Philosophy Now Forum

@chas I didn't describe a moral rule in my original comment, just parental instinct.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chas I didn't describe a moral rule in my original comment, just parental instinct.

Dah! Its not an instinct - its a moral lesson derived from culture - you have learned what to do with your instinctive urge to nurture, just like you have learned to use your instinctive urge to hate.
Culture proves moral direction for innate feelings of nature.
We know this as some cultures do not have that sort of interest in their offspring.

chaz wyman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chas I didn't describe a moral rule in my original comment, just parental instinct.

Dah! Its not an instinct - its a moral lesson derived from culture - you have learned what to do with your instinctive urge to nurture, just like you have learned to use your instinctive urge to hate.
Culture proves moral direction for innate feelings of nature.
We know this as some cultures do not have that sort of interest in their offspring.

Well you would know wouldn't you?
I suppose with bears it's a 'cultural thing' too.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chas I didn't describe a moral rule in my original comment, just parental instinct.

Dah! Its not an instinct - its a moral lesson derived from culture - you have learned what to do with your instinctive urge to nurture, just like you have learned to use your instinctive urge to hate.
Culture proves moral direction for innate feelings of nature.
We know this as some cultures do not have that sort of interest in their offspring.

Well you would know wouldn't you?
I suppose with bears it's a 'cultural thing' too.

He is a marxist, so he believes there is no such thing as human nature. It's a ridiculous claim. As if almost 4 billion years of evolution would make us simply putty for "culture."

i was thinking about this today, the evolution of morality, altruism, possibilities in what seems to look like a bleak, cyclical unchanging world ahead. but maybe it's possible that it will actually get better. maybe not perfect, but at least better.

i was thinking of some different opposing groups the other day as well. one of them being the varied group of anarchists and the varied groups of authority, police officers in particular.

i like the police officers in my town, and the last one i talked to was beyond kind, understanding and respectful of constitutional rights. he didn't have to, but he even talked with me for a while like a 'councelor', although he had many important things going on.

they deal with alot of problems in society that they didn't create. and i could not do their job.

however, not all police officers are like those in the town i live in.

i also understand the anarchist point of view and they are also very different.

it would be interesting to see a group of anarchists and a group of police officers sitting across from eachother and sharing their views. and maybe the police officers could sort of go through the life of an anarchist and the anarchists could wear the uniform and hold real guns (unloaded of course)... type of thing... i don't know, would that be helpful?

i understand many of the points of view anarchists hold, however i would not want to live in an anarchic world in the current way it's in now anyhow.. i also understand the point of view of those who say, 'if you truly believe in it, then you could go live somewhere that is like that.. but yet for some reason you still prefer the conforts and safety of here more'

as for cliques, i think they are natural and fine unless they go too far. i am more an individualist myself but not entirely. an example of a clique going too far in my opinion would be say a group of teenage girls ganging up on someone and treating that person like shit who did not go along with them and what they say (an example might be the kid didn't want to pick on another kid but the others say that is what we are going to do, if you don't go along with us in this your screwed type of thing).

i also think i remember auk expressing a long time ago something to the effect that cliqueyness is not philosophy and ruins it.

We hate because some great men, very wise men, tend to wake us up from a spiritual slumber. And we want to go back to sleep, to sleep in. We want to be left to our dreams and delusions. So when somebody comes in, shines a light on these dark dreams, and hold a mirror to reflect our distorted views of life, then we tend to hate this distortion, this twisted self image.

People hate, because they are exposed to the horrors of their own fears. This is why people hate other people.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:@chas I didn't describe a moral rule in my original comment, just parental instinct.

Dah! Its not an instinct - its a moral lesson derived from culture - you have learned what to do with your instinctive urge to nurture, just like you have learned to use your instinctive urge to hate.
Culture proves moral direction for innate feelings of nature.
We know this as some cultures do not have that sort of interest in their offspring.

Well you would know wouldn't you?
I suppose with bears it's a 'cultural thing' too.

No, bears are not widely regarded as having 'culture'.
Bears also abandon and eat their progeny sometimes.

Culture is a way we channel those instincts.

ForgedinHell wrote:He knew. He was just being hateful.

Where do you get off thinking you can mind-read my motive?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I was referring to a hypothetical situation where it was a choice between saving the life of either my child or a stranger, eg if I could only carry one person from a burning building, assuming neither of them are child torturers, mass murderers, serial rapists/murderers/torturers of babies, dogs, and grannies.........
If my child happened to be a serial torturer and rapist of children then I don't think my love would stretch so far as to not do whatever it took to save the lives of others' children. I thought people on here would know what I meant.

I did, so if your child was near an age were she might have a chance of surviving on her own and there was a baby, not your own, in this fire would you leave the baby? I ask such things as I think such sentiments are commonly expressed in our culture and wished to understand where the boundaries are of your belief because such things have not always been so obviously accepted in past or present cultures.

Arising_uk wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:He knew. He was just being hateful.

Where do you get off thinking you can mind-read my motive?

Because it is a logical inference from what you wrote, so mind-reading is not required. What other point would you have had to make? You surely knew the topic woulod cause her to consider her own children as monsters, which would be hurtful to a mother who loves her children. It was also an irrelevant response, because it did not address the real point she made. But, perhaps you people in Europe have a different meaning for the word civility than we "yanks" in the states?

ForgedinHell wrote:Before I came on this site, I noticed a lot of bigotry and hate. The bigotry and hate, which is still substantial, includes Jew-bashing, gay-bashing, women-bashing, America-bashing, and the list is not exhaustive. People have started threads on here claiming that all Jews are racists. People have written on here that the Jews control the entire US economy. They have claimed that gays are more likely to be child molesters. Some have stated women cannot reason like men, and should not even try. Each of these statements, and many more, are purely irrational. The writer makes the statement not because he or she has any evidence to back up the claim, but because of pure hatred for a group the person targets.

I am familiar with the ideas that we as human beings function by looking at other people as either being within our group, and thus deserving of respect, or they are beyond our group, and subhuman. However, it seems to me for an individual to focus hatred toward another group, along with the willingness to believe all sorts of nonsense about that group, that is not even remotely true, that the individual must be irrational. Hatred requires irrationalism. All hate groups are illegitimate simply because their ideas are factually false. There is no rational reason to hate blacks, Jews, atheists, gays, Israelis, Americans, Europeans, Christians, etc. Each of us is a human being, and we all share the same problems in life. We are literally bounded by our mutual struggle to survive and find meaning in this life. Why anyone would decide to make life even more difficult than it already is for some targeted group is beyond me.

Anyone have any thoughts on where this hatred comes from? Are the haters happy in their lives? Have they been taught to hate from an early age? Does their hatred make them feel superior and make up for deep-seated feelings of inferiority? Why are some people so attracted to targeting another group of people with pure irrational hate?

You're wrong, as usual. There are rational reasons to hate people. If somebody annoys you, keeps calling you and threatening to beat you up for $1000, accuses you of a lisp even though you don't have one, then this is a person who has justified being a hateful person.
Sometimes spanking and humiliating a stupid child is necessary. Sometimes hate needs to be controlled, suppressed, and conquered, otherwise it gets out of hand and ignites a riot or a great fire.

Atthet wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Before I came on this site, I noticed a lot of bigotry and hate. The bigotry and hate, which is still substantial, includes Jew-bashing, gay-bashing, women-bashing, America-bashing, and the list is not exhaustive. People have started threads on here claiming that all Jews are racists. People have written on here that the Jews control the entire US economy. They have claimed that gays are more likely to be child molesters. Some have stated women cannot reason like men, and should not even try. Each of these statements, and many more, are purely irrational. The writer makes the statement not because he or she has any evidence to back up the claim, but because of pure hatred for a group the person targets.

I am familiar with the ideas that we as human beings function by looking at other people as either being within our group, and thus deserving of respect, or they are beyond our group, and subhuman. However, it seems to me for an individual to focus hatred toward another group, along with the willingness to believe all sorts of nonsense about that group, that is not even remotely true, that the individual must be irrational. Hatred requires irrationalism. All hate groups are illegitimate simply because their ideas are factually false. There is no rational reason to hate blacks, Jews, atheists, gays, Israelis, Americans, Europeans, Christians, etc. Each of us is a human being, and we all share the same problems in life. We are literally bounded by our mutual struggle to survive and find meaning in this life. Why anyone would decide to make life even more difficult than it already is for some targeted group is beyond me.

Anyone have any thoughts on where this hatred comes from? Are the haters happy in their lives? Have they been taught to hate from an early age? Does their hatred make them feel superior and make up for deep-seated feelings of inferiority? Why are some people so attracted to targeting another group of people with pure irrational hate?

You're wrong, as usual. There are rational reasons to hate people. If somebody annoys you, keeps calling you and threatening to beat you up for $1000, accuses you of a lisp even though you don't have one, then this is a person who has justified being a hateful person.
Sometimes spanking and humiliating a stupid child is necessary. Sometimes hate needs to be controlled, suppressed, and conquered, otherwise it gets out of hand and ignites a riot or a great fire.

Sorry, moron, but you are one of the dregs in this world. There is no rational reason for prejudice against blacks, gays, or Jews, among many, many others.

What if they steal all my moneys? Then can I hate them?

Atthet wrote:What if they steal all my moneys? Then can I hate them?

You can hate the individuals who stole from you, but it would be irrational to hate an entire ethnic group for the conduct.

ForgedinHell wrote:You can hate the individuals who stole from you, but it would be irrational to hate an entire ethnic group for the conduct.

What if a social group is the source and cause of individual behaviors? What if being black, genetically, causes crime as a group identity?