@heikophilo you say you consider morality very important to sort out experiences in terms of healthiness for your needs, I don't understand why it is so important to strengthen you, because for me strength comes from connection with other people; understanding what is "healthy" may come from their experience and help more than from external rules of morality. Could you please explain me that point?
@suxemaTo If my father tells me that I am bad for not coming to his birthday party it is helpful for me to recognize that his statement is wrong (without having to blurt my insight out into his face). In this example I get strength from reasoning and recognizing the truth, not from connecting to people. I agree, health as a concept can come from other people, but also sickness as a concept. Reason and thinking helps to distinguish the two. Is that clearer?
Short answer to a very long question: There is nothing in NVC that says anyone (child or adult) HAS to try to express empathic understanding in any situation where in their best judgement it could make life less wonderful. It does not say one should suspend their judgement about the risks of vulnerability and sincere honesty in any particular situation. If the usfulness of NVC or any modality depending on the situation and one's own abilities and resources. Nothing in NVC says to be a "doormat."
Vielen dank für das Video. I have found this one after watching ur vid on expressing anger. I cannot say much right now, cause my thoughts are just twisting and turning on themselves, but what you said is something that has been bugging me about NVC (or any other "empathize with your abuser"-approach) for a while I realize. The whole issue of "setting boundaries" hasnt been answered sufficiently for me in the nvc literature. If I come up with new insights, Ill let you know.
I liked your video and agreed with what you said. I would add that on many views, Kant's included, morality is not a matter of meeting people's psychological needs. No. Morality is a matter of treating people with the dignity and respect they deserve, regardless of whether or not this gives them good feelings. This connects with your point because Kant's recognition can be empowering for a victim of abuse. We are worthy of respect unconditionally, that is, no matter what we might feel.
How would it work for you putting it this way: It's not that the parents that have abused their children are bad people and deserve punishment. We could guess that they behaved like that because it was the best way that they could find to meet some important needs. We could guess that because of their life experiences and because of the way they were taught to think they were not in contact with all their needs.
Nevertheless, it might still be useful for their children to have an intellectual framework that tells them what's normal and what's healthy - what needs would they normally expect to meet and what would people who are around them do an not do if they were more or less in contact with all their needs. It would also be helpful to the children to recognise when trying to open their parent's harts is not meeting their needs to and to know that they have the option of standing for themselves.
@rosuarezta: I work with sexual abusers as a therapist. It is often the case that they abused because they were in pain. My point is that it is not the whole story when you only talk about their needs. It is actually very healing if they can accept the truth that they did wrong, that their abuse was unjust, immoral. And I don´t mean this in a Jackal way, I mean it just as an acknowledgement of moral realities. From that no punishment follows, but an impuls to restitution.
@rosuarezta@heikophilo Hello. I'm not a philosopher but NVC and morality are both important matters in my life. My personal belief is that "morality" is a very subjective concept, changing through generation and countries. So could you precise what you mean by "moral realities" and give a definition of "morality"? It will be helpful to compare NVC and morality and to understand/discuss your point. Thank you.
@hanterkant Since the video was made for a particular group of people who shared a certain view of morality, I did not explain what I meant with terms referring to morality. Here is my definition: A moral statement is a claim that a type of behavior can be proven to be always better than a different type of behavior with the proof relying only on rational arguments and not referring to a subjective preference of an individual or a group of individuals.
@hanterkant Moral realities would be the facts pertaining to the relationships between types of behaviors. Example: Letting people exercise their control over their bodies is always better than physically preventing people from doing that, i.e. initiating physical violence. (Don´t hit, don´t kill, don´t rape). Another example: Letting people exercise exclusive control over their possessions is always better than acquiring exclusive control over those against their will. (Don´t steal)
@heikophilo Thks, I see better. But sthg "can be proven to be always better than a different": I don't know acts which "always" better. "Don't kill": what about public punishment, you killed sby, thus you are killed by society (USA). Is it moral? Is revenge moral? "Don't rape": it took centuries to have rape acceptance within a married couple. Not defending such things, just pointing out that there is no "universal" and permanent definition of "morality". Only preferences in context.
@hanterkant Morals differ through time and cultures, correct. But so did and does the view of the universe. My contention is: killing is always wrong, regardless whether hooligans or governments observe that.Stefan Molyneux showed that: e.g.search youtube for "Sunday Call In Show - Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) October 31 2010"
Capital punishment would be also wrong, as would be war.
@heikophilo I looked at the vid. The author spent his time explaining what can't be universal, and I agreed on most of it, but no example of what is universal. War as immoral is not universally accepted. "Killing is wrong" is a point of view, largely accepted, thanks God. "ALWAYS wrong" is less frequent. If some other people don't accept this statement, how can you say it is universal? So what do you call "universal", if you refer to something which can be rejected by some people?
@heikophilo What we call "immoral" is a judgement based (and biaised) by our education, culture and, worse, by what we believe ourselves right or wrong. Of course, nobody would like to be killed, raped or abused, and I am not rejecting morality. But what morality can you teach to a hooligan, except your opinion about what to be "moral" means for you (or for the group who gives you authority)? "Moral" is an intellectual process, i.e. a poor level of communication in NVC.
@hanterkant 1. I don´t see how you don´t reject morality if what you call immoral is based on subjective things like culture. 2. Dealing with hooligans is not a task of morality or philosophy. People doing immoral acts are generally not interested in morality. 3. Yes, it is an intellectual enterprise. You don´t have to talk about morality in your relationships, I sometimes do with mutual joy. Some people just like finding out moral truths.
I understand morality as a social concept created to secure social life, and sometimes individual life (when you're grown with a negative view on stealing, you help everybody to live in peace, to enrich with no fear, etc.) I see no universal truths inside morality, wherever or whenever you look at it through ages.
2. Even hooligans have values: they value strengh and pain resistance, they disvalue cowardry. What you can call a code. My experience is that they don't like the word "morality".
It is a good point you have made, thanks for sharing. I will consider this when I next use NVC. I try to use NVC every day so I will concentrate on morals and how important they are when communicating. Perhaps I could use OFNR and use my morals as I formulate my requests? That way I can express my morals in a nonviolent way?
I like the way you have expressed your idea, you clearly seem to have a view that you have carefully thought about. So are you saying that NVC should consider the fact that morals are important, and connecting solely with just feelings and needs is not seeing the whole picture?
I don't disagree. Take it a step further though. When grievances are expressed in terms of moral judgments, alienation usually follows. Yet when expressed in terms of needs, connection is far more likely. A moral judgment is not wrong in and of itself. Judgments are in fact based on needs. Why not make needs the starting point of the dialogue then? Disconnection occurs when we focus on the judgment instead of the need from which the judgment springs. I prefer to go directly to the source: Needs
@rachellelamb: Most people in my personal life are open to moral - not judgemental - criticism without becoming defensive. I feel that this gives me the cherished opportunity to express myself not only as a person with needs, but also as a person with thoughts and a philosophy. I need cognitively consistent people in my life. I don´t want to dance around somebody´s defenses. I do this enough in my job as a therapist. But thanks for your thoughts, it helps to clarify my point.
@rachellelamb Thank you for pointing this out. I completely agree that morals are based off of our needs and that when we forget that, the morals become a sort of middleman between us and our needs. Morality is an unconcious group consensus on how to get our needs met.
Marshall does not suggest that morality is wrong. He uses the word "moralistic judgment" in the sense of someone having authority/superiority over others and indoctrinating them (usually to perpetuate a system of domination). He makes it clear too that people who are connected to their needs don't get pushed around very easily. I think it's an important distinction. Being connected to our needs strengthens us and is an effective way to establish boundaries AND build connection. A paradigm shift.
@rachellelamb: Marshall says: "I am very confident that you have never done anything wrong and that you never will do anything wrong." I am sympathetic to his attempt to undermine everybody´s tendency to self attack after having become wiser about a certain decision, but I think there are true, correct, consistent, valid moral judgements that can be the source of connection and security and not of domination. I think it is unfortunate that Marshall does not talk about this possibility.
Interesting vlog, I always enjoy hearing people sharing about NVC. If you are willing, I would very much appreciate a link to the FB page you mentioned, or the skype event.
The first situation you mentioned sounds frustrating and disappointing. Thank goodness we have more than one strategy available to get our needs met.
Standing up for yourself sounds great to me, if NVC undermines this for you then it certainly is understandable that you would make a different choice. Cheers & peace to you
"NVC undermines standing up for yourself" as unqualified statement sounds too strong for me. NVC also encourages the work of discovering you own needs, which supports standing up for yourself. My point was, that the turning away from moral thinking has often times the effect of undermining personal boundaries.
@heikophilo "turning away from moral thinking has often times the effect of undermining personal boundaries."
A adult son or daughter uses NVC with the intention of changing ("opening the heart") their parent and the strategy predictably fails. If the son continues to pursue this intention with the thought that his parents are bad and wrong, are you saying this is more likely to end the suffering?
@NLPNVC: The thought that his or her parents are bad and wrong - if it is true and nothing works to change that - might assist in ending a futile endeavor and help to disengage.
it also runs in the philosophical short circuit of: how can he be 'critical' of moral thinking and say 'we ought to get rid of moral thinking'? Since he made a moral statement in that. First rule of philosophy is: the statement itself is included in what the statement is about.
@modelmark: I did not understand Marshall Rosenberg as saying "we ougth not to judge morally". He is just saying that if you observe the effects of it then you would want to express yourself differently. But if you do not come to this conclusion, he is not criticising you for it. So his argument is on the hedonistic level, like: You do better without it. Which does not apply for me, in my experience.
@heikophilo you say you consider morality very important to sort out experiences in terms of healthiness for your needs, I don't understand why it is so important to strengthen you, because for me strength comes from connection with other people; understanding what is "healthy" may come from their experience and help more than from external rules of morality. Could you please explain me that point?
suxemaTo 18 hours ago
@suxemaTo If my father tells me that I am bad for not coming to his birthday party it is helpful for me to recognize that his statement is wrong (without having to blurt my insight out into his face). In this example I get strength from reasoning and recognizing the truth, not from connecting to people. I agree, health as a concept can come from other people, but also sickness as a concept. Reason and thinking helps to distinguish the two. Is that clearer?
heikophilo 13 hours ago
Short answer to a very long question: There is nothing in NVC that says anyone (child or adult) HAS to try to express empathic understanding in any situation where in their best judgement it could make life less wonderful. It does not say one should suspend their judgement about the risks of vulnerability and sincere honesty in any particular situation. If the usfulness of NVC or any modality depending on the situation and one's own abilities and resources. Nothing in NVC says to be a "doormat."
acensor1 6 months ago 2
Thank you Heiko. Very clear, well-considered criticism. I like the way you communicate your thoughts.
ermaveep 7 months ago
Vielen dank für das Video. I have found this one after watching ur vid on expressing anger. I cannot say much right now, cause my thoughts are just twisting and turning on themselves, but what you said is something that has been bugging me about NVC (or any other "empathize with your abuser"-approach) for a while I realize. The whole issue of "setting boundaries" hasnt been answered sufficiently for me in the nvc literature. If I come up with new insights, Ill let you know.
Bipanah 7 months ago
Habe einen Kommentar, der passt aber hier nicht rein. Schick mir doch einfach eine Mail an kontakt ät heuler Punkt de.
oheuler 9 months ago
I liked your video and agreed with what you said. I would add that on many views, Kant's included, morality is not a matter of meeting people's psychological needs. No. Morality is a matter of treating people with the dignity and respect they deserve, regardless of whether or not this gives them good feelings. This connects with your point because Kant's recognition can be empowering for a victim of abuse. We are worthy of respect unconditionally, that is, no matter what we might feel.
Tim90274 9 months ago
@Tim90274: Thanks for making my video a favorite.
heikophilo 9 months ago
Thank you, I'll continue thinking about it
rosuarezta 11 months ago
How would it work for you putting it this way: It's not that the parents that have abused their children are bad people and deserve punishment. We could guess that they behaved like that because it was the best way that they could find to meet some important needs. We could guess that because of their life experiences and because of the way they were taught to think they were not in contact with all their needs.
rosuarezta 1 year ago
Nevertheless, it might still be useful for their children to have an intellectual framework that tells them what's normal and what's healthy - what needs would they normally expect to meet and what would people who are around them do an not do if they were more or less in contact with all their needs. It would also be helpful to the children to recognise when trying to open their parent's harts is not meeting their needs to and to know that they have the option of standing for themselves.
rosuarezta 1 year ago
@rosuarezta: I work with sexual abusers as a therapist. It is often the case that they abused because they were in pain. My point is that it is not the whole story when you only talk about their needs. It is actually very healing if they can accept the truth that they did wrong, that their abuse was unjust, immoral. And I don´t mean this in a Jackal way, I mean it just as an acknowledgement of moral realities. From that no punishment follows, but an impuls to restitution.
heikophilo 1 year ago
@rosuarezta @heikophilo Hello. I'm not a philosopher but NVC and morality are both important matters in my life. My personal belief is that "morality" is a very subjective concept, changing through generation and countries. So could you precise what you mean by "moral realities" and give a definition of "morality"? It will be helpful to compare NVC and morality and to understand/discuss your point. Thank you.
hanterkant 2 months ago
@hanterkant Since the video was made for a particular group of people who shared a certain view of morality, I did not explain what I meant with terms referring to morality. Here is my definition: A moral statement is a claim that a type of behavior can be proven to be always better than a different type of behavior with the proof relying only on rational arguments and not referring to a subjective preference of an individual or a group of individuals.
heikophilo 1 month ago
@hanterkant Moral realities would be the facts pertaining to the relationships between types of behaviors. Example: Letting people exercise their control over their bodies is always better than physically preventing people from doing that, i.e. initiating physical violence. (Don´t hit, don´t kill, don´t rape). Another example: Letting people exercise exclusive control over their possessions is always better than acquiring exclusive control over those against their will. (Don´t steal)
heikophilo 1 month ago
@heikophilo Thks, I see better. But sthg "can be proven to be always better than a different": I don't know acts which "always" better. "Don't kill": what about public punishment, you killed sby, thus you are killed by society (USA). Is it moral? Is revenge moral? "Don't rape": it took centuries to have rape acceptance within a married couple. Not defending such things, just pointing out that there is no "universal" and permanent definition of "morality". Only preferences in context.
hanterkant 1 month ago
@hanterkant Morals differ through time and cultures, correct. But so did and does the view of the universe. My contention is: killing is always wrong, regardless whether hooligans or governments observe that.Stefan Molyneux showed that: e.g.search youtube for "Sunday Call In Show - Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) October 31 2010"
Capital punishment would be also wrong, as would be war.
heikophilo 1 month ago
@heikophilo I looked at the vid. The author spent his time explaining what can't be universal, and I agreed on most of it, but no example of what is universal. War as immoral is not universally accepted. "Killing is wrong" is a point of view, largely accepted, thanks God. "ALWAYS wrong" is less frequent. If some other people don't accept this statement, how can you say it is universal? So what do you call "universal", if you refer to something which can be rejected by some people?
hanterkant 1 month ago
@heikophilo What we call "immoral" is a judgement based (and biaised) by our education, culture and, worse, by what we believe ourselves right or wrong. Of course, nobody would like to be killed, raped or abused, and I am not rejecting morality. But what morality can you teach to a hooligan, except your opinion about what to be "moral" means for you (or for the group who gives you authority)? "Moral" is an intellectual process, i.e. a poor level of communication in NVC.
hanterkant 1 month ago
@hanterkant 1. I don´t see how you don´t reject morality if what you call immoral is based on subjective things like culture. 2. Dealing with hooligans is not a task of morality or philosophy. People doing immoral acts are generally not interested in morality. 3. Yes, it is an intellectual enterprise. You don´t have to talk about morality in your relationships, I sometimes do with mutual joy. Some people just like finding out moral truths.
heikophilo 1 month ago
I understand morality as a social concept created to secure social life, and sometimes individual life (when you're grown with a negative view on stealing, you help everybody to live in peace, to enrich with no fear, etc.) I see no universal truths inside morality, wherever or whenever you look at it through ages.
2. Even hooligans have values: they value strengh and pain resistance, they disvalue cowardry. What you can call a code. My experience is that they don't like the word "morality".
hanterkant 1 month ago
Comment removed
rosuarezta 1 year ago
I'll think about it all...
rosuarezta 1 year ago
It is a good point you have made, thanks for sharing. I will consider this when I next use NVC. I try to use NVC every day so I will concentrate on morals and how important they are when communicating. Perhaps I could use OFNR and use my morals as I formulate my requests? That way I can express my morals in a nonviolent way?
topgun101tom 1 year ago
I like the way you have expressed your idea, you clearly seem to have a view that you have carefully thought about. So are you saying that NVC should consider the fact that morals are important, and connecting solely with just feelings and needs is not seeing the whole picture?
topgun101tom 1 year ago
@topgun101tom: Yes, that was my point.
heikophilo 1 year ago
I don't disagree. Take it a step further though. When grievances are expressed in terms of moral judgments, alienation usually follows. Yet when expressed in terms of needs, connection is far more likely. A moral judgment is not wrong in and of itself. Judgments are in fact based on needs. Why not make needs the starting point of the dialogue then? Disconnection occurs when we focus on the judgment instead of the need from which the judgment springs. I prefer to go directly to the source: Needs
rachellelamb 1 year ago
@rachellelamb: Most people in my personal life are open to moral - not judgemental - criticism without becoming defensive. I feel that this gives me the cherished opportunity to express myself not only as a person with needs, but also as a person with thoughts and a philosophy. I need cognitively consistent people in my life. I don´t want to dance around somebody´s defenses. I do this enough in my job as a therapist. But thanks for your thoughts, it helps to clarify my point.
heikophilo 1 year ago
@rachellelamb Thank you for pointing this out. I completely agree that morals are based off of our needs and that when we forget that, the morals become a sort of middleman between us and our needs. Morality is an unconcious group consensus on how to get our needs met.
CosmicJediGoat 11 months ago
Marshall does not suggest that morality is wrong. He uses the word "moralistic judgment" in the sense of someone having authority/superiority over others and indoctrinating them (usually to perpetuate a system of domination). He makes it clear too that people who are connected to their needs don't get pushed around very easily. I think it's an important distinction. Being connected to our needs strengthens us and is an effective way to establish boundaries AND build connection. A paradigm shift.
rachellelamb 1 year ago
@rachellelamb: Marshall says: "I am very confident that you have never done anything wrong and that you never will do anything wrong." I am sympathetic to his attempt to undermine everybody´s tendency to self attack after having become wiser about a certain decision, but I think there are true, correct, consistent, valid moral judgements that can be the source of connection and security and not of domination. I think it is unfortunate that Marshall does not talk about this possibility.
heikophilo 1 year ago
Comment removed
rachellelamb 1 year ago
A very wise analysis. Thank you. I subscribed.
DanaGarrett 1 year ago
@DanaGarrett: Thank you.
heikophilo 1 year ago
Interesting vlog, I always enjoy hearing people sharing about NVC. If you are willing, I would very much appreciate a link to the FB page you mentioned, or the skype event.
The first situation you mentioned sounds frustrating and disappointing. Thank goodness we have more than one strategy available to get our needs met.
Standing up for yourself sounds great to me, if NVC undermines this for you then it certainly is understandable that you would make a different choice. Cheers & peace to you
NLPNVC 1 year ago
@NLPNVC: The link is in the underbar.
"NVC undermines standing up for yourself" as unqualified statement sounds too strong for me. NVC also encourages the work of discovering you own needs, which supports standing up for yourself. My point was, that the turning away from moral thinking has often times the effect of undermining personal boundaries.
heikophilo 1 year ago
@heikophilo "turning away from moral thinking has often times the effect of undermining personal boundaries."
A adult son or daughter uses NVC with the intention of changing ("opening the heart") their parent and the strategy predictably fails. If the son continues to pursue this intention with the thought that his parents are bad and wrong, are you saying this is more likely to end the suffering?
NLPNVC 1 year ago
@NLPNVC: The thought that his or her parents are bad and wrong - if it is true and nothing works to change that - might assist in ending a futile endeavor and help to disengage.
heikophilo 1 year ago
it also runs in the philosophical short circuit of: how can he be 'critical' of moral thinking and say 'we ought to get rid of moral thinking'? Since he made a moral statement in that. First rule of philosophy is: the statement itself is included in what the statement is about.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark: I did not understand Marshall Rosenberg as saying "we ougth not to judge morally". He is just saying that if you observe the effects of it then you would want to express yourself differently. But if you do not come to this conclusion, he is not criticising you for it. So his argument is on the hedonistic level, like: You do better without it. Which does not apply for me, in my experience.
heikophilo 1 year ago