? -nonviolent communication
1
It is human nature to sympathize with the weak, especially in China. Under the influence of Confucius' theory of benevolence, it seems to be the standard for us to judge whether things are good or bad and whether morality is good or not.
It is immoral not to help an old man when he falls. It is immoral not to give up your seat in the face of the old, the weak and the sick; In the face of sudden robbery, it is immoral not to help. ...
The old, the weak, the sick and the disabled are the weak, and the robbed person is also the weak, so there is a kind of sympathy. There is nothing wrong with sympathizing with the weak, but it should not be your weapon to blame others. But in this society, there are always some people who will stand on the commanding heights of morality and point fingers at other people's behaviors. This is actually a kind of language violence, which is immoral in itself.
Not long ago, an uncle angrily forced a man to give up his seat on the subway. Originally, the man wanted to give up his seat, but the old man looked like he deserved it and made him very uncomfortable. The old man insists that it is legal to give up his seat to the old, the weak and the sick, and it is illegal not to give up his seat. At this time, the man saw a child without a seat and told the child to sit in his seat. The man said that the child is still young and should give up his seat. This seat is his own. It is his own business to give it to whoever he likes.
Obviously, the old people are taking advantage of the sympathy of the society and selling the old by relying on the old. We all saw it, because, in this case, in that case, that person is weak, he was kidnapped by a trumped-up crime and surrounded by uncle's momentum. It's easy for us to take the side of men.
Similarly, there was another incident. A spitting person kept spitting on the bus, and a man came over and accused him of his behavior. As a result, I was punched by the spitter. At this time, a tall man gave the man who spat a foot, and the man who spat stopped his uncivilized behavior.
In this case, I think it is difficult to judge whether the tall man's behavior is moral or not. Some people say that we should kick the spitting person, others say that violence should not be countered with violence, and some even say that the tall man's behavior is uncivilized and immoral than that of the spitting person. Those people gradually point the moral finger at tall people and ignore the behavior of spitting people.
The behavior of those who overemphasize morality and excessively interpret and criticize the behavior of tall men is also a kind of violence. The reason for this view is that the man is tall. In this case, people who spit everywhere will become weak, so some people will use moral shackles to excessively accuse tall men of ignoring the immoral behavior of those who spit before.
2
I have read a passage from "Get to know you again", and the author said, "We have long known what is right and what is wrong; What is good and what is bad; There are limits to what is moral and what is immoral. We always think that as long as we think of the opposite of violence, jealousy and malice, it will help us get rid of the thing itself, but we don't know that this mentality is fueling the inner opposition. Do we use the opposite of truth as a standard to expel our own things? Or use it as a way to escape the truth? "
This passage tells us that when we use moral framework to limit violence, sometimes we are encouraging violence and making the result farther and farther away from the truth.
The tall man's feet are violent, but it is also a kind of violence to accuse him too much and emphasize morality too much. It may encourage tucao man's violence, make the truth go further and further, leaving only a boring moral shackle.
When we are faced with conflicts and disputes ranging from fighting to swearing, to crimes such as murder and arson, it is obvious that the wicked are those who ignore morality and law and deprive others of their lives, health and property safety, and the good are also obvious that they are legal sanctions. But there is a kind of people, it is difficult for us to talk about good and evil, and it is also difficult to restrain them with morality. At this time, it is like that tall man.
He used violence to stop the spitting man, but excessive moral constraints and restrictions may not be so moral.
Akutagawa Ryunosuke said, "The strong may be immoral; The weak may suffer moral caress; People who suffer moral persecution are often between the strong and the weak. "
three
Whether to die like a hero ... or live in pain only to find that you are no longer a good person. I can do all these things, because I am not a hero, not a hero like Dante. I killed those people. I can be this kind of person.
I am what gotham city wants me to be. Let them (the police) in.
You want to chase me, you want to condemn me and let the dog chase me. Because it is necessary, because sometimes ... the truth is not so good, sometimes people deserve more than the truth, and sometimes people's beliefs are worth returning.
This is the last Batman line in Batman's Dark Knight movie. In my opinion, how to choose between morality and violence is a better answer.
Batman is not a legal punisher. It is illegal and immoral for him to punish the evil of the night. But in this world, black and white are not so clearly visible, and violence and morality are not so easy to distinguish.
So, how to choose between morality and violence? Morality is more self-disciplined. When you impose your moral standards on others, it may be a potential violence. Of course, fighting violence with violence can't solve all problems, on the contrary, it may create more problems, but it is by no means simple immorality to judge.
In fact, violence, whether moral or not, is to prevent evil from breeding, for the sake of human civilization and development, in other words, it is just a means.
Proper use of violence is moral, and too much emphasis on morality may also be violent. We should make a moderate choice and should not simply and rudely comment on it.