从精神契约说起
今天看了一个帖子，说的是作者带着自己的宝贝女儿，在地铁口买了一个生意不算太好的新疆小伙儿20块钱的葡萄干。母亲和女儿同时在心里为自己的“不冷漠”，遵守“精神契约”的行为喝彩了一下。可以说是在吃到了地道的新疆美食之余，精神物质双丰收。
先且不说所谓精神契约是非常模糊的东西，而且母女二人都有自认为高人一等的嫌疑。仅就帖子中援引的前纽约市长拉瓜迪亚的故事，认真地推敲一下。
在英文网站上能查到的关于拉瓜迪亚市长和老妇人的故事的常见版本如下：
In the middle of the great depression, New York mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, strived to live with the people. It was not unusual for him to ride with the firefighters, raid with the police, or take field trips with orphans. On a bitterly cold night in January of 1935, the mayor turned up at a night court that served the poorest ward of the city. LaGuardia dismissed the judge for the evening and took over the bench himself. Within a few minutes, a tattered old woman was brought before him, charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She told the mayor that her daughter’s husband had left, her daughter was sick, and her two grandchildren were starving.
However, the shopkeeper, from whom the bread was stolen, refused to drop the charges. “It’s a real bad neighborhood, your Honor,” the man told the mayor, “she’s got to be punished to teach other people around here a lesson.”
LaGuardia sighed. He turned to the woman and said, “I’ve got to punish you. The law makes no exceptions. Ten dollars or ten days in jail.” But even as he pronounced the sentence, the mayor was already reaching into his pocket. He extracted a bill and tossed into his famous hat, saying, “Here is the tem dollar fine which I now remit; and furthermore I am going to fine everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a town where a person has to steal bread so that her grandchildren can eat. Mr Baliff, collect the fines and give them to the defendant.”
The following day, New York city newspaper reported that $47.50 was turned over to a bewildered woman who had stolen a loaf of bread to feed her starving grandchildren. Fifty cents of that amount was contributed by the grocery store owner himself, while some seventy petty criminals, people with traffic violations, and New York policeman, each of whom had just paid fifty cents for the privilege of doing so, gave the mayor a standing ovation.
基本上这个故事里，有如下几个角色：拉瓜迪亚市长，真实犯了偷盗罪的老妇人，（不在现场但在家里挨饿的小孩子），商店主人（确实因为老妇人的行为损失了一只面包—也有可能人赃具获，物质上没有损失），现场其他听众
安排是老妇人所应得的10美金惩罚没有赦免，但由市长掏腰包支付了罚金；在场其他所有人，包括商店主人，同时被罚款50美分。所谓精神契约似乎从这50美分罚金引申而来，说的好像是每个人都在道德上和这个社会签订有契约，这个契约就是应该多为善，特别是不能对这个社会中受苦和倒霉的人太过冷漠。
这是一个不恰当并且甚至有些危险的引申。首先，欲为善者，应该100%出自内心自愿。这里不存在契约。当然也不和任何其他人约定。引申者也可能说的是和自己的契约，自己对自己的承诺。但这里错失了原故事中一个最重要的元素，就是拉瓜迪亚先生。作为纽约市长，他是有权向在场的人征收罚金的，而其他任何人，都没权这样做。没有拉瓜迪亚先生的存在，现场就算是有人自己捐了钱，同时又期待他人也捐钱，这就属于过分。更有甚者，通过语言或舆论来压制强迫他人的主观意志的情况，是一种没有法理基础的专制主义。
再回到母女买葡萄干的故事。你会发现，这个故事和拉瓜迪亚的故事，几乎不存在可比性。第一，这里没有人东西被偷，财产上受了或者将要受损失。貌似有点惨的是新疆小伙，因为好像他的生意不太好。没有罪与罚，这个心灵上的煎熬就很难理解。当然也没有拉瓜迪亚先生，母女俩约好了主动去拿人民币去换了新疆小伙的葡萄干，同时心里还觉得好像募了捐。这对儿母女，我只能说，三观好像有点做作呢。难不成是葡萄干不是特别好吃，自己心里找补回来点儿；或者微信上多了，喜欢自己给自己点个赞？
先且不说所谓精神契约是非常模糊的东西，而且母女二人都有自认为高人一等的嫌疑。仅就帖子中援引的前纽约市长拉瓜迪亚的故事，认真地推敲一下。
在英文网站上能查到的关于拉瓜迪亚市长和老妇人的故事的常见版本如下：
In the middle of the great depression, New York mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, strived to live with the people. It was not unusual for him to ride with the firefighters, raid with the police, or take field trips with orphans. On a bitterly cold night in January of 1935, the mayor turned up at a night court that served the poorest ward of the city. LaGuardia dismissed the judge for the evening and took over the bench himself. Within a few minutes, a tattered old woman was brought before him, charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She told the mayor that her daughter’s husband had left, her daughter was sick, and her two grandchildren were starving.
However, the shopkeeper, from whom the bread was stolen, refused to drop the charges. “It’s a real bad neighborhood, your Honor,” the man told the mayor, “she’s got to be punished to teach other people around here a lesson.”
LaGuardia sighed. He turned to the woman and said, “I’ve got to punish you. The law makes no exceptions. Ten dollars or ten days in jail.” But even as he pronounced the sentence, the mayor was already reaching into his pocket. He extracted a bill and tossed into his famous hat, saying, “Here is the tem dollar fine which I now remit; and furthermore I am going to fine everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a town where a person has to steal bread so that her grandchildren can eat. Mr Baliff, collect the fines and give them to the defendant.”
The following day, New York city newspaper reported that $47.50 was turned over to a bewildered woman who had stolen a loaf of bread to feed her starving grandchildren. Fifty cents of that amount was contributed by the grocery store owner himself, while some seventy petty criminals, people with traffic violations, and New York policeman, each of whom had just paid fifty cents for the privilege of doing so, gave the mayor a standing ovation.
基本上这个故事里，有如下几个角色：拉瓜迪亚市长，真实犯了偷盗罪的老妇人，（不在现场但在家里挨饿的小孩子），商店主人（确实因为老妇人的行为损失了一只面包—也有可能人赃具获，物质上没有损失），现场其他听众
安排是老妇人所应得的10美金惩罚没有赦免，但由市长掏腰包支付了罚金；在场其他所有人，包括商店主人，同时被罚款50美分。所谓精神契约似乎从这50美分罚金引申而来，说的好像是每个人都在道德上和这个社会签订有契约，这个契约就是应该多为善，特别是不能对这个社会中受苦和倒霉的人太过冷漠。
这是一个不恰当并且甚至有些危险的引申。首先，欲为善者，应该100%出自内心自愿。这里不存在契约。当然也不和任何其他人约定。引申者也可能说的是和自己的契约，自己对自己的承诺。但这里错失了原故事中一个最重要的元素，就是拉瓜迪亚先生。作为纽约市长，他是有权向在场的人征收罚金的，而其他任何人，都没权这样做。没有拉瓜迪亚先生的存在，现场就算是有人自己捐了钱，同时又期待他人也捐钱，这就属于过分。更有甚者，通过语言或舆论来压制强迫他人的主观意志的情况，是一种没有法理基础的专制主义。
再回到母女买葡萄干的故事。你会发现，这个故事和拉瓜迪亚的故事，几乎不存在可比性。第一，这里没有人东西被偷，财产上受了或者将要受损失。貌似有点惨的是新疆小伙，因为好像他的生意不太好。没有罪与罚，这个心灵上的煎熬就很难理解。当然也没有拉瓜迪亚先生，母女俩约好了主动去拿人民币去换了新疆小伙的葡萄干，同时心里还觉得好像募了捐。这对儿母女，我只能说，三观好像有点做作呢。难不成是葡萄干不是特别好吃，自己心里找补回来点儿；或者微信上多了，喜欢自己给自己点个赞？
还没人赞这篇日记
