The place of rage and hate

[Mequa]

*shrug* I experience both anger and hate at times. Anger doesn't last, hate does. There are people in this world (not many, but a few) I hate so much that I wouldn't stick at skinning them alive with a rusty file.

I can also relate to that sentiment. There are indeed people I hate so much I would honestly have no moral qualms putting a bullet in, if it happened to be prudent for me to do so.

The worst are people with strongly sociopathic and/or malignantly narcissistic traits. Having had first hand experience with such types I have fantasised about them being gassed. I've noticed that those who find my sentiment the most abhorrent have had no such experiences with that type. To me I keep coming back to the sentiment that there are too many of them and reducing their numbers would be expedient for the rest of us.

I personally find it next to impossible to respect the dignity of those who have zero respect for mine; to champion the human rights of those who in practice do not recognise I have any; or to ascribe moral worth to persons who ascribe zero moral worth to me. Mutual respect is great - but unilateral, not so much. Compassion and sympathy for sociopaths who cause enormous pain and suffering in the lives of others without remorse strikes me as incredibly stupid.

I do not think sociopaths and malignant narcissists should be granted full human rights, personally. If that is a stance based in hate, then so be it. I'm often quite liberal-minded, but this area is an exception.

[Losty]

For those of you that feel this hatred...tell me about it. I always hear about it, but I never understand it.

[bennyboy]

Here's the thing: philosophy matters.

We know a lot about the brain, and most of us believe that our behavior is a product of brain function-- not a soul. We believe furthermore that the self is part of that brain function-- memories, emotions, etc. interacting in a complex way, being observed subjectively. So where is the real self-control, except as a euphemism for the mechanical (and deterministic) functioning of the human brain as it interacts with the environment? If a person has a brain malfunction, or even just a bad idea, that leads to bad actions, where is the blame?

Now let's step back and imagine that human behavior is mediated by something else-- the soul. It is the quality of the soul which somehow mediates brain function and results in a behavioral response to the environment. Fine. But where does this soul get the magical power to do other than it will just tend to do? If a person has a bad soul, did he choose to have a bad one? And if he never really had a choice, then where is the blame? And, in fact, we can see this right from the start-- some young people, boys in particular, are clearly destined to be troublemakers, right from day one. They won't sit down in class, they pull the wings off of bugs, the burn worms just to laugh at them squirm, they call little girls names just for the pleasure of making them cry. They grow up to be misogynists, beat their wives, etc. Clearly, they just don't respond to the world the way more feeling people do. But at what point did even those assholes say, "I want to be the biggest asshole in the world. I want everyone who meets me to hate me, and will do everything I can to be annoying"?

Now, that doesn't mean we aren't free to develop a moral code, or that our feelings about morality aren't real. But all this must be taken with a grain of salt-- that freedom is just a euphemism for "impossible to fully understand because it's so incredibly complex"-- it does not really mean that any individual could possibly have done otherwise than he has done. No matter how horrible the things he's done happen to be.

[Losty]

I like you.

[Lemonvariable72]

Here's the thing: philosophy matters.

We know a lot about the brain, and most of us believe that our behavior is a product of brain function-- not a soul. We believe furthermore that the self is part of that brain function-- memories, emotions, etc. interacting in a complex way, being observed subjectively. So where is the real self-control, except as a euphemism for the mechanical (and deterministic) functioning of the human brain as it interacts with the environment? If a person has a brain malfunction, or even just a bad idea, that leads to bad actions, where is the blame?

Now let's step back and imagine that human behavior is mediated by something else-- the soul. It is the quality of the soul which somehow mediates brain function and results in a behavioral response to the environment. Fine. But where does this soul get the magical power to do other than it will just tend to do? If a person has a bad soul, did he choose to have a bad one? And if he never really had a choice, then where is the blame? And, in fact, we can see this right from the start-- some young people, boys in particular, are clearly destined to be troublemakers, right from day one. They won't sit down in class, they pull the wings off of bugs, the burn worms just to laugh at them squirm, they call little girls names just for the pleasure of making them cry. They grow up to be misogynists, beat their wives, etc. Clearly, they just don't respond to the world the way more feeling people do. But at what point did even those assholes say, "I want to be the biggest asshole in the world. I want everyone who meets me to hate me, and will do everything I can to be annoying"?

Now, that doesn't mean we aren't free to develop a moral code, or that our feelings about morality aren't real. But all this must be taken with a grain of salt-- that freedom is just a euphemism for "impossible to fully understand because it's so incredibly complex"-- it does not really mean that any individual could possibly have done otherwise than he has done. No matter how horrible the things he's done happen to be.

Interesting read.

[Mudhammam]

I don't understand the rationale of hating another person, no matter how disagreeable their words or actions are, when their present conduct is but merely a reflection of personal history and environment. Oftentimes I read failure in a society that produces the "monster" or the bigot rather than lay the blame squarely on the monster or the bigot themselves.

[Lemonvariable72]

I don't understand the rationale of hating another person, no matter how disagreeable their words or actions are, when their present conduct is but merely a reflection of personal history and environment. Oftentimes I read failure in a society that produces the "monster" or the bigot rather than lay the blame squarely on the monster or the bigot themselves.

I disagree. I think to say that robs a person of their agency. The only choice we have ever is how we react to a given situation. As for the rationale for hatred of people, people are often narrow minded, greedy, shallow and judgemental. All of those are traits worthy of contempt.

[abaris]

All of those are traits worthy of contempt.

But it's still some way going from contempt to hate.

I freely admit having contempt for certain people, but that doesn't mean I hate them. Hate, for me, implies wishing to see someone else dead or at least suffering greatly. Can't say, I wish that on anybody.

[Mudhammam]

I disagree. I think to say that robs a person of their agency. The only choice we have ever is how we react to a given situation. As for the rationale for hatred of people, people are often narrow minded, greedy, shallow and judgemental. All of those are traits worthy of contempt.

How do you understand personal agency? Are natural disasters, as contemptible as their effects can be, robbed of agency by attributing prior changes in a natural process as their cause? Instincts and motives may be examples of higher level causation but their principles are the same.

[bennyboy]

I don't understand the rationale of hating another person, no matter how disagreeable their words or actions are, when their present conduct is but merely a reflection of personal history and environment. Oftentimes I read failure in a society that produces the "monster" or the bigot rather than lay the blame squarely on the monster or the bigot themselves.

I disagree. I think to say that robs a person of their agency. The only choice we have ever is how we react to a given situation. As for the rationale for hatred of people, people are often narrow minded, greedy, shallow and judgemental. All of those are traits worthy of contempt.

Does it rob us of agency, or of the illusion of agency? I think that's the philosophical question behind all of this.

If we can confirm that all thoughts and behaviors are deterministic, then agency is really just a label for certain categories of brain function; it's hard to feel moral outrage in this case, or to build a legal system that focuses on the repayment of evil with punishment (aka righteous evil).

If, however, free will is true, then it seems likely to be a paradox-- where could free will come from? Even God must act according to his own nature-- he could never do what it is not already in his nature to do; how is God even free, in an absolute sense? How much so for the rest of us?