道德混蛋是一种值得特别注意的动物。查尔斯·狄更斯是刻画这一类型的大师：他笔下的老师、牧师、小官僚和自鸣得意的商人、斯克罗吉谴责穷人是懒人，本伯先生震惊于奥利弗·特维斯特胆敢要求更多；每个人都轻视社会阶层较低的人的意见和愿望，每个人都沉醉于骄傲的自我形象和忽视他们是如何被周围人所看待，每个人都用道德说辞合理化这种行为。
斯克罗吉和班布尔是虚构人物，可以肯定的是，我们没有他们那么坏。然而，在我自己和所有那些不是真正的甜心的身上，我看到了一种用道德上虚假的理由来为自己的特权辩解的趋势。这就是我试图哄骗我女儿进入最好的学校的原因；是我为什么觉得会议主席应该叫我而不是早些举手的研究生的原因；也是我觉得我的办公室里有400本图书馆的书也没问题的原因……
不管他喜欢什么，自我道德合理化的混蛋总是散发出一种蔑视一切的气息
哲学家似乎在这方面有一种特殊的天赋：只要付出足够的努力，我们就能编造出任何事情的道德合理性！（合理化的技巧也许可以解释平均而言，与非道德学家相比，为什么伦理学家似乎在道德行为上没有更好。这个发现源于我和我的合作者的一系列实证研究上，这些研究涉及广泛的议题，从图书馆的盗书行为，到在专业会议上的礼貌行为，再到1930年代纳粹党成员慈善捐款的比例。）道德混蛋的自我合理化为他对他人的漠视提供了理由，而他对他人的漠视使他无法接受外界对其自我合理化的纠正，这是一个自我隔离的循环。愚蠢的批评者们，这就是为什么我可以向我的下属提出建议，夸大我的报销金额。如果你愿意的话，可以用学术术语来描述整个事件。
自我道德合理化的混蛋很容易在他的道德观念上犯严重的错误。部分原因是他的道德倾向于自私，部分原因是他对他人观点的不尊重使他在认知上处于劣势。但还有更多的原因。由于不能欣赏别人的观点，混蛋自然就不能欣赏人类的全部优点——比如舞蹈或体育的价值、自然、宠物、当地的文化仪式，甚至任何他不关心自己的东西。想想那个咄咄逼人、满脸皱纹的学者，她无法忍受有人会浪费时间修指甲。或者想想那位精心修剪指甲的社交名媛，她看不到把自己的生命奉献给布满灰尘的拉丁语手稿的价值。不管他喜欢什么，自我道德合理化的混蛋总是散发出一种蔑视一切的气息。
此外，仁慈更接近实用实在的道德核心。事实上，每个人做的每一件事都不完美：有人的措辞不够完美，有人来晚了一点，有人的衣服俗气，有人的举止急躁，有人的选择有点自私，有人的咖啡不够节俭，一个人的观点陈腐。真正的仁慈包括包容这些不完美，或者，更好的是完全忽略它。相反，混蛋既不理解别人在实现他所认为的所有完美方面所遇到的困难，也不理解他认为有缺陷的部分实际上是无可指责的这种可能性。因此，对他来说，硬道理是很自然的。(对甜心来说，同情怜悯是自然的。)在极少数情况下，当混蛋仁慈时，他的放纵通常是不协调的：他原谅的缺点恰恰是他在自己身上认识到的，或者是他有不可告人的理由让它溜走。考虑另一个有名的文学虚构混蛋：西弗勒斯·斯内普，J·K罗琳小说中令人恼火的药剂老师，总是带着怒火迫不及待把锤子砸在无意惹恼他的哈利·波特或其他任何人身上，尽管总是砸不到；而面对邓布利多却截然不同地表现出怜悯和豁达。
尽管混蛋在道德观念上几乎不可避免地存在缺陷，但道德层面上的混蛋有时在某些特定的重要问题上恰好是对的（斯内普证明了这一点）——尤其是如果他选择了一项重大的社会事业。他不必只关心金钱和名望。事实上，有时对道德或政治原则抽象和普遍的关注，可以代替在他认知中对人民的真正关心，而这可能导致重大的自我牺牲。而在社会斗争中，甜心总是有一些缺点：甜心有从对手的角度看问题的才能，但这也使他丧失了无畏无惧的自信，他不太愿意为了自己的目的而践踏他人。社会运动有时在一个道德混蛋的领导下做得很好。我不提具体的例子，以免出错和冒犯。
Ⅳ
The moralistic jerk is an animal worth special remark. Charles Dickens was a master painter of the type: his teachers, his preachers, his petty bureaucrats and self-satisfied businessmen, Scrooge condemning the poor as lazy, Mr Bumble shocked that Oliver Twist dares to ask for more, each dismissive of the opinions and desires of their social inferiors, each inflated with a proud self-image and ignorant of how they are rightly seen by those around them, and each rationalising this picture with a web of moralising ‘should’s.
Scrooge and Bumble are cartoons, and we can be pretty sure we aren’t as bad as them. Yet I see in myself and all those who are not pure sweethearts a tendency to rationalise my privilege with moralistic sham justifications. Here’s my reason for trying to dishonestly wheedle my daughter into the best school; my reason why the session chair should call on me rather than on the grad student who got her hand up earlier; my reason why it’s fine that I have 400 library books in my office…
Whatever he’s into, the moralising jerk exudes a continuous aura of disdain for everything else
Philosophers seem to have a special talent for this: we can concoct a moral rationalisation for anything, with enough work! (Such skill at rationalisation might explain why ethicist philosophers seem to behave no morally better, on average, than comparison groups of non-ethicists, as my collaborators and I have found in a series of empirical studies looking at a broad range of issues from library-book theft and courteous behaviour at professional conferences to rates of charitable donation and Nazi party membership in the 1930s.) The moralistic jerk’s rationalisations justify his disregard of others, and his disregard of others prevents him from accepting an outside corrective on his rationalisations, in a self-insulating cycle. Here’s why it’s fine for me to proposition my underlings and inflate my expense claims, you idiot critics. Coat the whole thing, if you like, in a patina of academic jargon.
The moralising jerk is apt to go badly wrong in his moral opinions. Partly this is because his morality tends to be self-serving, and partly it’s because his disrespect for others’ perspectives puts him at a general epistemic disadvantage. But there’s more to it than that. In failing to appreciate others’ perspectives, the jerk almost inevitably fails to appreciate the full range of human goods – the value of dancing, say, or of sports, nature, pets, local cultural rituals, and indeed anything that he doesn’t care for himself. Think of the aggressively rumpled scholar who can’t bear the thought that someone would waste her time getting a manicure. Or think of the manicured socialite who can’t see the value of dedicating one’s life to dusty Latin manuscripts. Whatever he’s into, the moralising jerk exudes a continuous aura of disdain for everything else.
Furthermore, mercy is near the heart of practical, lived morality. Virtually everything that everyone does falls short of perfection: one’s turn of phrase is less than perfect, one arrives a bit late, one’s clothes are tacky, one’s gesture irritable, one’s choice somewhat selfish, one’s coffee less than frugal, one’s melody trite. Practical mercy involves letting these imperfections pass forgiven or, better yet, entirely unnoticed. In contrast, the jerk appreciates neither others’ difficulties in attaining all the perfections that he attributes to himself, nor the possibility that some portion of what he regards as flawed is in fact blameless. Hard moralising principle therefore comes naturally to him. (Sympathetic mercy is natural to the sweetheart.) And on the rare occasions when the jerk is merciful, his indulgence is usually ill-tuned: the flaws he forgives are exactly the one he recognises in himself or has ulterior reasons to let slide. Consider another brilliant literary cartoon jerk: Severus Snape, the infuriating potions teacher in J K Rowling’s novels, always eager to drop the hammer on Harry Potter or anyone else who happens to annoy him, constantly bristling withindignation, but wildly off the mark – contrasted with the mercy and broad vision of Dumbledore.indignation[ˌɪndɪgˈneɪʃn] n. Indignation is the feeling of shock and anger which you have when you think that something is unjust or unfair.愤怒；愤慨；义愤
Despite the jerk’s almost inevitable flaws in moral vision, the moralising jerk can sometimes happen to be right about some specific important issue (as Snape proved to be) – especially if he adopts a big social cause. He needn’t care only about money and prestige. Indeed, sometimes an abstract and general concern for moral or political principles serves as a kind of substitute for genuine concern about the people in his immediate field of view, possibly leading to substantial self-sacrifice. And in social battles, the sweetheart will always have some disadvantages: the sweetheart’s talent for seeing things from his opponent’s perspective deprives him of bold self-certainty, and he is less willing to trample others for his ends. Social movements sometimes do well when led by a moralising jerk. I will not mention specific examples, lest I err and offend.
网友评论