Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2015, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 01:24 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 12:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 08:53 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  First I'm impeccably impressed to see someone say, The Bible, The Bible, The Bible... then keep saying Paul says this, Paul says that. You somehow jumped and act like the first idk, 30 something books before his existence don't reflect constant moral tales. In fact, the 2nd through 4th book have plenty of teachings intentionally talking about what is a moral societal system.

Yet the term "moral" in societal system is something you added there, without acknowledging that certain societal rules and regulations can be amoral. There can be societal laws that not particularly moral laws, like speed limits, or loitering prohibitions, etc... Yet, there seems to be divisions between this, and what the Jews saw as moral laws, the ones they see as carved in stone, written in the hearts of man.

There are various sorts of Hebrew guidelines, often to address questions of hygienic and dietary concerns, social cohesion, ritual practices, uniformities, addressing how to function and survive as a tribe, and political community in the ancient world. These where not particularly viewed as universal or moral dictates, but were deemed as relevant and necessary for their particular predicament at the time.

Quote:You can dismiss it with some quote of a scholar but what does that mean? It is tons of moral teachings.

Not all instructions are moral instructions. Though they might have some moral underpinnings. If I had chicken pox my mother might confine me to my room for several days, so that I don't infect my sister. The morality is not the instruction to confine myself in my room, but in not inflicting my sister with my disease, in consideration of her life and well-being. If there was cure, some tablet that I could take that would heal me immediately, than I wouldn’t need to be confined to my room.

Quote:but how come we don't universally "seem to know" honoring the Sabbath?

Yet, we draw lines between the sacred and the profane all the time. Meaningful persons, and events, often get their own special days, nationally recognized holidays. If there something of reverence we give it is own special significance, ceremonies, and rituals for our dead loved ones. We see certain things as holy (though this wouldn’t be a term you would use), as set a part from everything else. Somethings are everyday ordinary things, somethings are sacred.

Quote:Or that Yhwh is the one true god?

Or in your case, that there is no true God at all, that there is no God.

Quote:Or to not worship engravings of idols?

If the commandments are as summed up by Jesus, to be to love God, and love thy neighbhor, and if this God, even fictionally so is someone you believe should be despised, and hated, why would anyone expect you to acknowledge the love of God aspects here? That seems to be something only a believer can recognize

Quote:This is the point I am trying to get to, how do you know which moral laws are objectively true moral laws?

How do you know that murder or stealing is wrong? Clearly you even see these aspects as self-evident. No one has to indoctrinate you to acknowledge that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong, or that we should be fair, do unto others as we have them do unto us, etc… I’m not appealing to some special knowledge that gives me some better footing to see whats immoral or moral than you. I’m just saying something about our footing itself, just as you do here:

Quote:Any, "we seem to know" argument about morality is noticeably clear though means of evolutionary.

That’s because anything that is self-evident, having a seemingly universal acknowledgement, irregardless of upbringing, or culture, etc… has to be explained away as some product of the mechanics of Darwinism, not because the case for this is compelling, or even remotely persuasive, but because it has to be, because Darwinism is true, it has to be because of certain ideological commitments.

Those acutely aware of the problems with this, of reconciling Darwinism and Moral Realism, are the ones who see why Stevel makes the most sense, or are typically the ones to conclude that morality is just a sham, and illusion. They recognize that they can’t have their cake and eat it to.

Is it a struggle for you to understand how people have different perspectives? You seem to not quite get others points of view often and often state that it seems only something a believe could do. I don't view these mindsets as so far apart and difficult to reach. It's not difficult to really grasp ideas you don't agree with or see the purpose of.

I don't see "murder" or "stealing" as self evident or universally wrong. I think you can justify them making them not universally wrong and the point as I brought up choosing those as a distinction isn't because I deem them, clearly morally good. It's because those have a direct evolutionary impact while something separated by some layers, like don't make idol engravings or

I disagree with you on why you distinguish these as not moral codes too. If they are given to uphold a moral value, then they're moral codes. Go to your secluded room to avoid giving your sister chicken pox is a moral command to lessen harm to others and speed limits are as well, because driving faster would be more likely to lead to harmful accidents. What makes you distinguish that from not being a moral code?

You don't see how evolutionary morality or empathy is a valid concept? Based on what? I don't consider Stevil's position on morality to be sound because what I recall having seen him say is that, he doesn't believe morality exists because he doesn't think there is any way an objective right/wrong... that isn't required for morality to exist. It is still merely a social structure like money. (Or country, to honor Luminion) Morality is the system of values that are existing in a group. Those biblical laws about do X, don't do X-it's an abomination are their moral values of the Hebrews in those times.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 02:10 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 01:12 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I disagree with you on why you distinguish these as not moral codes too. If they are given to uphold a moral value, then they're moral codes. Go to your secluded room to avoid giving your sister chicken pox is a moral command to lessen harm to others and speed limits are as well, because driving faster would be more likely to lead to harmful accidents. What makes you distinguish that from not being a moral code?


Uhm, because even here, you stated that what makes them moral is avoiding harm to others (using your moral reasoning here).

The Moral aspect/command here is to avoid harm to others. Going to my room, speeding tickets are only a means of avoid harm. If they weren’t a means of avoiding harming to others here, they wouldn’t be moral instructions.

Quote:I don't see "murder" or "stealing" as self evident or universally wrong. I think you can justify them making them not universally wrong

The fact that justification is needed, acknowledges the universality here. It’s sort of like acknowledging a speed limit, by justifying going past it for the sake of taking your wife to the hospital. I had to steal to feed my family. Justification is means of declaring that what one did is in right standing, which presupposes that the person acknowledge already that he ought to do the right thing.

Quote:You don't see how evolutionary morality or empathy is a valid concept? Based on what?

Let’s see. What are you accounting for here when appealing to evolution. Is it the tendency to take care of my offspring that your claiming is adaptive, or the accuracy of my judgement that taking care of my offspring is Good? Are you accounting for both the tendency and the judgement of Good as adaptive?

It’ not hard to argue that the tendency to take care of my offspring is adaptive, it’s much more harder to argue that the accuracy to judge this action as good, is adaptive. An easy way to understand this, is that Stevel's inability to recognize that taking care of his offspring is good has no real adaptive implications, while the disappearance of this tendency to take care of his offspring would.

Recognizing this sort of problem, is what leads many atheists philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Michael Ruse, etc.. to believe morality is an illusion, and why folks like Stevel are forced to reject morality all together.

Quote:Morality is the system of values that are existing in a group. Those biblical laws about do X, don't do X-it's an abomination are their moral values of the Hebrews in those times.

Values are not laws themselves, values are what some laws are designed to protect or foster. And secondly what you may think are the moral values of the Hebrews, moral commands etc.. are likely not the values, and laws the Hebrews themselves would have viewed as moral commands.

I used this real example earlier, in which an Amazonian tribe engaged in infanticide, burying handicap children alive. One member of this tribe rescued one of these children, and saw her tribes actions as wrong. If she didn't derive her moral values from the group here, where did she derive it from then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 01:12 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I disagree with you on why you distinguish these as not moral codes too. If they are given to uphold a moral value, then they're moral codes. Go to your secluded room to avoid giving your sister chicken pox is a moral command to lessen harm to others and speed limits are as well, because driving faster would be more likely to lead to harmful accidents. What makes you distinguish that from not being a moral code?


Uhm, because even here, you stated that what makes them moral is avoiding harm to others (using your moral reasoning here).

The Moral aspect/command here is to avoid harm to others. Going to my room, speeding tickets are only a means of avoid harm. If they weren’t a means of avoiding harming to others here, they wouldn’t be moral instructions.

Quote:I don't see "murder" or "stealing" as self evident or universally wrong. I think you can justify them making them not universally wrong

The fact that justification is needed, acknowledges the universality here. It’s sort of like acknowledging a speed limit, by justifying going past it for the sake of taking your wife to the hospital. I had to steal to feed my family. Justification is means of declaring that what one did is in right standing, which presupposes that the person acknowledge already that he ought to do the right thing.

Quote:You don't see how evolutionary morality or empathy is a valid concept? Based on what?

Let’s see. What are you accounting for here when appealing to evolution. Is it the tendency to take care of my offspring that your claiming is adaptive, or the accuracy of my judgement that taking care of my offspring is Good? Are you accounting for both the tendency and the judgement of Good as adaptive?

It’ not hard to argue that the tendency to take care of my offspring is adaptive, it’s much more harder to argue that the accuracy to judge this action as good, is adaptive. An easy way to understand this, is that Stevel's inability to recognize that taking care of his offspring is good has no real adaptive implications, while the disappearance of this tendency to take care of his offspring would.

Recognizing this sort of problem, is what leads many atheists philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Michael Ruse, etc.. to believe morality is an illusion, and why folks like Stevel are forced to reject morality all together.

Quote:Morality is the system of values that are existing in a group. Those biblical laws about do X, don't do X-it's an abomination are their moral values of the Hebrews in those times.

Values are not laws themselves, values are what some laws are designed to protect or foster. And secondly what you may think are the moral values of the Hebrews, moral commands etc.. are likely not the values, and laws the Hebrews themselves would have viewed as moral commands.

I used this real example earlier, in which an Amazonian tribe engaged in infanticide, burying handicap children alive. One member of this tribe rescued one of these children, and saw her tribes actions as wrong. If she didn't derive her moral values from the group here, where did she derive it from then?

I don't know if there is a "good" or a "right" so I don't really judge or assert these are things being benefited towards. I don't get how justification to you makes sense that it is universal. If murder/stealing were universally wrong in an objective right/wrong world, no committed action of them would be justifiable as, well I did it to save my family... You would be morally wrong. Yes you would also be morally right in, I'm doing this to lessen harm to my family. But you would be committing a wrong to create a right. I don't think these labels or way of thinking of things are efficient or useful, nor do I think they reflect society as it functions. If you're justifying I caused less harm here, by committing murder, to save people. Then you're putting Cause Less Harm up as the idea to protect. Not don't murder. (maybe one could say this likely makes valuing "Harm" as universal but perhaps another view could see that differently)

Sorry, you're right I don't mean the laws are their values. But I still think even those laws are based on moral values. I don't see how you decipher what is, and isn't a moral law. If it's intention is to uphold a moral ideal, then why wouldn't that be a moral law? Sometimes law making can be weird so I can see how it's wonky at times. But a law to uphold a moral value is still a moral command as I'd describe it. I don't know why you wouldn't consider it so still. It's the purpose of the law is to make you respect that moral action. Yes I know I'm kinda out of order and not doing situational point responses but I'm terrible at that, I always somehow screw it up.

I talked about your Amazonian case before. I think she likely didn't have a high value for tradition/authority or see it within that group. There are wavelengths, of how we see and judge various moral values. She perhaps deemed harm is more valuable to protect than honoring the tradition. Individuals will have their own differences, be those who want to rescue helpless in a society that harms them or ones who want to murder other people for their self satisfaction. That's going to happen with variation of mental perspectives.

I don't know much about Dennett or those others views on morality. I'm not confident I get what you're pointing to about Stevil. I think what I'm making of your point is too simple, but maybe I'm missing something. All I'm getting is it seems you're saying, that his inability to recognizing taking care of his infant is good(Which I question the idea of that statement because the notion of "good") doesn't seem adaptive, so why does he have it? I don't know, that seems to simple to me to be what you're trying to get at. Not every trait or instinct that comes and goes is adaptive, that's why some rise and don't last or come and go, but variation allows for flexibility and change to shift. Maybe his mindset on that isn't really evolutionary charged as much as it is intellectually. If we do have certain free will, perhaps he makes these choices from years of intellectual study and not more firmly from his natural rising relationship to the world. I haven't spoken enough to know that detail about him. Either way, traits can come from various ways because the point of evolution is to be "good enough" to reproduce, and that's likely to produce flawed situations and less than ideal traits like eye-sight going bad for many adults. Most reproduction happens at younger or primed age situations so people with poor eye-sight later in life wen't hampered by that when getting mates while young, so those traits unknowingly were able to be transferred but they weren't beneficial or adaptive. And some times people with views that protecting our young or caring for society get passed because that doesn't make the person undesirable sexually. That's all that is really needed.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 06:07 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 02:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ....I don't get how justification to you makes sense that it is universal.....

Why does anyone need to justify themselves?

Do I need to justify why I colored my hair, or why I’m growing a beard? No I don’t.

Yet we do when speaking of morality. Justification is fairly clear in a legal sense. If a cop shoots a man, he has to justify why his actions where lawful, legal. If his actions are unjustifiable than he has committed some unlawful, illegal. This basic perception, carries over into our moral domain. Some times this might make sense, if one is a Christian, because of his beliefs, he feels compelled to justify his actions with his religion, often having to appeal to the bible and such, to justify himself. Christians are already brought up to believe that there is a moral law. So it’s not particularly difficult to conceive why justification carries over into the moral domain for them. But it’s not just Christians doing this, in fact justification seems be a feature of humanity as a whole, even among the immoral, or those doing monstrous things.

For the Amazonian tribe who kills their handicap children, they justify this actions by claiming these are not children, that they don’t have a child’s soul like the normal children, instead they are more like dogs, or monkeys, than children. Their justification indicate that they acknowledge that taking the life of an innocent child is wrong, but they lie to themselves, by denying the handicap victims humanity, to do what they do. The woman who saved one of the children recognizes the same wrong, that taking a life of an innocent child is wrong, but she recognizes the truth here, the truth which her tribe deny, that their victim is a child too.

Some one from the outside might see the tribes practice of infanticide as a way to release themselves from the burden of having to use their valuable resources on a impaired chid, who likely won’t grow up to be as productive as normal children. But why lie to themselves about this? Why deny they are children? If not to conceal the wrongness, or the shame of it?

Why did the American slave trade depend on a lie that blacks where less than human, were cursed? Biblical forms of slavery wasn’t dependent on this form of dehumanization. Even Paul when returning a runaway slave, demanded that his master see him as a brother, and receive him as Paul would be received . Why can’t a white man see a black slave just as he does himself, and take him as a slave? Because the wrongness is no longer hidden, no longer a secret, if a white man saw himself in the black slave, sees a brother, or an equal.

Why is immorality so dependent on lies? Why is evil so replete with lies? While moral movements, are often the ones dependent on the truth, like the Civil Rights movement, and the abolitionist movement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 06:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 02:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  don't get how justification to you makes sense that it is universal.

Why does anyone need to justify themselves?
I don’t.

We know you don't sweetie and quoting people like this is dishonest.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
12-05-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 06:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why does anyone need to justify themselves?
I don’t.

We know you don't sweetie and quoting people like this is dishonest.
Did I quote mine him? Change the meaning or something of his post? How was it dishonest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, just because something is non-literal doesn't mean it's false. Unless truth is relegated solely to historical facts.

The problem with your point here is that the Bible is simply wrong about some stuff, and that impeaches its credibility. Bats aren't birds. Pi does not equal three. Whales are not fish. The Bible is literally wrong. And what truths it does have aren't unique to it.

Where the Bible delves into reality, it gets so much wrong -- and this is stuff that isn't difficult to know, warm- vs cold-blooded, or simple math -- it gets so much wrong that on matters which aren't amenable to visual inspection, its claims should be treated with extreme skepticism.

I expect you will ignore this as you've ignored my last couple of points. Unimpressive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 08:00 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 07:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I expect you will ignore this as you've ignored my last couple of points. Unimpressive.

Yep, I get no more answers either.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
13-05-2015, 02:52 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 06:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 02:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ....I don't get how justification to you makes sense that it is universal.....

Why does anyone need to justify themselves?

Do I need to justify why I colored my hair, or why I’m growing a beard? No I don’t.

Yet we do when speaking of morality. Justification is fairly clear in a legal sense. If a cop shoots a man, he has to justify why his actions where lawful, legal. If his actions are unjustifiable than he has committed some unlawful, illegal. This basic perception, carries over into our moral domain. Some times this might make sense, if one is a Christian, because of his beliefs, he feels compelled to justify his actions with his religion, often having to appeal to the bible and such, to justify himself. Christians are already brought up to believe that there is a moral law. So it’s not particularly difficult to conceive why justification carries over into the moral domain for them. But it’s not just Christians doing this, in fact justification seems be a feature of humanity as a whole, even among the immoral, or those doing monstrous things.

For the Amazonian tribe who kills their handicap children, they justify this actions by claiming these are not children, that they don’t have a child’s soul like the normal children, instead they are more like dogs, or monkeys, than children. Their justification indicate that they acknowledge that taking the life of an innocent child is wrong, but they lie to themselves, by denying the handicap victims humanity, to do what they do. The woman who saved one of the children recognizes the same wrong, that taking a life of an innocent child is wrong, but she recognizes the truth here, the truth which her tribe deny, that their victim is a child too.

Some one from the outside might see the tribes practice of infanticide as a way to release themselves from the burden of having to use their valuable resources on a impaired chid, who likely won’t grow up to be as productive as normal children. But why lie to themselves about this? Why deny they are children? If not to conceal the wrongness, or the shame of it?

Why did the American slave trade depend on a lie that blacks where less than human, were cursed? Biblical forms of slavery wasn’t dependent on this form of dehumanization. Even Paul when returning a runaway slave, demanded that his master see him as a brother, and receive him as Paul would be received . Why can’t a white man see a black slave just as he does himself, and take him as a slave? Because the wrongness is no longer hidden, no longer a secret, if a white man saw himself in the black slave, sees a brother, or an equal.

Why is immorality so dependent on lies? Why is evil so replete with lies? While moral movements, are often the ones dependent on the truth, like the Civil Rights movement, and the abolitionist movement?

Is there a need? I don't see any need.

Again, like I mentioned last post, you say things like it's seems not possible for someone of a non-christian perspective to get the view. I wonder if this is a concept you think because you find it difficult to expand and view things outside the view you have built. The continuing in discussion in absolutes in right/wrong good/bad and like terms is going to hamper any understanding... That's if you actually are seeking understanding.

If you just view things already set as well moral movements are based on "truth" or immoral ones are based on "evil" without stopping to first ask yourself before typing it, Why do I think this is truth and this is evil and should I think this way, I don't think you're going to expand your mind and perspective a lot.

There's often an ingroup/outgroup factor to societies and cultures. The Hebrews might not of put "labels' Of less than human to outsiders but they distinguished, especially clearly with slaves, from a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person. Those allowed for different rules in their actions and likely more harmful ones for those not Jewish. It's really the same mental process depending on the way you look at it. They didn't see the non-Jews as equal. You often want to jump massively ahead to Paul for unexplained reasons despite being asked about it but how

How do you know the tribes are lying to themselves? Are people who think they're possessed by the devil or speaking in tongues lying to themselves? Or are they misinformed or uneducated on the situation to the point that they don't know they are wrong. Are you lying to yourself if you think something but you don't know you are wrong? That takes you into an epistemological query. Which is good because it leads us to question, are we lying to ourselves about morality or religion, or do we just not actually know?

(12-05-2015 07:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, just because something is non-literal doesn't mean it's false. Unless truth is relegated solely to historical facts.

I expect you will ignore this as you've ignored my last couple of points. Unimpressive.

That's probably my fault though, for my longer previous posts Smartass

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
13-05-2015, 06:40 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 02:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you just view things already set as well moral movements are based on "truth" or immoral ones are based on "evil" without stopping to first ask yourself before typing it, Why do I think this is truth and this is evil and should I think this way, I don't think you're going to expand your mind and perspective a lot.

When I’m speaking of truth and lies here, I’m not particularly speaking about good and evil, but the beliefs those perceptions are built on, where evil is often dependent on false beliefs, like scapegoating. Do I need to explain why scapegoating is based on false beliefs and lies? That it is underpinned by this tendency to associate our frustration and anger onto a fictive victim, that we delude ourselves into believing is the source of all our problems, like the jews? Or dehumanization, where we attempt to view others as less than us, less than human, as parasites, rather than like ourselves, as human beings who are no different than us.

Let’s say if I were to encourage a genocide of all atheists in the US, propagated on a belief that atheists are the source of all our countries problems, that they’re not human beings, like the rest of us, so their mass murder, even of their children is perfectly fine. Is the lie/the deception here apparent to you? i.e atheists are the source of all our problems, that they are not human beings, like the rest of us. Or are you going to question why this is a lie?

Quote:The Hebrews might not of put "labels' Of less than human to outsiders but they distinguished, especially clearly with slaves, from a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person.

They’re just outsiders, they’re not less than human. They’re distinguished like foreigners are distinguished from citizens, family members, from non-family members, those a part of one’s tribe, and those not a part of one’s tribe. In none of these situations is it a matter of seeing the outsiders here as less than human, though the insiders do receive numerous benefits, and privileges, not afforded to outsiders. “If slavery is a necessity for our time, than we’re not going to take slaves from our own tribe, we’ll acquire them from outside tribes.”

Thomas Aquinas, believed that all rational creatures are entitled to justice, and as result there was is natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, yet he viewed slavery as a necessity in his time. This was in contrast to the Aristotelian view, that people were slaves because of their personal sins, that some people were slaves by nature like inanimate instruments. Both of them supported slavery, but only one of them relied on seeing the slave as less than others.

Quote:Is there a need? I don't see any need.

Why dehumanize them than? Why proclaim that blacks are inferior to whites, as subhuman? If you don’t think they needed to do this? Why do you think they did?

“Gitta Sereny asked Franz Stangl, the former commandant of the Treblinka death camp, “If they were, going to kill them anyway, what was the point of all the humiliation, why the cruelty?” He replied, “To condition those who actually had to carry out the policies. To make it possible for them to do what they did.” -Budziszewski,

Why where the Nazi’s so dependent on dehumanization, on humiliations and cruelty towards those they were going to kill anyway? Why devalue them? Why is it needed to “make it possible to do what the did.”?

Quote:How do you know the tribes are lying to themselves?

When I say people are lying to themselves, as distinguished from lying to others. I mean it as a self-deception, a delusion. Like when a person scapegoats, the belief that the victims they take their anger and violence on is the cause of it, is a self-deception. This doesn’t mean that they are acutely aware of this self-deception, anymore so than a person suffering from psychosis recognizes their suffering from psychosis.

Quote:Are people who think they're possessed by the devil or speaking in tongues lying to themselves?

It’s not really the same thing here. These people could be deluded. But the difference between these examples and others, is that they are used as justification for murder and cruelty towards others. That I see them as subhuman for the sake of killing them. The factors of the lie here, are often hatred and resentments we conceal, personal failing we do not want to acknowledge, guilt we want to keep far from our minds.

Quote:Or are they misinformed or uneducated on the situation to the point that they don't know they are wrong.

If it was just a matter of misinformation and education, then we could imagine that all our bigotries and prejudices can be resolved by providing pamphlet listing all the facts. But when we talk about views that suffer from confirmation biases, delusions, we’re not taking about a mere ignorance. We’re talking about factors in which one willfully conceals the truth from themselves, that they are dependent on the falsehood for some reason or the other. But when speaking of falsehoods like this, that one clings to to seeing others as subpar, as less than them, we’re more often than not talking of false perceptions dependent on factors like resentment and hatred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: