Many advocates try to practice non-violent communication by merely criticising actions instead of individuals. But non-violent communication is stricter than that. Hereâs one example from âNon Violent Communication: A Language of Lifeâ. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: âYou know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because Iâve had very different experiences with Jews than youâve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences Iâve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â Man: âOh, Iâm not saying theyâre all . . . â MBR: âExcuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: âWhat are you talking about?â MBR: âLet me repeat what Iâm trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. Itâs really important to me that you hear that. I was saying I felt a real sense of sadness because my experiences with Jewish people have been very different. I was just wishing that you had had some experiences that were different from the ones you were describing. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â
MBR: âNo, I would like you to hear me differently. I really donât want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.â
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into âpositive/âneutral/ânegativeâ categories. When you do negative actions you incur some kind of debt and that debt should and will be repaid in terms of punishment in hell. Forbidden actions are forbidden because God backs them up with authority. He exercises punishment when people disregard his authority.
I think given the history and culture itâs very difficult to divorce âYou have no right to do thatâ from âIt would be good if you were punishedâ and âHey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punishedâ.
To be fair, non-violent communication is pretty much against all morality statements. But I think welfarist language(makes happier, gives suffering, better things to do, worse things to do, results in worse/âbetter/âbest/âworst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting â I hadnât heard that point of view before.
I think I see where youâre coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about âimproving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventionsâ to âyou are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being veganâ all in the language and framework of welfare.
This line of yours definitely continues to feel too strong to me:
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.
Many advocates try to practice non-violent communication by merely criticising actions instead of individuals. But non-violent communication is stricter than that. Hereâs one example from âNon Violent Communication: A Language of Lifeâ. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: âYou know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because Iâve had very different experiences with Jews than youâve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences Iâve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âOh, Iâm not saying theyâre all . . . â
MBR: âExcuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: âWhat are you talking about?â
MBR: âLet me repeat what Iâm trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. Itâs really important to me that you hear that. I was saying I felt a real sense of sadness because my experiences with Jewish people have been very different. I was just wishing that you had had some experiences that were different from the ones you were describing. Can you tell me what you heard me say?â
Man: âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â
MBR: âNo, I would like you to hear me differently. I really donât want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.â
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression âYouâre saying I have no right to talk the way I did.â.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into âpositive/âneutral/ânegativeâ categories. When you do negative actions you incur some kind of debt and that debt should and will be repaid in terms of punishment in hell. Forbidden actions are forbidden because God backs them up with authority. He exercises punishment when people disregard his authority.
I think given the history and culture itâs very difficult to divorce âYou have no right to do thatâ from âIt would be good if you were punishedâ and âHey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punishedâ.
To be fair, non-violent communication is pretty much against all morality statements. But I think welfarist language(makes happier, gives suffering, better things to do, worse things to do, results in worse/âbetter/âbest/âworst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting â I hadnât heard that point of view before.
I think I see where youâre coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about âimproving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventionsâ to âyou are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being veganâ all in the language and framework of welfare.
This line of yours definitely continues to feel too strong to me:
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.