guide of organization culture: rule by law or by individual, democracy or autarchy. Organizations with different culture have different efficiency, and therefore different competitive power. During the history, organizations ruled by individual and autarchy showed more and more disadvantages, and even bring catastrophe like holocaust. As a result, more and more people got faith on that higher efficiency comes from law and democracy, and with the progress of them equality is realized inevitably. So it is concluded that competition and resistance bring the progress of organization culture, which brings equality.

Equality is to distribute the same right, obligation and interest to each person, no matter whether he is full rational. There are three cases when the right of a person, as a subject, compares with the right of others: superior, equal or short. When a man have privilege, others have to be short, which certainly cannot be accepted according to the principle of utility. Therefore, equality is the largest right which people can hold for long, and equality becomes the goal of each person inevitably.

Unequal social institutions are necessarily revolted, while equal and democratic ones are revolted the least, and become the final choice of people. The might is not right any more when society has progressed. The criterion of justice should not be the benefit of someone, but the total benefit of the public.

The law of jungle, however, still works in a large degree, after the foundation of the principle of equality. People are still using the law of jungle now, because scientists cannot provide a unified standard to practice equality for embryo, chimera, animal and other objects, which are always argued about. And more obviously, the fact accords the law of jungle that some people are rich while many others are too poor to survive.

We have to use these two principles together, and the absolute equality will never realize.

Is the absolute equality the final criterion of justice? No. The final criterion of justice is its subjective criterion which accords with the principle of utility, although we have duty to promote the equality. The purpose of human life is to survive, breed and meet needs of themselves, which is the final source of all values and significance. All social rules and ideas, including equality, democracy, good, dedication, moral, law, and so on are instruments to meet benefits of the subject. The principle of equality should be practised as far as possible, only when it is useful for the utility of the most people.

Efficiency is another thing more important than equality. A well-known principle in many countries is that the efficiency is priority while equality should also be taken into consideration. The efficiency means the maximization of benefit of the society, instead of efficiency of any machine or organization. Equalitarianism ever hindered Chinese economy seriously. But efficiency is not able to defend all extreme disparity between the rich and the poor, which is the result of the law of jungle, especially between the rich country and the poor country.

References

1. Fei Teng, & Jianjun Li, “The Debate on Research of Chimbrid,” The Collection of Postgraduate Thesis on the Third National Forum of Philosophy of Science and Technology and Interdiscipline (2010): 568-572 (in Chinese).

2. Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1984), 9 (in Chinese).

3. Karl H. Marx, & Friedrich V. Engels, Anthology of Marx and Engels (3) (Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1994), 776 (in Chinese).

4. Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1987), 15-31.

5. Yong Duan, Philosophy of Life with Self- organization (Beijing: China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 2009), 88, 128 (in Chinese).

6. John S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001), 7.

7. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London; New york: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982), 42.

8. Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1987), 53.

9. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London; New york: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982), 25-26, 21.

10. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford University Press, 2000), 266, 295.

11. Jacques P. Thiroux, & Keith W. Krasemann, Ethics: Theory and Practice, 9th ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1998), 38, 44, 49.

12. John S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 2nd ed. (Indiana- polis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001), 35.

13. Adam Smith, The Theoty of Moral Sentiments (3) (Beijing: Jiuzhou Press, 2006), 700.

14. Ibid., 670.

15. Ibid., 704.

16. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York; Victoria: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 100.

17. Philip J. Ivanhoe, & Bryan W. Van Norden, Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy (New York: Seven Bridge Press, 2001), 32.

18. Jacques P. Thiroux, & Keith W. Krasemann, Ethics: Theory and Practice, 9th ed.  (Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1998), 39-40.

19. W. D. Hamilton, “The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior,” American Naturalist 896 (1963): 354-356.

20. Philip J. Ivanhoe, & Bryan W. Van Norden, Readings in Classical Chinese Philosiphy (New York: Seven Bridge Press, 2001), 19.

21. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London; New york: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982), 321.

22. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2007/C 303/01). EUR-Lex. http://eur-lex.europa.eu

/en/ treaties/dat/32007x1214/htm/c2007303en.01000101.htm.

23. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings (Beijing: China University of Politics and Law Press, 2003), 52-53.

24. John S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 2nd ed. (Indiana- polis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001), 55-57.

25. Ibid., 47.

26. Ibid., 14.

27. Jacques P. Thiroux, & Keith W. Krasemann, Ethics: Theory and Practice, 9th ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998), 46.

28. Immanuel Kant, The moral law: groundwork of the metaphysic of morals, Translated by H. J. Paton. (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 106.

29. Ibid., 69.

30. Ibid., 70.

31. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London; New york: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982), 312.

32. By comparison, the song of Internationale said, “No savior from on high delivers,” “the internationale unites the human race.”

33. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York; Victoria: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 182.

34. Ibid., 182.

35. Ibid., 160-161.

36. Immanuel Kant, The moral law: groundwork of the metaphysic of morals, Translated by H. J. Paton. (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 97.