Current laws are imperfect: they protect the person from physical pain and physical violence, although mental pain is almost always possible to deliver punishment. There is, of course, protection from abuse, but it works only in exceptional cases and usually when we are talking about politicians or other prominent figures. In order for you upheld the law, it is necessary that was, to some extent ruined your reputation, and this false information about you to be published, transmitted to people from whom you are somehow dependent, or expressed (or even a tone of defiant would be eye-catching) in the presence of other people. Such cases are extremely rare in comparison with the examples of domestic violence and the daily moral bullying. The simplest examples of abuse: a man give insulting nickname, pour it curses or do something that will act on him: adjust such filth, which would simply unnoticed by most other people.

An example would be at least one teacher: children walked past her and hissed, she realized that it has to hurt her and was angry that children love, and they hissed even more, and moral pain is amplified. No law can prevent such things. Protection from such pain does not exist - perhaps as an answer, only the infliction of pain response. People can live for many years in the neighborhood, bringing untold suffering to each other, sophisticated in their mutual insults and reaching into the moral good pain sophistication of the medieval masters of torture. Surprisingly, if think of it, but the pain is traditionally considered too small to pay her attention.

However, it can sometimes drive a person and to commit suicide or murder. (A great success movies and books describing such cases - to raise this unresolved and seemingly non-existent problem - are successful because they actually care about us - hence, the moral pain is not so minor.) Let's try to estimate the strength of such pain. In the extreme case, it is so strong that a person decides to die - I mean incitement to suicide. Physical pain may have the same effect. Imagine a patient suffering from constant pain. How much should it be a pain (a purely bodily pain, without any admixture of moral - that is, with all other aspects of life in this man a full order), how strong must be the physical pain that a person has decided to kill himself? Obviously, it is extremely strong.

Such is the moral pain of a man driven to suicide. When a child is another name-calling, narimer, donkey, goat or monkey, the other may respond in kind, or to hit the offender. He and other kids would find it fair. The simplest principle of justice, which followed the children, it's "eye for an eye". This elementary and perhaps an innate moral response - to respond to pain the same pain. Hence, in a sense the pain impact and pain of the spoken word are equal - they are equal in strength. And, of course, an insult can bring greater suffering than the blow. During the duel man risked his life and considers it fair to kill the abuser. That is the moral pain and provided here is extremely strong. But nobody has the right to cause bodily pain, but all can humiliate with impunity. The situation is as if it was forbidden private theft, but robbery is allowed.

Therefore chrezvychachno advantageous to be morally obtuse: firstly, you can cause very severe pain to another, without hurting yourself (no remorse). The situation is as if entered into armed and unarmed combat. Mentally healthy person has no immunity against the moral sadism and moral cruelty, but to him can be treated with any degree of cruelty. Secondly, morally obtuse is insensitive to the many insults and general sensitivity to moral pain he had also been reduced. The situation is this, as if to take the fight gladiator with a shield and armor and gladiator, nothing protected. So morally obtuse has the advantage of contact - and, in general, so be profitable.

A second advantage of such a man: he is capable of greater range of actions directed to their advantage, it does not interfere with honor, conscience, opinions, and other such "trifles". He can steal, if he is sure of their impunity, can buy or will buy a can boldly go ahead so that decent people simply can not stop it. There is some fading reaction of decent people - they do not act immediately in such cases, which have not encountered before, especially in cases of moral bullying and sadism, they must first think over and weigh too if they hurt the rapist his rebuff. I knew a man who for decades greeted their friends dirty mat: "Hi, you're so-and-so." Friends endure. Once one of his friends recently broke down and told him the same way. Since then insults stopped. But how many years had to wait!

Minus its position that the more often it deals with the likes of myself and those severely limit its benefits. Problems arise only when dealing with a vulgar decent man. Especially sharpened these problems where some external force does not allow them to withdraw from each other: are children in schools and any other institutions for children, neighbors, soldiers and prisoners in prisons and mental hospitals, sometimes members of one family. If all of society will consist of vulgar, primitive and morally obtuse people, then these problems will not be. If isklyuchtelno of decent people - too. Formerly a noble man he studied fektovat - unlike the vulgar who do not learn and unable to learn anything. Now fundamentally decent man is defenseless - he is like a child among the hordes of hungry rats.