人为什么要用最高标准来善待他人呢？

这是奥勒留用以塑造理性人生态度的方式之一。但即便斯多葛主义不是你的菜，它也可能成为一种有效的自我保护方式。对他人——无论是同事、商店老板还是爱人——保持较低的期望，当他们表现得自私、粗鲁、不体贴、有失公道或不忠时，我们也不会太过失望。如果我们发觉自己在怪某人不够理解或关心我们，我们就可以提醒自己，人往往是这样的，要怪只能怪自己期望过高。但这样想会不会是在纵容不好的行为？菲利普?津巴多(Philip Zimbardo)等心理学家的研究显示，人往往会根据别人的看法改变自己的行为。在研究人为何会有好的表现和不好的表现方面，津巴多走在了前列。他举了一个例子：如果我们表扬一个人慷慨，这个人下次遇到献血活动时，主动献血的可能性会提高。 因此，如果我们认为别人会善待我们，并据此对待别人，他们可能会真的帮我们的忙。反过来，认定别人会让我们失望并据此对待他们，他们可能真的会表现得很差劲。以恶意揣测别人可能促使不好的预期自我实现。不过，对别人友善不一定能获得同样友善的对待。保持一点怀疑比较稳妥。如果你做得到，那么诀窍是：想受到怎样的对待就怎样对待别人，但不要把人性想得过于美好。做到这一点不容易：如果遭受打击的次数太多，你就可能很难在这二者之间保持平衡。但我们最好避免走极端——怀疑一切，这会侵蚀我们对人的信任感，损害我们诚实坦率的性情。哲人人类怀着某种共同的道德感，这个看法得到了以下事实的佐证：不同的文化和道德理论都演绎出了“愿意受到怎样的对待，就怎样对待别人”这一黄金法则的不同版本。如果把这条法则中的“愿意”换成“预计”——“预计会受到怎样的对待，就怎样对待别人”，我们的世界会变成怎样？道德的基础是愿望而非期望。我们善待别人，不是因为我们认为如果处境互换，他们也会关照我们，我们只是认为，如果他们会报答，那是好事。若非如此，所谓的道德就不会存在。这一点很重要，因为许多人认为，道德只不过是一种互惠的利他主义：你帮我挠背，我就帮你挠背。人类之所以发展出这种行为，是因为合作提供了双赢的机会。但既然我们知道，道德只是人们在相互挠背的时候实现的一种双赢，我们难道不应该确保只在可能获得回报的时候才“善待”别人吗？否则，道德就成了傻瓜的“特权”。诚然，我们不应一厢情愿地对别人好，不管他们会不会报答。但我们也不应完全根据我们对别人行为的预期来决定如何对待他们，原因有两点。首先，即便你认为道德规范只不过是一种合作策略，但假如相互猜疑成为人际交往中的常态，暗地里对于是否会获得回报的猜测开始主导我们明确的决策，那么道德规范就会失灵。彼此认为对方是可信的，合作才会建立，而在遭到背叛时，信任感就会消失。尽管道德一开始只不过是一种实用的解决方案，但我们不应混淆一种行为的起源和如今这种行为的价值所在。善待他人，不仅是因为希望受到同样的对待，这是使人类区别于其他物种的能力。做有德之人，就要严于律己而宽于待人，己所不欲，勿施于人。 Work by psychologists such as Philip Zimbardo suggests that people tend to act differently depending on how we label them. Zimbardo, who has been at the forefront of investigating why people behave well or badly, gives the example that if we praise someone’s generosity they are more likely to give blood next time there is a blood drive.So if we expect decency and treat people accordingly, they might oblige. On the other hand, treating people as if they are going to let us down might encourage them to do just that. Being too cynical about others may set in motion the wrong kind of self-fulfilling prophecies. Still, being nice to people doesn’t guarantee they’ll be nice back. A pinch of scepticism is in order.The trick, if you can manage it, is to treat people as you’d wish to be treated while avoiding a rose-tinted image of human nature. It’s not easy: if you get kicked in the teeth enough times this balancing act may become precarious. But the alternative – a nihilistic cynicism that corrodes trust and openness – is best avoided.The SageThe idea that humans share some kind of universal moral sense is supported by the fact that various cultures and moral theories advance versions of the same golden rule: “Do as you would be done by.”How different our world would be if this “would” were interpreted as a prediction rather than a desire: “Do as you think you would be done by.”Morality is built on aspirations not expectations. Treating someone well is not conditional on the assumption that they would reciprocate if the roles were reversed, simply on the belief that it would be good if they did. If this were not the case, morality as we know it would not exist.This is important because the belief has widely taken hold that morality is really nothing more than reciprocal altruism: you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. This behaviour has evolved because co-operation provides a win-win opportunity. But since we know it’s only a win-win when people scratch back, shouldn’t we make sure we are only “good” when goodness is likely to be rewarded?