Many advocates try to practice non-violent communication by merely criticising actions instead of individuals. But non-violent communication is stricter than that. Here’s one example from “Non Violent Communication: A Language of Life”. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: “You know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because I’ve had very different experiences with Jews than you’ve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences I’ve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?” Man: “Oh, I’m not saying they’re all . . . ” MBR: “Excuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: “What are you talking about?” MBR: “Let me repeat what I’m trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. It’s 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?”
Man: “You’re saying I have no right to talk the way I did.”
MBR: “No, I would like you to hear me differently. I really don’t want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.”
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression “You’re saying I have no right to talk the way I did.”.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into “positive/neutral/negative” 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 it’s very difficult to divorce “You have no right to do that” from “It would be good if you were punished” and “Hey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punished”.
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/better/best/worst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting – I hadn’t heard that point of view before.
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about “improving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventions” to “you are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being vegan” 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. Here’s one example from “Non Violent Communication: A Language of Life”. The anecdote starts with a cab driver making an antisemitic remark:
MBR: “You know, when you first started to talk, I felt a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, sadness and discouragement, because I’ve had very different experiences with Jews than you’ve had, and I was wanting you to have much more the kind of experiences I’ve had. Can you tell me what you heard me say?”
Man: “Oh, I’m not saying they’re all . . . ”
MBR: “Excuse me, hold on, hold it. Can you tell me what you heard me say?
Man: “What are you talking about?”
MBR: “Let me repeat what I’m trying to say. I really want you to just hear the pain I felt when I heard your words. It’s 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?”
Man: “You’re saying I have no right to talk the way I did.”
MBR: “No, I would like you to hear me differently. I really don’t want to blame you. I have no desire to blame you.”
In this section many advocates would not be happy with correcting the expression “You’re saying I have no right to talk the way I did.”.
In general, I think the language used for rights based theories is in continuity with religious ethics in which actions are divided into “positive/neutral/negative” 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 it’s very difficult to divorce “You have no right to do that” from “It would be good if you were punished” and “Hey, people around, punish that guy and be happy when this guy gets punished”.
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/better/best/worst state of affairs) is less continuous with the religious tradition around debts and punishment.
Interesting – I hadn’t heard that point of view before.
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about “improving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventions” to “you are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being vegan” 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.