Is accepting food stamps moral?

[empyblessing]

tIf the state is a criminal than accepting money or support from that criminal organization would be enabling and supporting that criminal behavior. How does this apply to public buildings and infrastructure? How about people who support the statement either overtly or through their actions? 

[Marc Moini]

Hi empyblessing, I guess morality says that you should not associate with these people because that would be enabling them. Myself I think that thinking in this manner is not helpful, you know, waiting for some higher authority (the word of god, morality, objective reality, etc.) to tell you what you should and should not do in order to be good/virtuous. Far more satisfactory for you and me and everyone else to think instead in terms of whether some action fulfills or goes against the satisfaction of our fundamental human needs, such as for air, food, water, rest, sexual expression (the physical well-being needs), and other needs such as for acceptance, empathy, respect, trust, warmth (connection needs), etc.

In other words, make your own choices rather than wait for someone else to tell you what you ought to do. That's a better way of reaching happiness and staying happy, in harmony with everyone else, in my opinion.

Best wishes,

Marc

[empyblessing]

I collect food stamps from the government and in the near future I'll probably begin collecting a monthly payment for disability as well. This is not derived from any labor I've performed and the money for this is taken directly from a form of theft called taxation. Does my acceptance of this money make me complicit with the crimes of the state? Would I be more accountable if the money came from a mafia family whose occupation was murder and extortion? By accepting the money do I not support the behavior and by supporting it am I part of the crime? 

Consider this, without the money and medical insurance, I'll probably die. The reason I accept the money is not because I believe that it is moral but out of necessity. In other words my need to survive is greater than my need to be virtuous. 

However, things like not driving on a road are out of my control but the money is not. I have the options of pursuing more money from the state as well. I can have my student loans removed through disability. That's 33k. I can increase the disability I receive to 12k a year. The worth of the medical coverage is also very large, potentially greater than all of the others. I can receive free or near free housing, heating, electricity, clothing, etc. 

How can I condemn the parasites when it's obvious I am one? Isn't that the root of state control, dependence? Why did Obama get elected? Because of the state backed unions. In other words, no one votes themselves out of a job. 

[ribuck]

How can I condemn the parasites when it's obvious I am one?

It's not obvious, unless your lifetime receipts exceed the taxes and levies that have been extracted from you.

What if you were to make a public declaration inviting any taxpayer to contact you so that you could return the share that came from them? Each person's share would probably be under a penny, so the gesture would be largely symbolic, but sometimes symbolic gestures are important.

[TheRobin]

When a gang of thiefs locks you up in their cave, is it really immoral to accept the food they give you?And if your virtues require you to die (and then also be unable to be virtuous anyway), it might be that whatever ethical system you use, might have some flaws there (if virtue is basically unatainable regardless of the choice you make in this situation).

The only reason that you have to rely on govt handouts is, that their presence makes a voluntary solution impossible. (The problem of disability is slightly different from charity anyway imo and would almost garantueed be solved by insurance in a free market anarchy, so don't bother calculating if you take more out than you pay in, that's how insurance work in all cases anway.)

[Marc Moini]

 

How can I condemn the parasites when it's obvious I am one?

 

Hi empyblessing, why do you want to condemn anyone? I don't understand what that would get you, besides feeling miserable and depressed and thinking of yourself as unfit to live when you reach the point of condemning yourself, which I believe inevitably happens when you think there are things you "should" and "should not" do? Would you please help me understand what benefit there is to you of thinking that way, instead of judging people's actions (and yours) according to whether or not they fulfill needs from the set of human needs we all share?

Best wishes,

Marc

[ribuck]

How can I condemn the parasites ...

I don't think anyone here calls for condemnation of those who are given benefits by the state. I think the condemnation is reserved for those who use aggression to operate the system.

 

[Marc Moini]

Hi ribuck, this may be OT, I don't know, but why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression? I understand that your concern is in preventing aggression, and I share that concern, however it seems to me that the way in which you are trying to prevent aggression can only lead to more aggression, not less. Do you believe condemning people is going to somehow bring you or them or anyone else something?

Best wishes,

Marc

[Carlos Morales]

 

Hi ribuck, this may be OT, I don't know, but why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression? I understand that your concern is in preventing aggression, and I share that concern, however it seems to me that the way in which you are trying to prevent aggression can only lead to more aggression, not less. Do you believe condemning people is going to somehow bring you or them or anyone else something?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

I realize I'm jumping into this conversation, but I believe that condemnation and ostracization are useful in deterring repeated immoral behavior. If you kill someone, steal repeatedly, are a compulsive liar, you should be condemned and ostracized from society.

[Marc Moini]

Hi Carlos, thanks for answering, i hear how you believe that condemnation and ostracization are useful in preventing people from harming others. Would you explain to me step by step how it works, from the point of view of the person who did the "immoral" behavior, and from your point of view as a "moral" member of society?

Best wishes,

Marc

[ribuck]

 

Hi ribuck, this may be OT, I don't know, but why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression?

That's an interesting question, which I've never thought about before. I'm using "condemn" to mean "express complete disapproval of". This is sometimes called "moral condemnation". I realise that "condemn" has a second meaning of "to declare something as inevitable" e.g. "to condemn someone to die" but I'm not using the word in that meaning.

I think it's important to condemn what is morally wrong. If someone is doing something that is morally wrong, and no-one condemns it, then everyone who knows it's wrong might assume that they are the only ones, and those doing the wrong thing might assume that their behavior is not disapproved of by others.

[Marc Moini]

Hi ribuck,

Ah ok, I understood "condemn" according to another definition, the one I've always thought of as the primary meaning of this word: (here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn ) 

"1. to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widelycondemned as racist>"

With your definition of expressing complete disapproval, I think the moral aspect is absent, and the moral aspect is what I think empyblessing is concerned with. What do you think of this?

Best wishes,

Marc

[empyblessing]

 

Hi ribuck, this may be OT, I don't know, but why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression? I understand that your concern is in preventing aggression, and I share that concern, however it seems to me that the way in which you are trying to prevent aggression can only lead to more aggression, not less. Do you believe condemning people is going to somehow bring you or them or anyone else something?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

 

You're right. It's best not to condemn people because people have feelings, an organization doesn't. So I condemn the system and not the person. As in, I understand Obama is only doing his best. No man in his position and with his experience could do anything differently. Removing blaim from the person not only lightens people's guilty feelings but also places emphasis on the root cause, the system itself.  Which is another reason why voting is pointless. It enables the system. To vote you must believe that the system isn't fundamentally corupt but that it's not being operated correctly. Voting is the opposite of change then since it affirms conservative ideals.

Here's another question to answer though. Would you still read the books of an anarchist if you knew he took money from the government?

 

[Marc Moini]

Hi empyblessing, thank you for explaining that you are not condemning people, only the system. I am glad to hear this because I share the same need with you of caring about people's feelings. When you say that Obama is doing his best I agree to, if we take into account his knowledge and his life history. Do you believe though that it would be possible for someone in his position to do one thing differently, and that one thing would be to quit the job? I imagine if everyone elected president quit the job on their first hour, it might have a dramatic effect :-) Something like this could bring down "the system" in the mind of everyone, no?

As to your question about the anarchist taking money from the government and writing books, and whether we (I suppose you're asking everyone) would still read any of his books, I guess I might do so even though his actions are inconsistent, if I hope to find something of interest to me in his books. I suppose you're asking about the morality of reading his books, but I don't think about whether something I might do is morally sanctioned or not. I judge actions by another standard I find serves everyone more effectively, which is whether these actions meet my needs or not (needs as defined in Nonviolent Communication, i.e. without regard to time or person or place). Is this answer satisfactory for you?

Best wishes,

Marc

[ribuck]

With your definition of expressing complete disapproval, I think the moral aspect is absent, and the moral aspect is what I think empyblessing is concerned with. What do you think of this?

Sorry, I don't follow. The question to which I was responding was "why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression?". There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

[Marc Moini]

Hi ribuck,

 

There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

 

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. I believe it's very difficult to realize that we are doing this though, since almost everyone of us is raised as if morality was the same to us as water is to fish. I know for me it was very difficult to step out of that box! It's only when I had been learning and practicing Nonviolent Communication for months, and therefore learning to think in terms of meetings needs instead of what is right and what is wrong, that it happened for me.

Best wishes,

Marc

[ribuck]

 

Hi ribuck,

 

There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

 

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not.

Hmm. I think you might be saying that the moral aspect is not embedded in the aggression itself (i.e. in the initiation of violence), but arises out of the human context of that aggression. For sure I agree with that. For example, a volcanic eruption is violent but there is no moral aspect to it. However, in this discussion we are referring to things like the use of aggression to collect taxes to pay for food stamps. Within the implied scope of this discussion, I think there's always a moral aspect to aggression.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you mean something else. In that case, I would find it helpful if you could give an example of the type of aggression you have in mind, where it is a choice whether or not to bring morality into it.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Hi ribuck,

 

There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

 

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. I believe it's very difficult to realize that we are doing this though, since almost everyone of us is raised as if morality was the same to us as water is to fish. I know for me it was very difficult to step out of that box! It's only when I had been learning and practicing Nonviolent Communication for months, and therefore learning to think in terms of meetings needs instead of what is right and what is wrong, that it happened for me.

Best wishes,

Marc

 

So a rapist and a surgeon have no distinction in the quality of their behavior. They just have different needs?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Here's another question to answer though. Would you still read the books of an anarchist if you knew he took money from the government? 

 

Would you read a diet book from a man who weighed 400lbs? Would you read a physics book by a woman who followed her horoscope every day? Would you take ethical advice from a serial rapist?

[Carlos Morales]

 

Hi Carlos, thanks for answering, i hear how you believe that condemnation and ostracization are useful in preventing people from harming others. Would you explain to me step by step how it works, from the point of view of the person who did the "immoral" behavior, and from your point of view as a "moral" member of society?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

My sister-in-law and brother are compulsive liars and alcoholics. They've been given many chances, from rehab from my brother - and during his rehab my sister-in-law stated that "no one will take away my alcohol - to blanket forgiveness by my family repeatedly for their behavior. My brother received a number of DWI's, and was helped out by my father in a number of cases to help fix his cases. Recently, yet again, my sister-in-law began yelling at me in front of my family, stating that "You think you're so high and fucking mighty because your sober", which is a common theme of abusive people. They have a completely violence based relationship, though not physical violence that I know of, and they express that violent behavior on others. Due to this repeated onslaught of hate, they have been ostracized and not spoken to anymore. Let me make this clear, I realize that the first response by some people here is that my parents fucked up in raising him. But, my parents through discussions, therapy and life events have expanded their minds and have become even more loving human beings who have embraced anarchism, atheism, and have categorically apologized for any abuse while stating that my wife and I will be better parents.
My brother, on the hand, is a 30 year old boy who has done nothing but fuck up his own life while blaming others and constantly lying. He should be ostracized and not forgiven because he's gone too deep down a hole of shit. 

[empyblessing]

 

 

Here's another question to answer though. Would you still read the books of an anarchist if you knew he took money from the government? 

 

Would you read a diet book from a man who weighed 400lbs? Would you read a physics book by a woman who followed her horoscope every day? Would you take ethical advice from a serial rapist?

 

1. I might if he had a good reason for being fat. 2. I don't follow the logic here. 3. If the choice is between raping someone and dying, is there any ethical decision? 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

Here's another question to answer though. Would you still read the books of an anarchist if you knew he took money from the government? 

 

Would you read a diet book from a man who weighed 400lbs? Would you read a physics book by a woman who followed her horoscope every day? Would you take ethical advice from a serial rapist?

 

1. I might if he had a good reason for being fat. 2. I don't follow the logic here. 3. If the choice is between raping someone and dying, is there any ethical decision? 

 

You asked whether I would read the books of an anarchist who is supported by the government. I responded by offering other examples of seeking the advice of people who clearly aren't living the values they are claiming to expouse. Is it possible they still have good ideas? Sure. But they're clearly hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. And if they can't live by the values they claim, that increases the likelihood that the values themselves are corrupt.

It's clear by your questions that you already know what the right thing to do is. And it's equally clear by the continued conversation that you're looking for a moral sanction to forgive yourself for doing what you already think is wrong. 

[ribuck]

You asked whether I would read the books of an anarchist who is supported by the government. I responded by offering other examples of seeking the advice of people who clearly aren't living the values they are claiming to expouse. Is it possible they still have good ideas? Sure. But they're clearly hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. And if they can't live by the values they claim, that increases the likelihood that the values themselves are corrupt.

Of course, Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare payments.

There is, incidentally, a school of thought which says that everyone should accept as many things from the state as possible, because everything they draw from the state will weaken the state.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

You asked whether I would read the books of an anarchist who is supported by the government. I responded by offering other examples of seeking the advice of people who clearly aren't living the values they are claiming to expouse. Is it possible they still have good ideas? Sure. But they're clearly hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. And if they can't live by the values they claim, that increases the likelihood that the values themselves are corrupt.

Of course, Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare payments.

Sure. And she's a great example of someone who didn't live the values they claimed to uphold.

There is, incidentally, a school of thought which says that everyone should accept as many things from the state as possible, because everything they draw from the state will weaken the state.

 

Yes, the "bleed it dry" approach. I'm familiar with it. Even if you think that greater government excesses will hasten the demise of the state, there's still a difference between laughing at the latest entitlement program and accepting the stolen proceeds yourself. 

[Marc Moini]

 

 

Hi ribuck,

 

There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

 

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not.

Hmm. I think you might be saying that the moral aspect is not embedded in the aggression itself (i.e. in the initiation of violence), but arises out of the human context of that aggression. For sure I agree with that. For example, a volcanic eruption is violent but there is no moral aspect to it. However, in this discussion we are referring to things like the use of aggression to collect taxes to pay for food stamps. Within the implied scope of this discussion, I think there's always a moral aspect to aggression.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you mean something else. In that case, I would find it helpful if you could give an example of the type of aggression you have in mind, where it is a choice whether or not to bring morality into it.

 

Hi ribuck,

I believe I mean something else. Since you asked for an example, I hope the following one will do: person A hits person B on the back of the head then steals B's money while B is unconscious.

One choice is to think of what happened using morality, to think that what the aggressor did was immoral. Another choice is to think of what happened without bringing morality into it, and instead to consider whose needs have or have not been met by what happened (according to the definition of human needs used in Nonviolent Communication, http://happinesscounseling.com/NVC_Intro.pdf ).

The advantage for me of the second choice is that we think of the aggressor as merely having chosen a tragic and inadequate strategy for meeting their needs, since this strategy most likely did not meet their need for peace nor their need for self-respect nor their need to make life more wonderful for everyone (in NVC view we all have these needs), and the focus stays on helping this person find other strategies that will meet everyone's needs, in win/win fashion. We don't think of the aggressor as deserving to be punished (regardless of the punishment method, whether it be shaming, ostracism, a fine, prison, or death), which would only cause more violence to occur (towards the aggressor initially and perhaps later other persons, if the aggressor does not learn better win/win strategies and ends up attacking more people in order to get their needs met in the future).

I find it difficult to explain this in just a few sentences, if you're interested I suggest you read this interview: http://www.openexchange.org/features/Keep/rosenberg.html

There are also YouTube videos on Nonviolent Communication, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication

I'm convinced that thinking in moralistic terms is the main cause of violence on this planet, because it justifies violence when someone does something we don't like. All we need to do is think of them as "bad", and the gate to violence is opened. Thinking in terms of finding win/win solutions that meet everyone's fundamental human needs avoid this trap.

Please let me know if you find this explanation satisfactory or not!

Best wishes,

Marc

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

Hi ribuck,

 

There's always a moral aspect to aggression.

 

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not.

Hmm. I think you might be saying that the moral aspect is not embedded in the aggression itself (i.e. in the initiation of violence), but arises out of the human context of that aggression. For sure I agree with that. For example, a volcanic eruption is violent but there is no moral aspect to it. However, in this discussion we are referring to things like the use of aggression to collect taxes to pay for food stamps. Within the implied scope of this discussion, I think there's always a moral aspect to aggression.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you mean something else. In that case, I would find it helpful if you could give an example of the type of aggression you have in mind, where it is a choice whether or not to bring morality into it.

 

Hi ribuck,

I believe I mean something else. Since you asked for an example, I hope the following one will do: person A hits person B on the back of the head then steals B's money while B is unconscious.

One choice is to think of what happened using morality, to think that what the aggressor did was immoral. Another choice is to think of what happened without bringing morality into it, and instead to consider whose needs have or have not been met by what happened (according to the definition of human needs used in Nonviolent Communication, http://happinesscounseling.com/NVC_Intro.pdf ).

The advantage for me of the second choice is that we think of the aggressor as merely having chosen a tragic and inadequate strategy for meeting their needs, since this strategy most likely did not meet their need for peace nor their need for self-respect nor their need to make life more wonderful for everyone (in NVC view we all have these needs), and the focus stays on helping this person find other strategies that will meet everyone's needs, in win/win fashion. We don't think of the aggressor as deserving to be punished (regardless of the punishment method, whether it be shaming, ostracism, a fine, prison, or death), which would only cause more violence to occur (towards the aggressor initially and perhaps later other persons, if the aggressor does not learn better win/win strategies and ends up attacking more people in order to get their needs met in the future).

I find it difficult to explain this in just a few sentences, if you're interested I suggest you read this interview: http://www.openexchange.org/features/Keep/rosenberg.html

There are also YouTube videos on Nonviolent Communication, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication

I'm convinced that thinking in moralistic terms is the main cause of violence on this planet, because it justifies violence when someone does something we don't like. All we need to do is think of them as "bad", and the gate to violence is opened. Thinking in terms of finding win/win solutions that meet everyone's fundamental human needs avoid this trap.

Please let me know if you find this explanation satisfactory or not!

Best wishes,

Marc

 

What's the problem with violence, then? Why shouldn't we just accept violence as a way to meet needs?

[ribuck]

Please let me know if you find this explanation satisfactory or not!

It's a very clear explanation, thanks Marc. But I don't adopt that view for two reasons.

First, I'm not aware of hard evidence that we do all have a need for peace (including the aggressor in your example). Second, the strength of a need cannot be measured, so it doesn't seem productive to talk about maximising the meeting of needs when we can't look at two outcomes and discover which one meets everyone's needs to the greatest degree.

But I agree with the ideas behind what you're saying, particularly the notion that once people label someone as morally "bad" they are likely to commit unnecessary and unjustified violence. Personally I only consider actions to be morally good or bad, not people. And I'm a pacifist anyway.

[Marc Moini]

Hi ribuck,

Thank you, I'm glad that you agree with the idea that labelling someone as morally "bad" is likely to lead to violence. I'm also glad that you found my explanation clear.

About the two reasons you give for not adopting the view that it is possible to think of an aggression without using morality:

1) "it is useless to talk about maximising the meeting of needs when the strength of a need cannot be measured": even if this cannot be measured objectively, what matters for the person's satisfaction is whether they feel each of their needs is sufficiently satisfied or not. You know if your need for rest is sufficiently satisfied right now to stay up or not, in the context of the satisfied/unsatisfied status of all your other needs. Do you agree that there is no need for objective measurement here, because what matters is each person's own subjective assessment of whether their needs are met or not?

2) "is there hard evidence that every single person has a need for peace?": in Nonviolent Communication the need for peace is the umbrella term used to refer to the category of needs which also includes the needs for beauty, communion, ease, equality, harmony, inspiration and order. I guess it might be possible to find some people who have never felt like they have one of these needs, but all the experience of the thousands and thousands of people practicing NVC who after learning to identify and name their feelings and needs report that they do have a need for peace, is enough for me to think that this is a useful assumption to make when interacting with people. If a person then reports that they don't have a need for peace, then ok, no problem, there are other needs that an aggressor does not get to satisfy when choosing aggression as a strategy to satisfy whatever need they are trying to satisfy in this case. The point is that if the aggressor does not have any needs, in the NVC sense of things they need from the world in order to live and feel satisfied with their life, then they would not be alive. The fact that they are acting, that they are engaging in aggression, shows that they are trying to fulfill some needs, so we know these needs are real. If we are able to communicate with them to identify which needs these are that they have, and ask them whether all their needs are satisfied, and ask them if they also have a need for peace (order, harmony, etc.) that they have maybe not been aware of and which was not satisfied by their choice of using aggression, then we don't need any more evidence than this in order to help them find a strategy that meets all their needs better than using aggression does.

Does this help?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

2) "is there hard evidence that every single person has a need for peace?": in Nonviolent Communication the need for peace is the umbrella term used to refer to the category of needs which also includes the needs for beauty, communion, ease, equality, harmony, inspiration and order. I guess it might be possible to find some people who have never felt like they have one of these needs, but all the experience of the thousands and thousands of people practicing NVC who after learning to identify and name their feelings and needs report that they do have a need for peace, is enough for me to think that this is a useful assumption to make when interacting with people.

One might be tempted to call that "universal."

If a person then reports that they don't have a need for peace, then ok, no problem, there are other needs that an aggressor does not get to satisfy when choosing aggression as a strategy to satisfy whatever need they are trying to satisfy in this case. The point is that if the aggressor does not have any needs, in the NVC sense of things they need from the world in order to live and feel satisfied with their life, then they would not be alive. The fact that they are acting, that they are engaging in aggression, shows that they are trying to fulfill some needs, so we know these needs are real.

One might refer to this subjective variety of needs as "preferences."

If we are able to communicate with them to identify which needs these are that they have, and ask them whether all their needs are satisfied, and ask them if they also have a need for peace (order, harmony, etc.) that they have maybe not been aware of and which was not satisfied by their choice of using aggression, then we don't need any more evidence than this in order to help them find a strategy that meets all their needs better than using aggression does.

One might describe the various strategies to meet needs as "behavior."

Interesting...

[Marc Moini]

 

2) "is there hard evidence that every single person has a need for peace?": in Nonviolent Communication the need for peace is the umbrella term used to refer to the category of needs which also includes the needs for beauty, communion, ease, equality, harmony, inspiration and order. I guess it might be possible to find some people who have never felt like they have one of these needs, but all the experience of the thousands and thousands of people practicing NVC who after learning to identify and name their feelings and needs report that they do have a need for peace, is enough for me to think that this is a useful assumption to make when interacting with people.

One might be tempted to call that "universal."

If a person then reports that they don't have a need for peace, then ok, no problem, there are other needs that an aggressor does not get to satisfy when choosing aggression as a strategy to satisfy whatever need they are trying to satisfy in this case. The point is that if the aggressor does not have any needs, in the NVC sense of things they need from the world in order to live and feel satisfied with their life, then they would not be alive. The fact that they are acting, that they are engaging in aggression, shows that they are trying to fulfill some needs, so we know these needs are real.

One might refer to this subjective variety of needs as "preferences."

If we are able to communicate with them to identify which needs these are that they have, and ask them whether all their needs are satisfied, and ask them if they also have a need for peace (order, harmony, etc.) that they have maybe not been aware of and which was not satisfied by their choice of using aggression, then we don't need any more evidence than this in order to help them find a strategy that meets all their needs better than using aggression does.

One might describe the various strategies to meet needs as "behavior."

Interesting...

 

Hi Nathan, I'm glad you see the similarity. Do you also see the difference, that NVC is another way of achieving the same goal of meeting everyone's needs, without using morality?

Best wishes,

Marc

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Hi Nathan, I'm glad you see the similarity. Do you also see the difference, that NVC is another way of achieving the same goal of meeting everyone's needs, without using morality?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

If you take morality and call it "graf'lindar", and then say it's great to use graf'lindar to meet everyone's needs instead of morality... well, it doesn't seem an honest approach to me.

[Marc Moini]

Hi Nathan,

I'm disappointed that you are calling me dishonest, instead of trying to find out where and why we disagree on how the NVC approach does not use morality. But hey, everybody can make mistakes, it's OK. If you think I am missing something and what I explained does use morality, please point out how, would you?

Best wishes,

Marc

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

Hi Nathan,

I'm disappointed that you are calling me dishonest, instead of trying to find out where and why we disagree on how the NVC approach does not use morality. But hey, everybody can make mistakes, it's OK. If you think I am missing something and what I explained does use morality, please point out how, would you?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest?

[ribuck]

Marc, I have a hunch that if I asked the aggressor in your example, he would reply to me that hitting person B satisfied his need to perceive himself as "top dog", and stealing B's wallet satisfied his need for money.

It would be great if we could reason with person A and help him find a better way to meet his needs, but I have a feeling it would work better for person B to guard his wallet better and keep an eye out for people about to hit him over the head.

[Marc Moini]

 

 

Hi Nathan,

I'm disappointed that you are calling me dishonest, instead of trying to find out where and why we disagree on how the NVC approach does not use morality. But hey, everybody can make mistakes, it's OK. If you think I am missing something and what I explained does use morality, please point out how, would you?

Best wishes,

Marc

 

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest?

 

Hi Nathan, it seems to me you are trying to avoid answering my question about morality, and maybe derail this thread. Please prove me wrong by replying on topic.

Best wishes,

Marc