One of the moral concepts that I have come up with that partially formed my code of ethics is the non-violent attitude towards people. Every person at some point gets acquainted with the frustration and despair of being misunderstood, being, in their opinion, falsely accused, and ending relationships with people. In all the situations where the response to actions of others causing negative emotions is not necessary, I believe there should be no anger expressed through verbal or physical aggression.
The main basis of this position is the understanding that there is a flow of emotional pain between people and that pain can be emerged and caused or be canalized by accepting it and coping with it without returning it to the person who caused it to you or passing it to somebody else. There is no conscious person who does not have the experience of coping with negative emotions caused by others. The majority chooses to attack in response, creating conflicts, or if they are unable to cause a satisfying amount of pain to the aggressor, there will be a second victim on the same or lower level than the first one.
A great example of this would be when a child is physically or psychologically hurt by a parent. Children rarely can respond to an adult with a proportionate amount of negative emotions and pain, and because of this, they opt to pass their pain to somebody or something else. Some bully their peers at school, others hurt animals or break things (Taylor and Smith 60). Another example is when an employee gets preached or judged by somebody aggressive at work who is in a higher position at the workplace and cannot respond to them. Such an employee may come home and express these negative emotions with anger towards a member of their family.
My ethical code implies another ethical principle that significantly affects that pacifistic position. Regarding ethics, the definition that seems to fit in the context of the discussion is that it is “a set of moral principles” (Merriam-Webster). The ethical principle mentioned is the Golden Rule, which calls for treating others as you expect to be treated yourself (Gensler 103). The addition to that rule that even if a person is mistreated, the response to such behavior should not be replicating seems appropriate. When a person wants to initiate aggression in a certain situation, it is important to understand that there will be no positive consequences to that at all. Moreover, there is no healthy person who would want to be treated with aggression and intention to hurt.
As mentioned earlier, this position affects both how relationships develop and end with people. When I feel frustrated and angry at people, I try not to express it and take my time to assess what I want to say and conclude what will help come to a consensus and what is dedicated to hurting a person. In cases when I understand that my relationship with a person has come to an end, I prefer to say that I forgive him or her for hurting me, thank them for everything good, and ask to forgive me if I ever hurt them. Even if I feel mad, there is no point in expressing it in such cases, as I will only bring more pain to the flow, and there will be no positive consequences from that action.
In cases when something goes wrong, and a conflict occurs, I try to implement non-violent communication. Non-violent communication consists of not blaming others but describing your feelings caused by one’s actions (Sofer 3). Telling a person that something hurt you instead of trying to hurt them in response, even if you want to, can at least make a change. Asking others to vocalize feelings instead of blaming and offending you is an option to keep the conflict non-aggressive as well.
This idea resembles the thoughts expressed in Luther King’s letter from Birmingham Jail. He discusses the methods of making a positive change using the most non-violent way possible. In that context, he mentions that the best way to stop segregation would be negotiating, yet the negotiation was not possible, so the option of non-violent protest was taken (Luther King 3). Similarly, when settling a conflict or ending a relationship, it is necessary to find the least harmful way possible. Even if you are hurt, and you want to hurt in response, such actions will never be justified. There is no point in hurting someone if you are letting them go, and it is counter-effective to do so if you are trying to sustain the relationship.
There is no point in expressing anger in response or initiating aggressive behavior whatsoever. The structure of the idea resembles the thought expressed in King’s Letter from Birmingham. Besides, the core idea is related to making the least harm possible as King conducts a non-violent process. Similarly, this essay discusses the opportunities and reasons to refrain from expressing anger.
Works Cited
“Ethic.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Web.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “The Negro Is Your Brother” The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 212, No. 2, 1963, pages 78 – 88.
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics: A contemporary introduction. Routledge, 2017.
Jay Sofer, Oren. Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication. Shambhala Publications, 2018
Taylor, Gregory G., and Stephen W. Smith. “Teacher Reports of Verbal Aggression in School Settings Among Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, vol. 27, no. 1, Mar. 2019, pp. 52–64.