Name: 尼采--謹防人們扮演受害者 (Nietzsche - Beware of People Playing the Victim)
Uploaded: 2022-05-18T02:51:06.000Z
Duration: 10 min 47 s

In /On the Genealogy of Morals/, Nietzsche searches through history for the origins of

在《道德的譜系》中，尼采通過歷史來尋找道德的起源。

And in it, he talks about how some people use morality like a dog-leash to control others.

在這本書中，他談到了一些人如何利用道德像狗鏈一樣來控制他人。

They use morality to get people to do what they want.

他們利用道德來讓人們做他們想做的事。

It's an interesting idea with lots of implications, but I'm interested in exploring one particular

這是一個有趣的想法，有很多影響，但我對探索一個特定的問題感興趣

version of this idea: /playing the victim/. Someone who plays the victim is an example

這個想法的版本。/扮演受害者/。扮演受害者的人是一個例子

of someone who uses morality to gain power, and that's what I wanna explore in this

一個利用道德獲得權力的人，而這正是我想在這本書中探討的。

But before we can understand what it means to /play the victim/, we need to understand

但在我們能夠理解 "扮演受害者 "的含義之前，我們需要理解

For this essay, we can define a /victim/ as /someone who is taken advantage of by another

在這篇文章中，我們可以將 "受害者 "定義為 "被他人利用的人"。

And we can call /the act of taking advantage of someone/ a /crime/.

而我們可以把/利用別人的行為/稱為/犯罪/。

And typically, what we want for all victims is /justice/.

而通常情況下，我們對所有受害者的要求是/公正/。

And /justice/, as discussed by Nietzsche, can be thought of as /giving back to the victim

而尼采所討論的 "正義"，可以被認為是對受害者的 "回饋"。

what was lost when the crime was committed/.

In other words, you can think of justice as /the repaying of debts/: the criminal must

換句話說，你可以把正義看作是/償還債務/：罪犯必須

repay the debt they acquired by taking advantage of the victim.

償還他們通過利用受害者獲得的債務。

I'm not saying this is what justice means, but this is a way many people understand justice,

我並不是說這就是正義的含義，但這是許多人理解正義的一種方式。

and this definition is important in the context of this video.

而這個定義在本視頻的背景中很重要。

那麼，扮演受害者是什麼意思？

What separates a genuine victim from someone playing the victim?

是什麼將真正的受害者與扮演受害者的人區分開來？

A genuine victim was actually taken advantage of, but someone playing the victim wasn't.

一個真正的受害者實際上被利用了，但扮演受害者的人沒有被利用。

And how do you determine whether someone was actually taken advantage of?

而你如何確定某人是否真的被利用了？

It comes down to /consent/. Someone is taken advantage of when their presence is used in

這歸結為/consent/。當一個人的存在被利用時，他就被利用了。

And so a true victim did not give consent or was not in a position to give consent,

是以，真正的受害者沒有給予同意，或者沒有能力給予同意。

such as in the case of a child or someone who was severely intoxicated.

例如在兒童或嚴重醉酒的情況下。

But someone who plays the victim gives legitimate consent and then claims they didn't.

但有人扮演受害者，給予合法的同意，然後聲稱他們沒有。

Or they claim /you/ consented to things which you didn't consent to or were not in a position

或者他們聲稱/你/同意了一些你不同意的事情，或者不在一個位置上。

I'll explore what both cases look like a little later on.

我將在稍後探討這兩種情況是什麼樣子。

那麼，為什麼有人要扮演受害者呢？

To put it simply, they play victim so someone will save them from their problems.

簡單地說，他們扮演受害者，以便有人將他們從問題中拯救出來。

他們又是如何讓人們來拯救他們的呢？

Someone who plays the victim has two main weapons: obligation and guilt, and pity and

扮演受害者的人有兩個主要武器：義務和內疚，以及憐憫和

Let's take a look at the first weapon: obligation and guilt.

讓我們來看看第一種武器：義務和內疚。

Here, the person playing the victim claims that /you/ consented to things that you didn't

在這裡，扮演受害者的人聲稱/你/同意了你沒有同意的事情。

consent to or were not in a position to consent to.

They impose an obligation on you and make you feel guilty for not living up to the obligation.

他們把義務強加給你，讓你為沒有履行義務而感到內疚。

They try to coerce you into paying a debt that you did not consent to taking on.

他們試圖脅迫你支付你不同意承擔的債務。

At the age of 22, Jane's husband left her with their two sons: Jamie and Michael.

在22歲時，簡的丈夫帶著他們的兩個兒子離開了她。傑米和邁克爾。

Jane told herself that she would dedicate her life to her sons, and that in return they

簡告訴自己，她將把自己的生命獻給她的兒子們，而作為回報，他們將

/I will take care of them,/ she thought, /and in return, they can never leave me/.

/我將照顧他們，/她想，/而作為回報，他們永遠不能離開我/。

So keep that in mind: Jane is imposing an obligation on her sons.

所以要記住這一點。簡是在給她的兒子們施加義務。

She's binding them into a covert contract.

她將他們捆綁在一個祕密的合同中。

They're not in a position to consent to such a contract.

他們沒有資格同意這樣的合同。

那麼，這種情況是如何發生的呢？

Jane will do anything for them as long as they don't leave her alone.

只要他們不放過她，簡會為他們做任何事。

But as they start growing up, naturally, they start wanting to live their own lives.

但隨著他們開始長大，自然而然地，他們開始想過自己的生活。

They want to spend time with their friends and lovers.

他們希望與朋友和戀人共度時光。

And anytime they want to leave the house, anytime they want to do something without

而且無論何時他們想離開家，無論何時他們想做什麼，都不需要

her, anytime she feels them creating some distance from her, their mom uses guilt and

只要她覺得他們與她產生了一些距離，他們的媽媽就會利用內疚和

She says, “after everything I've done for you, after all the time, energy, and money

她說，"在我為你做了一切之後，在所有的時間、精力和金錢之後

I've spent on you, you're just going to leave me?!

我在你身上花了錢，你就這樣離開我？

She imposed this contract on her kids—/I will take care of you as long as you never

她把這個合同強加給她的孩子們------我將照顧你，只要你永遠不

leave me/—when they were not in a position to consent to such a contract.

離開我/--當他們沒有能力同意這樣的合同。

And whenever they seem to threaten her contract, she uses guilt and obligation to force them

而每當他們似乎威脅到她的合同時，她就用內疚和義務來迫使他們

Instead of handling the problem of loneliness in a mature and healthy way, she emotionally

她沒有以成熟和健康的方式處理孤獨的問題，而是在情緒上

Now let's look at the second weapon someone uses when playing the victim: pity and disgust.

現在我們來看看有人在扮演受害者時使用的第二種武器：憐憫和厭惡。

Here, the person playing the victim claims that they did not give /you/ legitimate consent

在這裡，扮演受害者的人聲稱，他們沒有給/你/合法的同意。

They're trying to claim they didn't give you legitimate consent so that others feel

他們試圖聲稱他們沒有給你合法的同意，以便讓其他人感到

If people feel pity for them, they get people on their side and increase the chances that

如果人們對他們感到憐憫，他們就會讓人們站在他們一邊，並增加機會

If people feel disgust for you, the person playing the victim turns people against you,

如果人們對你感到厭惡，扮演受害者的人就會讓人們反對你。

which will increase the chances that you submit to their demands.

這將增加你服從他們要求的機會。

So Jane's attempt to use guilt and obligation works on one of her sons, Jamie, but they

是以，簡試圖利用內疚和義務對她的一個兒子傑米起作用，但他們

Michael tells his mom that he's moving away to go to a good college.

邁克爾告訴他媽媽，他要搬走，去上一所好大學。

So what does Jane do when guilt and obligation fail?

那麼，當內疚和義務失敗時，簡會怎麼做呢？

She says to Jamie, the son who feels obligated to her, “can you believe Michael would do

她對傑米說，這個對她有義務的兒子，"你能相信邁克爾會這麼做嗎？

He took all of my money and then left me all alone!”

他拿走了我所有的錢，然後把我一個人留在那裡！"

She makes Jamie feel pity towards her, increasing the chances he'll rescue her, and makes

她讓傑米對她產生憐憫之情，增加了他拯救她的機會，並使

him feel disgust towards his brother Michael, increasing the chances Jamie will abandon

他對他的兄弟邁克爾感到厭惡，增加了傑米放棄的機會。

Michael or coerce him into submitting to his mother's demands.

邁克爾或脅迫他服從他母親的要求。

But is it fair for Jane to claim that Michael took all of her money and left?

但簡聲稱邁克爾拿了她所有的錢就走了，這公平嗎？

Remember, Jane's contract is /I will take care of you as long as you never leave me./Jane

記住，簡的合同是/只要你不離開我，我就會照顧你。

was an adult when she chose to enter that contract for Michael, but Michael was just

當她選擇為邁克爾簽訂那份合同時，她是一個成年人，但邁克爾只是

Jane was capable of giving legitimate consent and did, but she expected a mutual consent

簡有能力給予合法的同意，也確實這樣做了，但她期待著雙方的同意。

from Michael that he wasn't in a position to give as a child.

從邁克爾那裡得到的是他作為一個孩子沒有能力給予的。

And even if Michael was able to give consent, he might not have wanted to enter into that

即使邁克爾能夠表示同意，他也可能不願意進入這個圈子。

contract with his mother—one where she supports him in exchange for him never leaving her

他與母親簽訂合同，母親支持他，以換取他永遠不離開母親。