道德绑架美文

篇一:道德绑架美文
道德绑架的中英文对照议论文

Moral abduction[æb'dʌkʃn]:is a kind of behavior which use the moral as an excuse to force individuals or groups to do something nominal good or measure ordinary people with the saint's standards by making moral an obligation. For example, if someone refuses to be a brave citizen in danger time, then he will be condemned; if someone is supposed to support the Hope Project but he didn’t, then he will be condemned, both of these phenomenons are moral abduction, although they asked for good aim, because this is not anyone’s duty to be self-sacrifice. "Moral" itself does not have property of "obligation", "moral obligation" is a logical error and should not exist. It’s unfair to be criticized for being stingy just because you change your wi-fi password to stop your neighbor sharing it without your agreement. ,

道德绑架：以道德为砝码，要挟个人或众人不得不做某些事情，用圣人的标准要求普通人，用美德来要求道德义务。比如，要求一个人舍身救人，否则就要谴责，这就是道德绑架；要求一个人掏钱支持希望工程，这尽管是一件好事，但如果一个人不掏就要谴责，这也是道德绑架，因为这并非他的义务。因为“道德”本身并不存在“义务”属性，“道德义务”一词犯了逻辑上的错误，本身不应存在。

Perhaps you have heard this joke: There was a man who had insisted on giving 10 dollars to a beggar per day for two years. Then one day he gave the beggar 5 yuan. The beggar asked him, why so little? He said, I was single before, so I can give you ten , but now I have got married, I have to support my wife. So I can only give you five yuan. After listening to the man, the beggar became very angry and said: how could you take my money to support your wife !

大家或许听过照这个笑话：有个人每天给门外一个乞丐10元钱就这样坚持了两年。后来一天他给了乞丐5元。乞丐就问他，怎么这么少？他就说，之前我是单身，所以能给你十块，现在我有老婆了，我还要养活我老婆。就只能给你五块了，乞丐听了后大怒，给了那人一个耳光说：你怎么可以拿我的钱养你的老婆呢！

The reality is not less ridiculous. Some internet users had demonstrated spontaneously for calling for donations from a local lottery winner to save lives. But in fact China's first "Lottery Regulations" clearly states: "Any unit or individual for any reason cannot violate the winner’ will, or persuade, inducement, coercion the winners to donate winnings." The winner has paid his tax and made a contribution to society. Furthermore, donations should be voluntary, but "asked donations" is forced. And if this kind of forcing commit keep going unregulated, it will be an awful social practice.

曾有网友在投注点门口打出求助横幅，呼吁当地刚中了1200万元的大奖得主捐资救人。但实际上我国首部《彩票管理条例》中明确规定：“任何单位和个人不得违背中奖者本人意愿，以任何理由和方式劝导、引诱、强迫中奖者捐赠中奖奖金。”中奖者已经缴税了，对社会作了贡献。且任何人捐款都应是自愿的，而“索捐”带有强迫色彩。这次是强迫一个人去捐，以后就会形成一种社会惯例。

Some rich public characters become the main target of moral abduction. Fan Bingbing had refused to join the pro-poor activities, then many newspapers reprinted to attack her heartless. On some international Top Marques, the rich spent money lavishly, thus【道德绑架美文】

public medias accused the rich of preferring to squander rather than donate and take the responsibility for the community. The media over reported the private sector behavior, and to bring those individuals reported the pressure that they should not bear. Public figures should to tolerate some certain obligations, but should they give up their right to privacy completely? Sympathy for the weak can not become the excuse to slander others, from the perspective of property rights, the stars and the rich are clearly have the right to dispose their property freely as long as legal.

一些明星和富翁成了道德绑架的主要目标。范冰冰拒绝加入扶贫活动，不少地方报纸相继转载，攻击明星为富不仁。在一些国际顶级私人物品展上，富豪们出手相当阔绰,公众媒体纷纷指责，富豪宁可挥霍不愿捐赠，不愿为社会多承担责任。媒体对私人领域过度公开的报道行为，并给被报道的个体带来他们本不应该承受的压力。公众人物应当行使一定的容忍义务，但容忍就要彻底放弃自己的隐私权吗？！对弱者的同情不能成为诽谤别人的借口，从财产权的角度来说，明星富豪们显然具有自由在合法范围内处置自己财产的权利。

Respecting the old and caring for the young is a basic ethical framework and code of conduct of human society. July 2008, Zhengzhou City ruled that passengers should take the initiative to make way for the elderly, pregnant women and other special passengers, or else the driver and conductor can drive them out , and the urban public transport administrative departments can also fine the passengers. Then many people show their objections. The spirit and intention of this legislation are laudable, but the means are wrong and can only lead to embarrassing end. Using regulations to abducted moral is even worse, it is a blatant violence to men’s freewill. Such regulations not only violated the spirit of the modern rule of law, but also is a backsliding of modern civilization. It wouldn’t solve social conflicts, but increased new social confrontation and increase people's resentment reasonlessly: I should have the freedom of choice, Why should I subject to regulations’ threats and intimidation? 尊老爱幼，乃人类社会基本的伦理框架和行为准则。2008年7月，郑州市规定，乘客应主动让位给老人、孕妇等特殊乘客。不履行义务，驾驶员、售票员可以拒绝其乘坐，城市公共交通行政主管部门还可以对乘客处以50元罚款。很多市民听说后提出了异议。

这种立法精神和初衷，值得赞许，但是手段错误，只会尴尬收场。用法规来绑架道德，比单纯的道德绑架性质上更恶劣，是赤裸裸的暴力行为了。这种法规绑架，不仅违背了现代法治精神，而且是现代文明的倒退，不是在调和社会矛盾，而是在制造新的社会对抗，无端增加人们的反感情绪：我让座与否是我个人的自由选择，凭什么要受到法规的威胁和恫吓。【道德绑架美文】【道德绑架美文】

The reason why moral abduction can succeed easily is the powerful effect of public opinion. Thus there have been forced donation and nonnatural apology. China is a moral society in which people's fear of the moral force is even stronger than their fear of law. Each of us have to face with many kinds of moral abduction. A person on the moral dimension is wrong doesn’t means any kinds of criticize from anyone is reasonable for him, at least the abuse of his personality should be forbidden. However, it’s not to spread egoism, indeed any period will have a mainstream values, and moral is not only a personal matter, the degree of civilization of a society externally

manifested as the degree of public respect for and practice of public morals.

道德绑架之所以容易得手，是因为舆论具有足以杀人的功能。因而就出现了不自愿的捐款和满含委屈的道歉。中国是一个道德社会，在我们的社会中，人们对道德力量的恐惧有时候甚于对法的力量的恐惧。我们每一个人的确会经常遭遇并难以承受许多道德的绑架。一个人在公义道德的层面上错了，并不是任何人怎样批评他都是对的，至少对他人格上的辱骂就是不对的。然而，这并不是宣扬利己主义，必须肯定任何时候都会有主流的价值观，道德不完全是个人的事情，一个社会的文明程度外在地表现为公众对于公德的尊重和践行程度。

Our social and moral orientation stand on two extremes: steping from extreme selfless moral orientation to the brink of extreme self-orientation and lacking neutralized zone. Individual interests should also be taken into account by community instead of emphasizing sacrifices unilaterally. Moral constraints and the legal system should not be confused. Morality is an accomplishment, not a liability! At the same time, it need to be clear that we don't force men to be moral but we advocate them, we don’t sanction unmoral people but we condemn them. It is a long-term project to achieve prevalent moral self-discipline and to make superego become dominant social subjects which needs to improve levels of public education and cognitive.

At the present stage, controversy is inevitable. But it is important to debate in a more rational way instead of being limited by one’s own interests and parochial emotional factors.

我们的社会道德取向，站在了两个极端：从极端的无私道德取向一步跨越到了极端自我取向的边缘，缺少中和的地带。社会利益也要顾及个体，而不是一味强调奉献牺牲。道德约束和法律制度不可混淆。道德是一种修养，不是责任！同时需要明确，不强制不代表提提倡，不制裁不代表不谴责。实现普遍的道德自律，超我占主导的社会主体，需要大众教育水平和认知思维水平的提高，是一个长期工程，并不是冲动的道德绑架。

现阶段，争论总是难免，重要的是争论能多一些理性而不是因自身权益而使争论具有情感上的偏狭。

篇二:道德绑架美文
无形的道德绑架

无形的道德绑架

子贡赎人而不取其金，在多数人眼中看来这是圣人之举，是行善的标杆。可孔子却不加赞赏反而批评他的所作所为。诚然，子贡的行善本意十分纯粹，但他的一个自以为更加高尚的举动却无形中提升了道德的准则，纵然人人都渴望向子贡学习，但是世人对于行善之后是否该领取奖金的态度已然悄悄发生了转变。

一笔赎金对于子贡这样的大户人家来说或许并不算什么，然而对于辛苦躬耕一辈子的农户人家来说将是不菲的巨款。未听闻子贡之事时，他们遇见鲁人会毫不犹豫的赎回，而后坦然接受应得的嘉奖。如若鲁国君主将子贡事迹大肆宣扬，人尽皆知之后，我们不妨假设，普通农户再次遇到鲁人时定会有所犹豫，他们会想到，从国家拿回先垫付下的赎金可能都会遭到世人的非议，甚至纠结之下他们选择了漠视需要帮助的人。子贡一举，已为当时之人造成了无形的道德绑架。

如今，世界的经济巨头颇多，他们在为个人谋取利益的背后仍然保有一颗行善济世之心，实在值得我们的称赞。比尔盖茨宣布过世之后捐出全部敌国的财富，巴菲特拍卖个人午餐所获金额如数捐出，索罗斯、戈登摩尔也都捐献了过半的资产。然而巨头行善的背后却无形中带来了道德绑架，在大多数普通人眼中捐款似乎成了一件理所当然的事情，尤其是对于那些富可敌国的商业大亨来说。天津爆炸案之后，千万网友竟在马云微博评论中纷纷留言逼捐。“你这么有钱，为什么不捐一个亿？”“你不捐款，我们就抵制淘宝！”......这样的言论一番番地攻击着马云，万千网友躲在电脑屏幕之后握紧了腰包，暗喜自己的“高尚”。

行善本为一件好事，然而在太多人潜意识之中却还只是一个标榜自己的工具。他们在有意无意之中，炫耀着自己的高尚之举，他们将向善的道德起点一步步哄抬着，渐渐“取不取”“捐不捐”并不再可以由一个个体所能决定了，平凡的百姓开始选择漠视，占据较高社会地位的人们被推上了道德的邢台。无形的道德绑架就此形成，道德观发生了质的偏差，行善不再来自于我们一颗崇高的济世之心，开始成为了社会人物维护个人形象的无奈之举、被迫之举。

这样的绑架实在可怕，麻痹了普通人的善良之心，挟持着社会人物的选择权利，这样的行善早已成为压在心中的负担。如若当打破无形的道德绑架，每一位行善之人实属关键，他们应当有一颗纯粹之心，应当低调而行之，更应当时刻注意而非肆意抬高着行善的门槛。

·道德美文(2016-08-11)