Jeremy E Sherman Psychology心理探寻 1 week ago
道德是他家，标准随便拿。横竖一张嘴，全都是他对。
Here’s a simple trick to dieting. Tell people that you’re on not just one but all the diets. Then always eat as much of anything you want because in all those diets there’s always going to be at least one that says you can.
在节食上面，有一个简单的诀窍。告诉别人你在采用所有节食法，而非只是一种。然后，不管想吃什么，随心所欲敞开肚皮吃就好，因为在所有节食法中，总会至少有一种告诉你你可以吃这样东西。
A rasher of bacon? “I’m on Keto.”
Three jumbo bags of Nacho corn chips? “I’m on the high-carb diet.”
A fifth of whiskey? “I’m on the all-alcohol diet.”
来片培根吧？我在用Keto节食法。
三大袋Nacho玉米片？我正好在用高碳水节食法。
来五分之一威士忌？我在用不限酒精节食法。
You name it, you can have it. The omnivore's dilemma? The omnivores solution! The secret? Just apply all those diets selectively.
不管是什么，总有一款适合你。
杂食动物的困境？杂食动物的仙境！
秘诀是？选择性地套用所有节食法！
You’ll gain weight but think of the advantages. Being on all the diets at once you get to claim you’re more health-conscious than everyone. Let them know! Whatever they’re eating, lecture them on why they shouldn’t because it’s a violation of at least one of your many diets.
虽然体重会增加，但想想这样做带来的益处！一次性采用所有节食法，你就有理由声称自己比任何人都有健康意识。这当然要广而告之！不管他们吃什么，都要训斥他们不该吃这种东西，因为它至少会违反你的众多节食法中的一种。
Dieting aside, this is how people often handle morality. They collect moral principles the way Imelda Marcos* collected shoes,* as though the more you have, the more status you’ve got.
除了节食法，人们对道德也往往采取同样态度。他们囤积道德准则，就像是 Imelda Marcos *囤积鞋子一样，仿佛你囤积得越多，你的地位就更显赫。
These binge moralizers are proud of their moral status. They’ve got more morals than everyone else. And how do they live? Certainly no more morally than the rest of us and typically less morally because they have an infinite library of moral rules that they can apply selectively to justify their behavior and scold others.
这些道德大户们对自己的道德水平倍感自豪。他们拥有的道德标准比任何人都要多。他们是怎样生活的呢？当然不会比其他人更道德，反而通常道德程度要较低，因为他们会从他们无限的道德准则库存中按需择取，或是用于合理化自身行为，或是辱骂他人。
If they don’t want you to interrupt them, they’ll scold you like the number one priority moral rule is never interrupt ever.
如果他们不想你打断他们，他们就会骂你，告诉你诸如：首要道德准则就是永远不要打断别人。
Do they follow it absolutely? Of course not! When they interrupt it’s fine. Why? Because it’s always most important to defend yourself. That’s the highest priority always. For now.
他们是否严格遵守呢？当然不！
当他们打断别人时，就并无不妥了。为什么？因为“捍卫自己”无论如何都是最重要的。这始终都是首要道德准则。就现在而言。
And if you defend yourself in response? Absolutely not. Now, the highest moral priority is being respectful of others. Always. For now.
但如果你紧跟着捍卫自己呢？当然不行。现在，首要道德准则又变成了“尊重他人”，始终重要！就现在而言。
And if you call them on their hypocrisy, they’ll let you know in no uncertain terms that you should be ashamed of yourself for shaming them. Because the absolute highest moral priority is that you should never shame anyone. Always! For now.
如果你指出他们虚伪呢？他们会义正严辞告诉你，你应该为羞辱他们而感到羞耻。因为绝对首要的道德准则是，绝不可羞辱他人！始终重要！就现在而言。
And if you give up and walk away. Now the top moral principle is never be uncaring, unloving or disrespectful. They have no respect for people who aren’t respectful.
如果你放弃了，走开了。现在首要道德准则就变成了“永远不要漠视、不关爱、不尊重他人”。对不尊重别人的人，他们也不会给予尊重。
That’s binge morality: Binge on all the morals and you can binge on any behavior because there’s always some absolute priority moral principle you can pull out of your butt to rationalize your behavior.
这就是疯狂道德批判：疯狂甩出所有道德准则，这样就可以为所欲为做任何事情，因为你总能掏出一款绝对首要道德准则作为你的借口。
Morals are easy to embrace in principle but hard to put into practice. It takes discipline and work to actually apply them. We can’t apply them all.
道德准则，说起来容易做起来难。要遵守它们，需要自律，需要努力。我们无法遵守所有道德准则。
People tend to collect morals as efficiently as possible merely for the status. Morals embraced as token badges of honor. They hear that integrity is a good thing. So they buy it in principle. “I’ve got integrity” They hear that mindfulness or Christianity, honesty or caring are hecka good, so they claim them for themselves. Why not? What does it cost to claim you’ve got these obviously-good things?
人们常常仅仅出于“地位”之目的而尽可能收集道德准则。
他们把道德准则视为荣誉徽章。
他们听说正直是好的，因此他们就直接收入囊中。“我也正直”。
他们听说“正念”或“基督教”，诚实或关爱是好的，所以他们也照单全收。为什么不呢？
宣称你拥有这些很明显美好的事物，有何不利呢？
Take caring. “Always care” sounds like a good rule in principle. But in practice, we have limited effort. We can claim lip-service care for everything, but we can’t care about everything all at once. We have to prioritize.
以关心他人为例。“始终关心他人”听起来像是一个美好的准则。但实际上，我们能做的却有限。我们能嘴巴上关心万物，但实际上我们并无法做到。我们必须区分主次轻重。
A binge moralizer ignores that. They’ll be happy to scold you for being “uncaring,” as though the rule is always care about everything. They’ll apply the rule selectively. As they apply it the rule is that you should care about whatever they want you to care about in the moment.
但道德大户们对此却视而不见。他们会忙不迭地骂你“麻木不仁”，仿佛道德准则是“应始终关心万物”。但他们却搞双重标准。当他们应用这一准则时，你则需要关心他们的想法，他们想让你关心什么你才能关心什么。
People will often use loaded moral terms without bothering to define them. Try this out: If someone says you’re a butthead or they’re mindful ask them how they define those terms and notice their response. Chances are, it will be the first time they’ve wondered.
人们常常甩出大量道德名词，却根本懒得去想它们到底什么意思。试一下这个：当别人说你是傻X或他们有正念时，问他们这些词是什么意思，然后注意他们的反应。很可能，这会是他们第一次思考这一问题。
They’ll give you examples maybe, but examples are not definitions. A definition, at its best, is something you could hire someone to apply and you’d get a consistent result that agrees with the distinction you want to make. If you hired someone to apply your definition of a butthead they would be able to sort people out such that they would include all real buttheads and no non-buttheads.
可能他们会给你举例子，但例子，不是定义。最好的定义是，如果你雇一个人去应用这一定义，他得到的实施结果将是整体一致的，而且能够符合你想要的特征。如果你雇一个人去应用你对傻X的定义，那么他根据这一定义筛选出的人群将由绝对真正的傻X组成，不包含任何非傻X。
Defining our terms is difficult work. As a psychoproctologist, I've worked for over 20 years trying to define butthead and I'm still not satisfied that I've nailed it. I don't bet I ever will. The point here is that people often speak with authority without having even begun to define the terms. They go with the gut. A butthead is anyone they happen to butt heads with.
定义词汇，是一项艰难工作。作为一名“心理直肠学家”（定义与制约傻B行为的专家），我已经花了20多年的时间试着定义“傻X”，但依旧没有得到令我满意的结果，而且我觉得我永远也不会得到满意的答案。我想说的是，人们通常还没有想明白某些词，就开始以权威口气使用它们。他们全凭直觉。所有跟他们有冲突的人一律全是傻X。
I’ve asked dozens of mindfulness enthusiasts to define mindfulness and I get the impression that it’s the first time they’ve stopped to wonder. All I’ve ever gotten are incoherent answers.
我曾经让几十位热衷于正念的爱好者们定义正念这一词，他们让我感觉他们之前从没有想过这一问题。而且我得到的，也都是一些并无条理的回答。
Whatever it is, they know it’s hecka good, so sure, they’re all for it. And don’t you dare question their authority on it. That wouldn’t be mindful of you. They’re the ones who judge whose mindful. And why? Because they’re mindful! They signed up for the mindful diet in addition to all the others.
不管它是什么，他们知道那反正是个好东西，因此，他们当然要极力拥护。而且你休要去质疑他们在这一方面的权威。这会显得你不“正念”。他们才是判断谁有“正念”的审判者。为什么？因为他们有“正念”！他们在众多“节食法”之外，也选择了这一“正念”节食法。
We embrace moral principles intuitively and inconsistently because it’s too much work to seek consistency.
我们全凭直觉、毫无条理地去接纳道德准则，因为想要追求一致性，劳神费力！
To lose weight successfully you need to pick a diet and stick with it.
想要成功减肥，你需要选择一种节食法，一以贯之。
If you want to live a moral life, you have to prioritize. You can’t just claim one absolute priority one moment and another the next to rationalize whatever you want to do. One consequence of this self-discipline is that you have to relax about the other rules. You don’t get to go around policing everyone on every moral principle you can think of. Cutting others that slack can be a disappointment. You can’t even binge on policing.
如果想要过道德的生活，你也需要选择特定的道德准则，并加以坚守。
你不能“道德是你家，标准随便拿。横竖一张嘴，全都是你对。”
这样的严于律己，势必就意味着你在其他道德准则上就要放宽限制。你就不能甩着各种道德准则，到处做道德卫士。放别人一马，可能会让你感到失望。你甚至连随心所欲当道德卫士都不行。
It’s hard to prioritize so most people don’t. It’s easier to be the Imelda Marcos of morality.
由于“由奢入俭难”，因此大多数人并不做道德准则的“断舍离”。还是成为道德的 Imelda Marcos 要更轻松些。
* For you young ones, Imelda Marcos was the wife of the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. When he was ousted in 1981 people discovered her closet full of over 3,000 pairs of shoes.
对于年轻一代，Imelda Marcos是菲律宾独裁者Ferdinand Marcos的妻子。当他在1981年被废黜时，人们发现他妻子的衣橱里装满了3000双鞋子。
Read more
