(January 26, 2020 at 6:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:Psychological harm is invisible, that's why I personally believe is very hard to resist in terms of causing it; hate and jealousy for example can shape a large bulk of the hater's actions. Just like a puzzle board each piece of the puzzle is a psychological action, and the final picture is a harmful conclusion.(January 25, 2020 at 7:52 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: In my opinion, people must have the freedom to live as they want unless they are causing harm to somebody else.
Physical harm is identifiable and easy to detect; while psychological harm must be conditioned to its physical conclusion -like causing depression to somebody via constant bullying-.
As long as no harm is caused; things can indeed change or stay the way they are.
Yes, good points.
"Psychological harm" may be awfully hard to spot, in terms of direct cause-and-effect. And I imagine that when we're causing it our victim may well be trying hard not to show what's happening.
Freud writes well about this in his Civilization and its Discontents. He points out that we can never reach a final healthy permanent balance. The tension between what society demands and what we want, and the tension among different things that we ourselves want, can't be resolved, only managed.
But surely the main thing is to avoid inflicting harm when we can possibly avoid it.
My bold is the finest solution to a healthy life.
Quote:Quote:People will rebel and get around anything forced on them, unless they are totally convinced with the rule implied. That's why I insist that freedom of choice is "a must".
I studied in a Saudi Wahhabi school and there weren't any girls. Boys resorted to homosexuality -just like the case in prisons-, they got around the rule of "no sex".
Sex is probably the best example. Decrees from above never work.
Internalized rules, as you say, will operate more effectively. (Freud's description of the Superego is all about this.) I think peer pressure works because the shame it brings on is closer to an internal view than that caused by "higher authority."
People in Japan often talk about "shame culture vs. guilt culture," where they say that Japanese society tends to be more orderly because it demands (or used to demand) group behavior. Roof-thatching or rice-planting can only be done by the whole village together, and so being ostracized is the worst thing. This contrasts to American culture, where everybody thinks he's Clint Eastwood. That's too simple to be true in every case, but I think it's a useful distinction.
But you have to make somebody "ostracized" if they are causing harm to others.
This is a kind of punishment that is good for the society and even essential: some people are in for the harm, they want to cause harm, they believe in harm culture too. The best solution would be to isolate them from the public, and their psychological harm would stop too when they can't practice it on anybody.