# Let's stop referring to bad people as 'unhealthy'



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Sparky said:


> From the emotional repression point of view, the actions of a dictator are very different from those of a wife-beater, and I was thinking more along the lines of bullies, robbers, murderers, and thieves, instead of wife-beaters. In the case of domestic abuse, I would be more interested in wondering how-why the woman decides to remain in the abusive relationship, rather than the motivations behind the abuser.


And yet dictators are not typically emotionally repressed people. On the contrary, they typically feel great freedom in expressing their emotions and acting on them without concern for the potential consequences of doing so. And their tyrannical actions towards the people they rule stem from very similar places to wife-beaters and bullies: the unethical actions of both are rooted in a sense of ownership that gives rise to entitlement and control tactics. 

The reasons why a woman would choose to remain in such a scenario are also explicitly detailed in that book. But also vary considerably from genuinely loving the man despite his mistreatment of her to not yet having figured out a safe method of escape to buying in to the notion that his mistreatment of her is her own fault, etc.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> This should be in General Psychology™ not MBTI™.


Good point. How do I get it moved?


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Duo said:


> Which one of the following two is a bad person?
> 
> One with good intentions but because of honesty, offends some?
> 
> ...


This is personally very easy for me to answer. The one with good intentions but offends some out of honesty is NOT a bad person, because simply, they didn't mean to harm (good intentions). The one with bad intentions but slides off the radar as okay with society is the person displaying bad person tendencies. They know what they're doing. They plan to get away with it by being charming. Society has this unspoken code that if results are fine, then intentions don't matter - it's a very results oriented society and it sucks sometimes. This person KNOWS this and works it to their advantage.


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

Whatexists said:


> I get where your coming from and used to think along the same lines but have discovered that it is very much not true. Empathy is a basic human trait but Ethics are not. Ethics are a learned body of knowledge we reference when making decisions and which help inform the values by which we make decisions. But they are learned and not innate. And through history human beings have become more knowledgeable on that topic. Without that knowledge people commit horrible acts without the first thought that they might be wrong. If you are interested in evidence I would recommend the book I mentioned above as well as, Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker, and Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.


Some people can be lacking in empathy, like the psychopaths I mentioned, but are still capable of kindness. But what I meant by a basic human trait is the fact that we all naturally form ethics of some kind, but some of them are still innate. We have a natural aversion to murder, stealing, things that just outright harm other people because doing those things is harmful to the tribe, which gets us cast out from the tribe, and much less likely to survive and/or pass on our genes. It goes into our instinct, "be a good member of the tribe". A wildchild found out in the jungle will still not want to hurt you unless you're a threat, because they're a human being with tribal human instincts. To be capable of hurting other people a human needs to be pushed to a certain point, either by having their morals twisted by life experiences or by being in a very dark place mentally, to where they can ignore their instinct to maintain relations with their tribe and act out in purely their own interests as a sole, self-serving predator. We're all capable of becoming that predator, most of us just haven't been pushed to that same point. Life taught us mostly good lessons and we haven't been pushed mentally to a long-term breaking point. But there will have been times in your life where you temporarily have, right? You've acted solely in your interests at the expense of other people, everyone has. A "bad person" is in a state of mind where that's their norm. In their warped view of the world, it's okay for them to act that way, but that's because life taught them so. Nobody in the world thinks they're bad, everyone thinks they're basically good, it's the people who contradict their own ethics who're bad. 

Hitler believed what he was doing was good, that the Jews were evil. Of course this isn't true, but we look at him and see pure evil, when from his own perspective, he would say the people standing in his way were evil, stopping him from completing his righteous mission to save the German people from a parasite. I'm not arguing for moral subjectivism here mind, my point is that we and Hitler have a disagreement on what "good" _is_. It's not evil, evil is a fictional concept. It's twisted ethics, which made him feel that the things he did weren't only justified, but moral.



Whatexists said:


> Clinical psychopaths might be able to, but most S.S. officers were not clinical psychopaths but psychologically ordinary people who could not, and would not, recognize that they needed to treat other people with basic respect.
> For the record, I never said and do not maintain that some people are born bad. Nobody is born bad. Bad behavior stems from bad values which are learned from a variety of sources and people can change.


The topic of the S.S. officers is very complicated... there are a lot of factors at play there, not least of all cultural mentality. Most importantly was that thanks to propaganda, German collectivism and changing cultural norms the German zeitgeist at the time (heheheheh geddit "zeitgeist" is GERMAN) was that the Germans were good and the Jews were bad, and stood in the way of German progress. In the eyes of the typical German of the time the Jew wasn't a fellow human being, they were a representation of the German plight, and the S.S. Officers' ability to do the horrible things they did to them were partly because of that mentality, partly because there's psychology at play when ordered to do something by a superior, and other factors I'm not completely versed in. An S.S. officer could spend a day massacring Jews, then return home and kiss his wife, spend the rest of the day playing happily with his kids at the park, give some money to a homeless man on the street, send his kids to bed and go to sleep with his loving wife. He wasn't a "bad person" or a "good person", he was a product of his time, as were most of the other Germans who lived alongside him. Twisted ethics, a transformed worldview, and fascist propaganda mixed in. If you or I were a German at the time we'd probably have been no different, but we know we're not bad people. To us the Jews would've been bad, and to the rest of the world we'd have been bad. But if we stopped looking at people as "bad" we'd never have had that problem to begin with.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Whatexists said:


> And yet dictators are not typically emotionally repressed people. On the contrary, they typically feel great freedom in expressing their emotions and acting on them without concern for the potential consequences of doing so. And their tyrannical actions towards the people they rule stem from very similar places to wife-beaters and bullies: the unethical actions of both are rooted in a sense of ownership that gives rise to entitlement and control tactics.
> 
> The reasons why a woman would choose to remain in such a scenario are also explicitly detailed in that book. But also vary considerably from genuinely loving the man despite his mistreatment of her to not yet having figured out a safe method of escape to buying in to the notion that his mistreatment of her is her own fault, etc.


The actions of a dictator is like a parent locking his daughter in a room with fine food and toys, but can only associate with people she's introduced to. The actions of a wife-beater is like a highly stratified society, with limited to no opportunity for advancement among those in the lower class. They appear similar in that they both are controlling, though they stem from different Emotional Repressions. Specifically, the dictator features the Emotional Repression of Belief Emotional-Choice, while the wife-beater features the Emotional Repression of all the Four Natural Emotions, plus Love Emotional-Choice. 

Dictators have emotional repressions. Their Mind- and Actions- Emotional Directions helped them get to the top, though they still have the same emotional developments-repressions challenges, as when they first started on their journey to power, specifically in the areas of Emotional-Choice, if not the Four Natural Emotions.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Bunniculla said:


> This is personally very easy for me to answer. The one with good intentions but offends some out of honesty is NOT a bad person, because simply, they didn't mean to harm (good intentions). The one with bad intentions but slides off the radar as okay with society is the person displaying bad person tendencies. They know what they're doing. They plan to get away with it by being charming. Society has this unspoken code that if results are fine, then intentions don't matter - it's a very results oriented society and it sucks sometimes. This person KNOWS this and works it to their advantage.


Yup, it should be an insanely easy shot call and puts into question, the OP's intent and subjective morality.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

Duo said:


> Yup, it should be an insanely easy shot call and puts into question, the OP's intent and subjective morality.


Subjective morality is a cop out for people who don't wanna try being decent.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

I understand where this call for changing how we use words comes from, there _are_ plenty of unhealthy people who are not mean to others and sometimes people expect the worst of them because they see horrible things done by other 'unhealthy' people. 

However. 

Switching to just calling some people "bad people" sounds like paving the way for prejudice and writing some people off as evil without examining the complexity of why they did something. 

While it's true that some people do choose to do wrong things after thinking things through and coming to the conclusion that they 'should' do that, there are also many people who develop resent or hatred or disregard for others because they themselves are hurting inside. _ Some_ people _do_ do wrong things because they are emotionally unstable and overreact spontaneously without realizing the true impact of their actions at the time, (but not every emotionally unstable person reacts to things the same way). Both cases need to be recognized. You can't explain wrongdoing with one simple term. 

The real problem here is lumping people together and oversimplifying. The problem is not recognizing_ there are different kinds of unhealthy_ as well as - like you said - failing to recognize that not all moral depravity will be solved by counseling or medication.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Sparky said:


> The actions of a dictator is like a parent locking his daughter in a room with fine food and toys, but can only associate with people she's introduced to. The actions of a wife-beater is like a highly stratified society, with limited to no opportunity for advancement among those in the lower class. They appear similar in that they both are controlling, though they stem from different Emotional Repressions. Specifically, the dictator features the Emotional Repression of Belief Emotional-Choice, while the wife-beater features the Emotional Repression of all the Four Natural Emotions, plus Love Emotional-Choice.
> 
> Dictators have emotional repressions. Their Mind- and Actions- Emotional Directions helped them get to the top, though they still have the same emotional developments-repressions challenges, as when they first started on their journey to power, specifically in the areas of Emotional-Choice, if not the Four Natural Emotions.


A parent locking their daughter in their room with fine food and toys and carefully controlling who they get to talk to is an abusive parent. Statistically there is little chance that they are not also abusive in many other ways. And abuse and oppression are the same in both origin and methodology. For example, dictators typically create highly stratified societies with limited to no opportunity for advancement among those in the lower class, while exacting benefit from them and enacting often cruel punishments for misbehavior. In neither case is emotional repression relevant to their decision making. Some abusive men are highly in touch with their feelings and extremely fluent in the language and skills of personal development.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Duo said:


> Yup, it should be an insanely easy shot call and puts into question, the OP's intent and subjective morality.


My morality is based on humanistic ethics, which are not subjective. It's foundational principle is individual sovereignty and an individuals capacity to self-determinate, which exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged by others to exist. 

As @Aridela said: Subjective morality is a cop out for people who don't wanna try being decent.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Whatexists said:


> My morality is based on humanistic ethics, which are not subjective. It's foundational principle is individual sovereignty and an individuals capacity to self-determinate, which exists regardless of whether it is acknowledged by others to exist.


What happens if the individual behaves in a manner that's counter to your beliefs of humanism? Also, which sect of humanism do you subscribe to?


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Duo said:


> What happens if the individual behaves in a manner that's counter to your beliefs of humanism? Also, which sect of humanism do you subscribe to?


It highly depends on the circumstance and whether or not the way they're using their personal sovereignty is in violation of the basic rights of others. But also, isn't questioning what my personal moral beliefs are a tangent from the point of the thread that mental health is not causally related to ethically poor behavior?


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Whatexists said:


> It highly depends on the circumstance and whether or not the way they're using their personal sovereignty is in violation of the basic rights of others. But also, isn't questioning what my personal moral beliefs are a tangent from the point of the thread that mental health is not causally related to ethically poor behavior?


Nope since your beliefs impact strongly on why you wish to separate mental health issues from 'bad' people. Let's take someone with mental health issues who can't afford treatment or isn't conscious of the fact that they suffer from mental health challenges. As previously mentioned, theory of mind disturbances are common among people with mental health issues. With this in mind, are they bad people or people who are unhealthy?


----------



## Little Bee (Nov 22, 2017)

Fenty said:


> That is such an ISFP thing to say lol


LMAO I was thinking you can tell an Fi dom wrote this.

I can relate to some of what the OP is saying to an extent, but life usually isn't that black and white. You burn a lot of bridges when you write certain people off as just being bad and unsaveable. I don't believe anyone is born a bad seed. I'm aware you can't really fix a sociopath, for instance, but that doesn't mean that they were born that way, but life made them that way usually from an early childhood trauma that was too difficult for them to process and stunted their proper emotional development. We need to prioritize the safety of others of course, but you just become like them if you start treating them badly or less than human. It's usually poor treatment that leads to people behaving badly in the first place.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Duo said:


> Yup, it should be an insanely easy shot call and puts into question, the OP's intent and subjective morality.


Hmm... I seem to have misinterpreted your intent with this and been unnecessarily suspicious of your intent. I'm sorry. You're right that it is an easy shot to call and that my refusal to engage with it is a valid reason to be suspicious of my intent.

I was wary to engage out of not wanting to distract from the mental health vs. ethical choice question. I was also wary to engage out of concern that you might have been talking about a real scenario in which case I really don't have all the facts. I have seen scenarios in which one person, in the name of honesty, called someone else on what they believed to be their bad intentions but were legitimately wrong about the other persons intentions and motivations. If the scenario you put forward is not purely theoretical then I don't want to put forward an answer without more information about what actually happened simply because, with no offense meant at all, I don't know you well enough to know if your explaining the scenario in an unbiased way.
Furthermore, abusive men (my go to example) often think that what they're doing is for their battered partners best interests. They have certain attitudes and beliefs and values and on the basis of those things they may see their actions as generous. From their perspective their intent is good.

But if you interpret it as a straight forward theorhetical question then the answer is simple: social acceptance does not justify unethical intentions. Nazi's had social acceptance. Abusers typically have social acceptance. Etc. And a well intentioned person who nevertheless offended others at most made a mistake in how they approached the situation, and might very well be doing exactly the right thing of holding their peers accountable.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Pizzafari said:


> Some people can be lacking in empathy...


 @Pizzafari, your post was detailed, well thought out, multifaceted, and I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Your explanations of how peoples values are largely shaped by cultures and narratives that surround them are very on point in most respects. But people are not solely shaped by the cultures that surround them and the ideas they've been exposed to. They're also shaped by their own will and are responsible for their actions even if those actions are in line with what they were taught or ordered to do. There were S.S. officers who did everything in their power to minimize the Jews suffering, and there were Jews in the camps who eagerly aided in the torture, oppression, and ultimate murder of their fellow prisoners because of the minor benefits afforded them (and there were Jews that did the opposite.) There were members of the Nazi party, ordinary members with histories of opportunistic behavior, who went to great effort to save Jews from the camps. Schindler's List is a fantastic account of one such individual. My point is that social influences don't justify or excuse someones behavior. We are responsible for our own behavior.

Furthermore, I can't agree that human beings need to be pushed to certain limits to hurt other people. Concentration camps demonstrate this: even in the depths of the most awful circumstances human beings have contrived for other human beings to live in the victims do not necessarily abandon their values. And while many abusive men have abusive fathers, just as many non-abusive outspoken advocates of women rights have abusive fathers as well. When exposed to great adversity people react in a variety of ways. We don't universally devolve into predatory behavior. And the difference is typically one of what their values were in the first place.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Little Bee said:


> You burn a lot of bridges when you write certain people off as just being bad and unsaveable. I don't believe anyone is born a bad seed.


As I have already said in a variety of posts. I don't disagree with this. I have not nor will ever maintain that bad people are unsaveable. Simply that they are not typically mentally unhealthy, that their problem is ethical in nature, and that the process of saving such people includes holding them accountable.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

@Aridela

People make choices, and they have a certain amount of control over their environment and others. but there are also influences.. so it goes pretty far down the rabbit hole, with this person influencing that person and on and on.

Its enough to make me wonder if there _was_ an original evil that started all of the evil that exists in the world. Maybe the bible got some things right.

Then again, it could be that this person thinks this thing is moral, while this person thinks this is moral, so what is really moral?
We can also slack on certain things, because we know we will have flaws as limited beings, and not being responsible for your actions can allow you a certain amount more freedom, which can be harmful or good.

For me, Im selfish, and I justify my selfishness with the belief that everyone is selfish.
I also know no one is perfect, even though I try to be anyway, which causes me a lot of stress...
sometimes doing bad feels good.

Like I know I shouldnt smoke or vape because its bad for my body, but I do it anyway because it makes me feel good.

Im curious about what people of the future will think of morality.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Duo said:


> Nope since your beliefs impact strongly on why you wish to separate mental health issues from 'bad' people. Let's take someone with mental health issues who can't afford treatment or isn't conscious of the fact that they suffer from mental health challenges. As previously mentioned, theory of mind disturbances are common among people with mental health issues. With this in mind, are they bad people or people who are unhealthy?


Well you've given me a number of arguments that they are mentally unhealthy and no argument that they are bad people. Thus I must conclude that they are unhealthy and not bad people.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Whatexists said:


> Well you've given me a number of arguments that they are mentally unhealthy and no argument that they are bad people. Thus I must conclude that they are unhealthy and not bad people.


Is it also possible that they're unhealthy and ethically challenged? On the other hand, if their unhealthiness is related to prefrontal cortex damage, are they bad? And yet, sociopathy and psychopathy appear to have a neurological component, relative to the prefrontal cortex. It's theorized that another component is excessive exposure to serotonin in the womb, have made sociopaths and psychopaths serotonin resistant. Are sociopaths and psychopaths bad or unhealthy people?

Also, where's the line drawn between people with NPD and people on the spectrum? The end result is that they both do damage to others around them since they both have major theory of mind disturbances.

Consider someone sane who murders one person to save the lives of hundreds. Are they good, bad or unhealthy? Premised on peace time law, the individual is 'bad'. Premised on war time chaos, the individual is a hero/good/saint. Premised on the people who loved or related to the victim, the murderer is evil. But what happens if the individual's a law enforcement agent in peace time? And so on and so forth.


----------



## ReliK (Feb 24, 2019)

Venoshock said:


> So, one cannot be mentally unhealthy And an asshole?


No, that one can be an asshole but not mentally/emotionally unhealthy. Which I am highly skeptical of.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Venoshock said:


> So, one cannot be mentally unhealthy And an asshole?


One can be, but there is no greater chance that a mentally unhealthy person will be an asshole then there is that a perfectly healthy person will be an asshole. Associating the two is like choosing to call every asshole you meet by the name of a racial minority group. It's deeply cruel to the racial minority group and also just untrue. What assholes have in common is that they are assholes. In more technical language that's more to the point their rude, cruel, or manipulative behavior stems from their values and beliefs, not their level of mental health.


----------



## Ziegel (Feb 11, 2019)

I think it's a slang thing
Y'all shouldn't give a damn


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Life experiences and psychology books have make me smile whenever i meet bad people, or when i myself behave badly. Oh yeah, sometime i do, mea culpa. .

I like to observe human. Every human has their own long stories. Fascinating human.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Whatexists said:


> One can be, but there is no greater chance that a mentally unhealthy person will be an asshole then there is that a perfectly healthy person will be an asshole. Associating the two is like choosing to call every asshole you meet by the name of a racial minority group. It's deeply cruel to the racial minority group and also just untrue. What assholes have in common is that they are assholes. In more technical language that's more to the point their rude, cruel, or manipulative behavior stems from their values and beliefs, not their level of mental health.


So,here's what I see, three types of people. 








Terminology changes to whatever blanket value judgments people choose to make won't solve the actual problem, which is people making blanket value judgments.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

I have a problem when groups claim words.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

Whatexists said:


> One can be, but there is no greater chance that a mentally unhealthy person will be an asshole then there is that a perfectly healthy person will be an asshole. Associating the two is like choosing to call every asshole you meet by the name of a racial minority group. It's deeply cruel to the racial minority group and also just untrue. What assholes have in common is that they are assholes. In more technical language that's more to the point their rude, cruel, or manipulative behavior stems from their values and beliefs, not their level of mental health.


Perhaps this whole discussion could benefit from having a clear definition of what constitutes "mental health", "mental illness", "good people" and "bad people"? Personally I think that there is a correlation between these, and that such definitions can shed some light on this.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> Life experiences and psychology books have make me smile whenever i meet bad people, or when i myself behave badly. Oh yeah, sometime i do, mea culpa. .
> 
> I like to observe human. Every human has their own long stories. Fascinating human.


Yes, they are fascinating. I say they, but (at the risk of sounding insane or stuck on my self) I should say we (humans) are “quite fascinating”.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Duo said:


> I have a problem when groups claim words.


Many groups claim words. Many individuals claim words.
Would that be there’s a problem when stereotypes form and become too strong?


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Dalien said:


> Many groups claim words. Many individuals claim words.
> Would that be there’s a problem when stereotypes form and become too strong?


'Unhealthy' doesn't belong to the mentally ill. It's free to use for everyone.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

@Whatexists you cannot put formatting markup in your post and have people easily quote it. Until the site corrects this monstrous error in functionality, I suggest you post WITHOUT any markup at all. No font changes. No bold. No colors. With that said, on we go.




Whatexists said:


> I've noticed for years, both in the community and on the websites for different systems, that there is a strong trend of talking about the bad seeds of the various personality types as 'unhealthy' individuals. The thing is,





Whatexists said:


> _*the quality of ones mental health has little to do with the quality of ones values. Bad people are not necessarily more likely to be unhealthy, and there is no correlation between a lack of mental health and a lack of ethics or moral integrity. *_


_*
(Your formatting is the reason for this crazy format. I am tired of editing people's bad formatting choices out of the responses)
*__*You are SO VERY incorrect here, that I cannot even easily express how wrong you are. All choice, all health, is ONLY related to values, to moral understanding and moral action. There is NOTHING else going on but moral health.

If you wish to refuse to realize that mental health means emotional health, means moral health, then you are being tedious in a very unaware way. 

Yes we can draw some distinction between physical damage to the brain or body and 'mental' health that is not related to choice in a clear and direct way. But, existentialism shows us that choices were made in the fact of being present for any accident to cause that damage. Even if you wish to track back in time, you discover that inbred genetic physical issues are YET AND STILL only the results of choices. *__*



Whatexists said:



Regardless of the stress that they are under good people do not stop being good people. They may panic. They may loose their cool. They may get in arguments more readily. They may struggle to see peoples perspectives when they normally would not. But they will not stop respecting other peoples autonomy and independence, nor will they cease to value or prioritize taking care of others, and no matter how much stress they are under they will not intentionally bully other people and will be deeply concerned to discover if any of their actions have made other people uncomfortable or scared (and typically take actions in themselves to prevent themselves from scaring that person again.)

Click to expand...

The naivete of this position could only be presented from a young person. Stress ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DOUBT DOES cause good people to do bad things. You could not be anymore wrong about that.

Your statements reflect a deep and abiding runaway idealism which is NOT reality at all, but delusional. 

I count myself an amazingly mature and reasonably wise person by almost any measure excepting extreme delusion from either the fear side or the desire side and I know that I myself have succumbed in every particular that you suggest a person does not succumb who is good. You are simply deeply wrong. 



Whatexists said:



And bad people continue to be bad people even when they are happy, calm, focused, and well-adjusted.

Click to expand...

No, they do not. You do NOT understand an accurate definition of happiness. Happiness, genuine happiness, not delusional happiness, is ONLY brought about by moral health, making GOOD choices. There is no other way to be happy. People that do immoral 'bad' things have various degrees of moral health. Moral health affects every other aspect of who you are, all your statuses. Immoral people are not actually calm although they can appear calm in a colloquial sense. They have trouble focusing in many cases. They are not well-adjusted because a proper definition of well-adjusted means they are more morally healthy than not.

Again, what you say is precisely wrong.



Whatexists said:
 


Even the most violent and tyrannical abusers often pass all psychological screenings easily because there is nothing psychologically wrong with them.

Click to expand...


This is a ludicrous conclusion. They are lying. That is all. How is this even hard to understand? You are so far off here that it defies understanding. Your idealism is extreme.



Whatexists said:



When people are consistently disrespectful to others it is because they don't see those people as people (perhaps because they see them as animals or because they see them as property). When people are controlling, whether in a domineering way or a manipulative way, by playing the victim or the oppressor, it's not because they're crazy, it's because they believe they are entitled to something that they are not being given. And they may be right if they're being deprived things like food or water or sleep, or having their ideas listened to and grappled with in good faith, or basic respect and kindness, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. But if they are seeking personal gain at the expense of others beyond the basic things everyone has a right to then they're not mentally unhealthy, they're being bad people.

Click to expand...

Being is not a solid state. Being changes. 'Bad' actions and beliefs can be changed by the only power there is, choice. You neglect the empowerment of choice. As such your idealism disempowers everyone. You deny choice, and thus think in terms of bad simply being forever bad. Reform for you is impossible, in essence. That is tacit nonsense.



Whatexists said:



The process by which bad people who are willing to take advantage of others to satisfy their own entitlements become good people who respect others is not a process of becoming sensitive to their own insecurities and maladjustments. It is a process of them recognizing that their actions were wrong, owning up to their morally wrong actions, taking responsibility for the damage they caused, and making amends. It starts with the people around them naming the moral wrongs they are guilty of and refusing to tolerate that behavior or to listen to excuses for it**. Therapy is a wonderful thing that can work miracles for people suffering from legitimate mental health issues like PTSD, Depression, Chronic Anxiety Disorders, etc. But it doesn't help a manipulative person get less manipulative. Therapy makes manipulative people better at it by giving them more tools to use to manipulate other people and better excuses to justify their behavior.

Click to expand...

You say it is not THIS, it is THAT; but THIS and THAT are the same thing, or two sides of the same thing. Again, you are nonsensical in your presentation of these ideas and have no solid bearing on emotional reality.

The process of change is many-fold, yes, but, the essence is only choice-centric. If someone presents a counter in life to an intent the self must observe that objection. It must analyze that objection. The truth of whether a problem is more based in physical stressors like damage, what you call 'mental' health or whether that problem is based in emotional, in choices, what you call 'bad' people; is EQUALLY affected by therapy and in fact, I would suggest that an emotional issue is MORE ... NOT LESS biddable via therapy. Granted that therapy has to be competent and based therefore on competent patternings of the truth.



Whatexists said:



When an ISFP* is telling you your opinion is impractical or unrealistic and thereby shutting you down, putting you in positions where your forced to pay for them constantly while dodging the responsibility of dealing with their own finances, insisting that you need to be okay with an open relationship and your a bad person if you're not, or using the insecurities you shared with them in confidence to punish you for not conforming to their sense of values they're not being an 'unhealthy' ISFP, they're being a shitty person ISFP.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. As usual your THIS and THAT are the same. And you want to draw a line between them. You are wrong.



Whatexists said:



And they probably do think that what they're doing is okay. They probably have lots of moral arguments for why it's justified behavior. (Although that's not guaranteed: I've personally done the financial one of those things in the past, knowing it wasn't okay, because it was convenient, I'd mismanaged my money, and nobody held me accountable for doing it. I wish someone had held me accountable for doing it. Getting a grip on that bad behavior would have been easier if someone given me shit for doing it.)

Click to expand...

Granted, that we add stress to immoral actors. That is part of external validation of moral belief. But indeed, improper moral beliefs are just a form of lack of health. In fact, finally, there is no other form. 

Your wacky belief would have people essentially unable to change. 

And I wish to add this. Fear is a valid part of love, yes. But people who remain moral only because of being afraid of the consequences are NOT MORAL. They are unhealthy. That may indeed be a step in the process of changing choices for moral health, but that step must be transcended/completed by then DESIRING what is GOOD in the first place, e.g. becoming healthy.

If a person still sits there only fearing suffering if they be who they are, 'bad', they are indeed sill unhealthy and have not really changed.



Whatexists said:



So let's stop referring to examples of types misbehaving as 'unhealthy individuals' and start calling them something else more appropriate like 'abusive individuals', or 'selfish and disrespectful individuals', or whatever (I'm open to suggestions.)

Click to expand...

My suggestion is you earn some wisdom and stop presenting this unhealthy bad idea. 

All 'bad' can only ever be morally unhealthy. It is NOTHING else. *_


----------



## ReliK (Feb 24, 2019)

@series0 nailed it, as usual. But the manner, the approach... the conviction? No, the lack of compassionate approach, towards those who 'get it so very wrong' gives you away. I don't think it's as effective as it could be, if you paid more attention to disarming ego-defenses in others enough for filters to widen, for a more easy, natural and organic receiving to occur. But maybe you are aware of this, maybe it's not a particular blind-spot, and you think of the 45 or 800 or 5k people who later view these posts. Maybe you've decided your own natural expression/communication takes a priority, that those capable of 'seeing it' will be prompted by such certainty.. and those who can't are lost anyway. It's just unusual... to find someone so insightful and yet, so harsh.


----------



## Kazuma Ikezawa (Oct 21, 2011)

Jesus might beg to differ.
Jesus: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." 

If we conclude that man's essential or ideal nature is to be moral, then people who behave immorally are unhealthy. After all, what is considered normal, in terms of mental health, is relatively healthy behavior in which people can flourish and get along in a society together, to some degree.


----------



## Kazuma Ikezawa (Oct 21, 2011)

People whose bad behavior, if everyone in a society were to behave like them, if it causes societal disfunction or failure, then these people are unhealthy. Saying that it is wrong to call bad people unhealthy, in my opinion, shows a lack of empathy for these people.​


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

@series0
You... don't seem to have ever read a single book on psychology? Your assertions fly directly against every book on psychology I've ever read... from Jung's, "Man and his Symbols"; to William James', "Principles of Psychology"; to Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning"; to Judith Herman's "Trauma and Recovery"; to less well known works that are nonetheless seminal in their fields like Lundy Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That?". 

Mental health is very different from moral integrity. Talk to a psychologist or qualified therapist sometime. Any of them. Ever. 

As for stress causing good people to do bad things, since you're fond of existentialism, read Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning". The first part of the book is an autobiographical account of his experiences in Nazi concentration camps that include first hand observations that directly contradict your assertion. He was psychiatrist, in case you don't know who he was. 

As for my conclusions about abusers mental states I get the majority of my information from a large body of literature written by experts on abuse and provided to me by my social worker sister. But you should start by reading, "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft. He's an expert who has been working with abusers and abuse for many years. Or you can start by like... reading the wikipedia article at least?

Also, you, as so many people, have accused me of saying that people are unable to change. I literally in my OP addressed methods of helping people chance. I never denied the power of personal choice. I advocate for it. The flip side of that choice is responsibility for the choices that we make and not excusing poor choices.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> Perhaps this whole discussion could benefit from having a clear definition of what constitutes "mental health", "mental illness", "good people" and "bad people"? Personally I think that there is a correlation between these, and that such definitions can shed some light on this.


Yes. I regret not trying to be more specific. I also regret saying "being bad people" as people seem to remove the verb and assume I'm saying "bad people" which has a very different meaning then "being bad people"...


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> @*series0*
> You... don't seem to have ever read a single book on psychology? Your assertions fly directly against every book on psychology I've ever read... from Jung's, "Man and his Symbols"; to William James', "Principles of Psychology"; to Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning"; to Judith Herman's "Trauma and Recovery"; to less well known works that are nonetheless seminal in their fields like Lundy Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That?".
> 
> Mental health is very different from moral integrity. Talk to a psychologist or qualified therapist sometime. Any of them. Ever.


And they are all wrong and I am right. Ha! What I mean by that is that it is now being more or less acknowledged that empiricism is only a third of understanding. You are enchanted by that third(fear-order) amid the worldview of the desire third. Academia has that trend, an orderly affectation (immoral subjective materialism) amid a disorderly affection (a desire/chaos centric worldview). 

'Qualified' is an order delusion. All are qualified to render choice and must do so. 

Choice affects the physical realm. That means these people with 'mental illnesses' are choosing to become mentally ill by believing immoral things and living in immoral ways that then change their bodies and minds via neuroplasticity, etc. If you favor cause over effect you cannot understand. If you favor effect over cause you cannot understand. Truth and wisdom are in the middle.



Whatexists said:


> As for stress causing good people to do bad things, since you're fond of existentialism, read Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning". The first part of the book is an autobiographical account of his experiences in Nazi concentration camps that include first hand observations that directly contradict your assertion. He was psychiatrist, in case you don't know who he was.


I have read that book. And your interpretation of it is as bad as your current understanding posted above.

Here is a WIkipedia summary of one part of the book:
"Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death. In a group therapy session during a mass fast inflicted on the camp's inmates trying to protect an anonymous fellow inmate from fatal retribution by authorities, Frankl offered the thought that for everyone in a dire condition there is someone looking down, a friend, family member, or even God, who would expect not to be disappointed. Frankl concludes from his experience that a prisoner's psychological reactions are not solely the result of the conditions of his life, but also from the freedom of choice he always has even in severe suffering. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a hope in the future, and that once a prisoner loses that hope, he is doomed."

This quote shows MY point of view and has a pronounced disdain for yours. Choice is the critical issue and morality the only hope. Again, you are so clearly wrong, it's staggering that you can interpret yourself in any wise as right.



Whatexists said:


> As for my conclusions about abusers mental states I get the majority of my information from a large body of literature written by experts on abuse and provided to me by my social worker sister. But you should start by reading, "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft. He's an expert who has been working with abusers and abuse for many years. Or you can start by like... reading the wikipedia article at least?


I read it. It is more one-sided non wisdom. The cycle of abuse is not out of context. Abusers are themselves abused. Ignore the other side of truth at your peril. That is not to say that all people are moral equals in context, they are not. But treating one side only as the victim is a delusional lie, exactly the same lie that you were referring to about 'bad' people in your previous post. Likewise the other side IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE the only abuser. Each side is abusive. Arrival at a bad choice usually takes many choosers and many choices. We need a discipline of systemic observation rather than sides. The equation of wisdom is one of balance. If something is missing from one side, it is missing on the other side as well.



Whatexists said:


> Also, you, as so many people, have accused me of saying that people are unable to change. I literally in my OP addressed methods of helping people chance. I never denied the power of personal choice. I advocate for it. The flip side of that choice is responsibility for the choices that we make and not excusing poor choices.


Excusing is not the same thing as a refusal to understand. 

'Bad' choices are just bad is REFUSING TO UNDERSTAND.
'Bad' choices are the result of a lack of health is wisdom and not an excuse.
The choice is for better health. 'Bad' choices are not just bad.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

For the record:
1. Series0 started his most recent post by asserting that many of the most prominent and well regarded figures in the field of psychology, as well as every single psychologist and qualified therapist, and the entire contents of many of the most well researched and well regarded works of psychological literature are wrong and that he knows better than all of them.
He then continued by asserting that people with mental illnesses (which includes, for the record, PTSD, and therefore includes the victims of all kinds of violence) are responsible for their own mental illnesses because of their own immoral beliefs and ways of living. He is putting the blame for the violence they have suffered on themselves. To me, this is a profoundly disturbing and unethical position to take that is objectively disprovable in every instance.

2. He then attempts to address my statement that you don't need to look further than Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning" to find first hand accounts of good people continuing to do good things under extraordinary stress, thereby demonstrating that good people will continue to be good under extraordinary stress, by quoting a passage from that book in which Viktor Frankl himself, under the extraordinary stress of a concentration camp, attempts to use his professional skills as a psychiatrist to provide therapy and thereby comfort and strength to his fellow inmates to keep them strong in the face of the adversity. This was exactly the sort of example of a good person under extraordinary stress still doing good things which proves my point in the first place. But rather then address that at all he mostly just talks disdainfully about me. (To anyone who is curious, Viktor Frankl also explicitly denounces the idea that man has any meaningful control over what happens to him in life, which runs against series0's first argument that peoples moral choices are responsible for whether or not they have mental illnesses. Frankl's argument about the freedom of choice that was highlighted in that passage is about man's capacity to have choices regardless of circumstance, including most notably the freedom to choose his own attitude in that circumstance. At no point in the book does he make any statement about choice that would support either the argument that we can control whether or not we are hurt by violence enacted against us, or the argument that our moral choices retro-actively influence our genetics [which series0 has also put forward in a prior post].) 

3. His arguments against Lundy Bancrofts work on the origins, motivations, and methodologies of abusive men include the concept of the cycle of abuse, which Mr. Bancroft addresses in great and explicit detail during the chapters that talk about abusive men's origins; and the idea that victims of domestic abuse are also at fault. This is a strictly untrue belief. It is a lie that abusive men like to tell and a dangerous and violent one what directly contributes to the abuse and oppression of women the world over. For more information on these subject matters I would recommend the book in question and "Trauma and Recovery: the aftermath of violence from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror," by Dr. Judith Herman.


----------



## Alcar (Sep 5, 2018)

@Whatexists



> my statement that you don't need to look further than Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning" to find first hand accounts of good people continuing to do good things under extraordinary stress, thereby demonstrating that good people will continue to be good under extraordinary stress.


This is flawed logic. I'm quite sure you can find why it is the case and maybe even find which verb to change in order to have a logically sound sentence.

You should also be more careful with what series0 is saying because there is a big chunk of philosophy in what he's saying... and it seems you missed his philosophical stance. First of all, the concept of choice is a tricky one (in a deterministic world, it is a virtual but meaningful and useful concept) and we are not aware of all the consequences of our choices. For example, the choice to live with the person that will be violent toward us later on or the choice of having a kid that will suffer from trisomy 21. In both cases, the person are not aware of the consequences (especially in the second case) when he made his choice.

Finally, your last post is not coming from a wise person imo.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Alcar said:


> This is flawed logic. I'm quite sure you can find why it is the case and maybe even find which verb to change in order to have a logically sound sentence.


Well you cut off the beginning and the second half of the sentence so... 



Alcar said:


> You should also be more careful with what series0 is saying because there is a big chunk of philosophy in what he's saying... and it seems you missed his philosophical stance. First of all, the concept of choice is a tricky one (in a deterministic world, it is a virtual but meaningful and useful concept) and we are not aware of all the consequences of our choices. For example, the choice to live with the person that will be violent toward us later on or the choice of having a kid that will suffer from trisomy 21. In both cases, the person are not aware of the consequences (especially in the second case) when he made his choice.


I actually didn't miss his philosophical stance at all. I've read enough existential philosophy to understand what he's saying. But while I will acknowledge that there are choices that people make that have unintentional consequences I don't think twisting existential philosophies to support the claim that the victims of domestic abuse are also abusive to their abusers is a philosophical argument worth addressing. It is obviously unethical.



Alcar said:


> Finally, your last post is not coming from a wise person imo.


I don't know if my last post was in good judgement. No one can ever truly know until all the cards are in. But it was neither ignorant in terms of knowledge nor in terms of direct experience. Based on the knowledge I have and the experience I have, allowing the claims that 'the victims of abuse are also abusive', or that 'their own immoral choices led to their mental health issues,' to go unchallenged is bad for society at large and helps perpetuate domestic abuse. It would have been unethical for me to not challenge his conclusions.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> His initial claim was that all good people are good regardless of how much stress they are experiencing, and all bad people will continue to be bad regardless of how much of a positive turn their lives ends up taking. That is to say that "good people are good and bad people are bad, regardless."


Wait wait wait. If this is how you read what I wrote then we've definitely had a miscommunication. You've interpreted my statements in ways I didn't mean them. I can tell because you added words I never would have added and your understanding of my conclusion omits what I would consider the point of my statements. I think the way that you've read my statements is very rational, and probably close to how the majority of people have read my arguments judging from their reactions. 



Gurthang said:


> His initial claim was that all good people are good regardless of how much stress they are experiencing,


You use the word "all" here: "all good people". I never did and never would have.


Gurthang said:


> and all bad people will continue to be bad regardless of how much of a positive turn their lives ends up taking.


And then again here: "all bad people". I never did and never would have.

I do not consider general statements to be absolutes and that includes these general statements. Stating that "good people will continue to be good regardless of the stress they are under," is not the same as stating that, "all good people will continue to be good regardless of the stress they are under." 



Gurthang said:


> That is to say that "good people are good and bad people are bad, regardless."


Regardless of what? You see, you continually assume that I have a black and white perspective on this subject matter and so you read that into what I'm saying and thereby miss what I'm actually saying. Your conclusion here shows this. It is definitely not what I'm trying to say or even what I said. I said _regardless of stress._ And I also said _regardless of mental or emotional health._

That is to say that, "people will tend to maintain their values and act according to them _regardless of stress_." Or, "stress doesn't alter someones values."

Of course, those are general statements too, right? Not absolutes. I don't deal in absolutes. I dislike absolutes. I'm attempting to paint a picture of the perspective I have based on the literature I've read, the education I've received, the life experiences I've had, and my personal contemplation of those things. That's a lot of information and perspective to cover and doing that requires broad strokes. And when I argue against someones points it's because I have experience that contradicts those points and/or knowledge from reliable sources that contradicts those points and that I can be confident of based on personal experience and extensive reflection and contemplation. I'm not attempting to formulate a thesis for a debate club argument. I don't have a single thesis I'm trying to defend. I have a perspective on a complex subject matter I'm attempting to communicate and support. If you attempt to boil it down to a single very simple statement then you will miss the whole picture. 

Let me give you a few other things I don't think change peoples values.

Alcohol. _Some_ people do get violent when they get drunk. But not all people. Most people don't get violent when they drink. Most people don't get violent when they drink no matter how much they drink. Even alcoholics in the throes of addiction will often not get violent when they drink. So it's not the drinking that's making people violent.

Anger. _Some_ people do get violent when they get angry. But not all people. Most people don't get violent when they get angry (well, I most of the people I know and I would hope most people.) Many people (and most people I know) don't get violent no matter how angry they get (I personally have experiences of rage to a level I cannot communicate in words, but did not get violent.) Even people who have poor anger management issues do to PTSD or other trauma don't necessarily get violent when they get angry. So it's not the anger that makes people violent. And having been someone who did get angry and violent and eventually stopped being violent long before I sorted out my anger issues I can tell you with absolute certainty that every time there was a moment when I gave myself permission to be violent. And when I stopped giving myself permission violence stopped happening.

From everything I've read on the subject matter (which is a lot), this is true of abusive men. They don't have anger management issues. They are often very good at anger management. But they use anger as a justification or an excuse. They believe it is okay to get violent when they're angry. Similarly it's true of drinking: alcohol doesn't make men beat their wives. But it does give them a way to give themselves permission to. 

And this is true of stress. Stress doesn't make people violent. Stress doesn't make people take advantage of other people. Stress doesn't make people become selfish and self-serving. Stress doesn't make people behave like what we might call a "bad person". But it does give them a reason to give themselves permission to behave like that.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> I'm reticent to acknowledge utterly semantic arguments but have recently been convinced that semantic discussions are genuinely important and this seems like a scenario where that is the case. Thank you for laying out the problem very clearly. I hope you will allow me to amend my prior point:
> 
> First hand accounts of good people continuing to do good things under extraordinary stress is proof that good people _can_ continue to be good under extraordinary stress. This opposes the claim that stress is a deciding factor in whether people exhibit good or bad behavior.



Agreed that they _can _continue to be good. That was not my main issue with your stance, although it is one issue with your stance.

The main issue is that you use the term 'good people' and 'bad people' as if they are fixed. You have some sort of odd predestination belief that is immoral. People *can* and do change. THAT must be respected. CHOICE is the factor, and not some arbitrary (at ANY point in time) labeling of whether they are 'good or bad' from your perspective.



Whatexists said:


> I'm going to add a few statements here to support my original position stance that good people _will_ continue to be good.


You are WASTING your time (and to some degree ours). Let's work towards resolution, towards being people that *can *change their wrong ideas about morality and choice. Let's see if they will change.

People ARE NOT good or bad. Being good or bad IS NOT possible. Keep reading that until you get it. CHOICES are good or bad. So your entire approach is invalid and reductionist, labeling people, dooming them to a status of 'good' or 'bad'. I can tell you something. I contend THAT argument is not only bad judgment, it is immoral.



Whatexists said:


> These are arguments I did not previously make but are a part of what I know on the topic and informed my choice to say that they not only _can_ but _will_.


Predestination eh? So you are a pre-crime and thought police advocate. That is nonsense.



Whatexists said:


> Evidence from scenarios like the nazi concentration camps, the prison experiment, and the Montreal police strike provides examples of scenarios in which seemingly 'decent' folk behave in uncharacteristically indecent ways under adverse circumstances. Examinations of these scenarios, and in particular the prison experiment, demonstrate that the change in behavior was primarily due to changes in social expectations. These seemingly 'decent' folk behaved in 'decent' ways because there was social pressure for them to behave that way and they stopped behaving in 'decent' ways when the social pressures changed. They were not driven to be decent by their own personal values or convictions.


Agreed entirely. Here is where you and I may agree. Let's try it. THOSE PEOPLE WERE NEVER MORAL TO BEGIN WITH. They were social pretenders, which is 0% surprise. People participate in Capitalism, a system that is fundamentally immoral keeping some poor and making people pay for healthcare, all to support the delusion that differential rewards for effort are somehow moral. Here is the thing: the proof: if you stop bribing people with differential rewards and still ask them to do their work, brain surgery and ditch-digger get paid the same, then how do we characterize the ones that then stop working? Here is how: THOSE PEOPLE WERE NEVER MORAL TO BEGIN WITH. So, the revelation is that many people ARE NOT choosing to be moral, it is NOT that they are 'bad' people. In that you are just wrong. You must not say it that way. You must say that they are choosing badly. That is correct.



Whatexists said:


> These scenarios also provide many examples seemingly 'decent' or 'good' folk who continued to behave in altruistic ways despite the circumstances and lack of social pressures to behave in those ways. These individuals did so because of their own personal values and convictions.


Again, you and I can agree on that specific point.



Whatexists said:


> There are plenty of other scenarios to provide examples of folk who behave indecently, rudely, or cruelly even in circumstances in which there is social pressure to behave nicely. These individuals also do so because of their own personal values and convictions, although in this case the values and convictions usually take on a 'selfish' and entitled look.


You are over simplifying the context of social reality. They are merely making bad choices in environments where bad choices are often quite well rewarded. In fact, the wise society removes rewards for acting good in order to discover who the really wise people are in the first place. Then it lets them make BETTER decisions for us all. Democracy is a sham in terms of wisdom.

It is EASY to be immoral, but acting immoral causes one (and others - eventually ALL) to experience suffering. We cannot change society by adhering to nonsense like 'people ARE bad'. Nothing is bad but the choice. At any next moment that choice can be changed. The bad thinking or beliefs, bad values, must be challenged and made to see the error of their ways. The suffering caused must be explained carefully to them so that they realize it. Once moral truth is realized it is much harder to be willfully immoral for most people. Restraint of immorality is required of a wise society. But first we must clearly define it. And part of that is realizing that people ARE NOT 'bad'; only their choices are.



Whatexists said:


> Thus personal values are more impactful then stress.


Agreed.



Whatexists said:


> And, in fact, stress hardly matters at all as social pressures and personal values can both easily override stress. When it appears to matter is under circumstances when changes of social structure and social pressures are accompanied by increases of stress.


This is incorrect. All applications of increased stress impact the burden of choice, and by far MOST people will succumb at some point along that increasing stress line. So you are clearly and obviously wrong. 

The old joke along those lines is the one about the politician and the woman. He asks to sleep with her for $1,000,000. She says yes. He than asks to sleep with her for $100. She asks 'What do you think I am, a whore?' and then he says 'We already established you were a whore. Now we are just bargaining over price!' Guess what? Stress MATTERS and it matters a lot. It changes people CHOICES. It does not make them bad or good. You are wrong.



Whatexists said:


> There is one more factor that complicates subject matters, however, but that also helps explain individuals whose behavior changes do to stress: personal values are not cut and dry and can have 'if' statements and conditions worked into them. For example, it is not uncommon for people to believe that "Violence towards others is bad, _but_ it is acceptable if you are under attack." Likewise people often believe, "Violence towards others is bad, _but_ anger leads to violence and it is normal to be violent when you are angry." Thus an individual who believes themselves to be a pacifist and argues for pacifism might kill someone who attacked them, and another individual who is normally peaceful might behave violently if angered but then excuse their violence on account of their anger without recognizing that there are others who get angry without getting violent.


These analysis are flawed. 

We are not perfect beings. We CANNOT in any way BE objective. That is a tautology. We can only TRY to be objective. Fear is the emotion that demands what you seem to seek, a perverse certainty. You want no 'if' statements! THAT is absurd. Imperfect people DO NOT function that way. They are loaded with ifs. 

We MUST acknowledge an objective yet unattainable moral truth to be wise. Both parts are critical. The fact that truth and morality are objective is critical, AND the part where they are unattainable is critical. Moral duty is aiming or INTENDING for the perfection, and simultaneously realizing that you cannot ever arrive there, so perfection-expectation is also immoral (your need for certainty and no ifs). 



Whatexists said:


> (this last one is very personal to me. When I was young I had deep anger issues for personal reasons that I do not feel comfortable disclosing in this environment. Whenever I got angry I would get violent. I hit my friends when they made me angry. I always apologized, and felt terrible for doing it, and yet would do it again when I got angry. This continued until one day, when I was approaching the level of anger at which I would get violent, my mother sat me down and told me that I was allowed to be angry but that I was not allowed to hurt anyone. She repeated the statement until it sank in. When I calmed down I considered the statement, and the understanding it included that anger does not have to be coupled by violence, and concluded that since I did not want to hurt anyone when I got angry and I did not like hurting people I should not hurt people again in the future. I have never enacted violence from that day to this despite circumstances in which I have gotten considerably angrier, even when in highly stressful survival circumstances in which my life was directly threatened by the actions of others.)


It sounds like you learned something good there and that is wonderful. But there are issues as well, still.

Idealism (chaos apology) is driven by desire and the interface with that passion and anger is often one that provokes immoral violence for supposedly good reasons (like punching Nazis when they are only talking - persecution instead of moral challenge). 

But the truth about violence is it is misunderstood. It is violent to all other entities in existence for you to merely exist. This is the final truth then of violence. Mere presence is violence. So violence can be moral and is often fairly moral. You have a right to exist and to inflict your best efforts on all others. This is the foundation of compassion, the love sourced in anger. But anger is also the source of balance and fairness. THEY ... ALL OTHERS ... have the same right to exist. Their existence demands that right be observed. Still, immoral action from others MUST morally be challenged. That can lead to violence and that is MORAL VIOLENCE. restraining immorality with force with the best of intents IS MORAL. Of course the physical realm of violence (there is a mental and emotional realm of violence) is best reserved until it is the last realm left. 

Regardless, people ARE NOT good or bad. Only their choices are and they can change.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

I would claim that not only are people's choice good or bad, but also good AND bad. Consider for a moment how "the road to hell is paved by good intentions" and how intent and expected outcome is not always the same as the end result. A person might do something good, but is this going to be good for everyone and in all situations?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gurthang said:


> I would claim that not only are people's choice good or bad, but also good AND bad. Consider for a moment how "the road to hell is paved by good intentions" and how intent and expected outcome is not always the same as the end result. A person might do something good, but is this going to be good for everyone and in all situations?


This is not a relevant analysis. 

Good intentions may lead you to a hell of sorts, but hell will be required to properly reject the non sinner. So the non sinner goes THROUGH hell and out the other side. Such is the suffering REQUIRED by the burden of choice. Intent alone is responsible for sin. Consequences are a pragmatists' immoral delusions. They are often ACCIDENTS and do not count. Perception and judgement are limited. One MUST properly morally only judge intent.

Likewise negative intents with good consequences DO NOT fool an ostensible heaven. St Peter just waves bye bye and that one goes to hell.

---

PS I do not believe in heaven and hell. I am just working the quote properly.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

series0 said:


> This is not a relevant analysis.
> 
> Good intentions may lead you to a hell of sorts, but hell will be required to properly reject the non sinner. So the non sinner goes THROUGH hell and out the other side. Such is the suffering REQUIRED by the burden of choice. Intent alone is responsible for sin. Consequences are a pragmatists' immoral delusions. They are often ACCIDENTS and do not count. Perception and judgement are limited. One MUST properly morally only judge intent.
> 
> ...


I do believe that it is a relevant analysis because it can shed some light on the relativity of 'good and bad', is there such a thing as 'objective morality'? I think that history can show us how this is not true.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gurthang said:


> I do believe that it is a relevant analysis because it can shed some light on the relativity of 'good and bad', is there such a thing as 'objective morality'? I think that history can show us how this is not true.


Well, we can agree to disagree. 

My argument that morality is objective is simple and goes like this: If it were subjective then you would not and could not hold to specific moral paths consistently. Morality would change like moods and that fast, on a dime, in a split second. If morality is even relatively constant, it must be objective. 

Further, the only means by which we can detect moral progress is the FACT, the near truth, that morality is objective. Were it subjective there would be no means of sensing that progress. We could not feel or intuit any moral direction at all. moving goalposts of morality are a chaos delusion, a subjective nightmare, and not anywhere near correct.

All truth is objective. Moral truth is no different than any other.

Subjectivism is just trying to tempt ourselves away from what we can indeed sense is a proper moral direction. It is a lie.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

I've acquired a distaste for referring to morality or ethics as ether entirely objective or subjective. I strongly agree with the below post from @Gurthang about how it contains both objective and subjective componants.



Gurthang said:


> @series0 I do belive it to be a mistake to focus only on 'objective morality' when the question at hand was about 'our morality' (as in, all aspects of it).
> 
> If we should look at the definition:
> _
> ...


I look at morality and ethics in terms of game theory. Morality, ethics, philosophy, religion, even states, can be seen in terms of humanities attempts to find solutions to the prisoner's dilemma (and it's various iterations based on circumstance, such as the hobbesian trap.) Game theory applies to every sort of social interaction. It comes up in interpersonal intimate relationships, business partnerships and competitions, and state actions. So we ask questions like "How can we get the most people to choose altruistic mutually beneficial choices that society needs to grow when they could choose short term personal benefit at the expense of others?" and "How can we arrange to trust one another?" etc. 

While the specific manifestations of manners and value judgments change from one culture to the next, we ultimately are all looking for a few basic things and trying to figure out ways we can agree upon to cooperate and coordinate with one another for mutual benefit. And the solutions we tend to figure out tend to be universal the same way sooner or later everyone figures out bronze smithing: for example the whole system of hospitality rules and reputation for honor that ancient cultures used somewhat ubiquitously. It's all based on a simple solution to the hobbesian trap: "I will not hurt you first, but if you hurt me first I, or my family/friends/nation/etc, will respond with far greater force then you can withstand." The most famous iteration of this is probably the Pax Romana, but the thread underlies most systems of honor throughout the ancient world. But this system of honor, which still necessitated violence if someone even tried to give you a bad reputation (since you're reputation was literally what protected you), had plenty of problems. And we, as a species, have figured out better ways of doing things (not to say that they're universally implemented: criminal organizations often still use the same honor system.) 

Sorry, I'm babbling on a tangent. My point is this: when people exhibit patterns of behavior of taking advantage of others for personal benefit or otherwise consistently mistreating others even when the opportunity for mutually beneficial arrangements and non-zero sum games is present, it's not because of stress or bad emotional or mental health. It's because their decision making process, i.e. the values that they weigh things by, the beliefs they hold and the attitudes they approach things with, consistently leads them to the conclusion that they should do what's best for themselves even when it hurts other people (possibly by ignoring the fact that it does hurt other people, or simply being ignorant of that fact). And maybe it doesn't always lead them to that conclusion. Maybe it only does in certain circumstances. Maybe they only exhibit patterns of bad behavior in intimate relationships or maybe they only do when they're drunk. But regardless of whether it's universal pattern or a circumstantial one, it's a decision making process.

Mistreatment of others, including taking advantage of them, is the result of a rational decision making process that prioritizes personal benefit over the harm caused to others (or that is ignorant of the harm that the choice will cause to others.) Consistent mistreatment of others is the result of consistent underlying beliefs and values that don't value the well being of those who are being harmed (or that is ignorant of the harm that those actions cause to others). It is not the result of poor emotional health or a psychological disorder. Those beliefs and values are socialized traits, not psychological ones, although individuals will react to their socialization in different ways and human beings are more then the sum of their experiences. Those beliefs, values, and attitudes can change, but people who have these beliefs, attitudes, and values benefit from their behavior and are typically reticent to abandon the beliefs, values, and attitudes that lead to that behavior until they stop benefiting from them and start getting punished for them. You cannot help such a person change by addressing their mental health as their mental health is not the source of their mistreatment of others, and framing their behavior as the result of mental health allows them to defend the behavior as stemming from something outside of their control. You can help such a person change by calling out their behavior, informing them that it is harmful, and calling out their attitudes, beliefs, and values and informing them those attitudes, beliefs, and values are immoral and why. If the person makes the choice to try to change you can help with education, and by supporting them to address the harm they've caused and take ownership of it by making amends. This is very simple when the person does not wish to hurt others and is simply ignorant of the fact that they are, but very complicated when their values say it's okay for them to hurt others, even situationally, for their own benefit. 

So when I say, "bad person" I'm talking about a person whose values, attitudes, and beliefs justify hurting others for personal benefit, even when the opportunity for mutually beneficial arrangements exist and who therefore exhibit patterns of mistreating others. And, for the record, in my original post I stated that these people can change. I've maintained that the entire time. So please stop making this straw man argument then my view of humanity is black and white and leaves no room for people changing or making personal choice. It's nonsense. I've literally stated a dozen times, and even in my original post, that people who mistreat others regularly can change.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> I do believe that it is a relevant analysis because it can shed some light on the relativity of 'good and bad', is there such a thing as 'objective morality'? I think that history can show us how this is not true.


Read, "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

series0 said:


> Agreed that they _can _continue to be good. That was not my main issue with your stance, although it is one issue with your stance.
> 
> The main issue is that you use the term 'good people' and 'bad people' as if they are fixed. You have some sort of odd predestination belief that is immoral. People *can* and do change. THAT must be respected. CHOICE is the factor, and not some arbitrary (at ANY point in time) labeling of whether they are 'good or bad' from your perspective.


I'm going to stop the quote here because the rest of your post is all straw man arguments predicated on a misunderstanding and misreading of my posts that is evident from this statement. You are consistently maintaining that I claim "good people" and "bad people" are fixed and I have never claimed that. Please go read the fourth paragraph of my original post in which I talk about processes by which "bad people" can change. And then like... reread everything I've ever said. Or just any of it ever. 

I've never claimed that someones moral quality is predestined. I've repeatedly agreed that peoples morals are the result of socialization and can changed. I've argued it myself many times. 

So just stop. You've made assumptions about what I meant based on your own expectations and then painted me to be something I'm not and have been railing against that in language that is frankly condescending and disdainful, even if your signature says it's not supposed to be. Go actually read what I've said under the assumption that I personally believe that choices are the result of rational decision making processes based on values, beliefs, and attitudes that are largely socialized but also personally decided on.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> I've never claimed that someones moral quality is predestined. I've repeatedly agreed that peoples morals are the result of socialization and can changed. I've argued it myself many times.


Although socialization is a factor, choice is the real resting point for blame and accountability. If you stress socialization, you seem to be denying the role of being that person within the society / concentration camp who rises above the others. That rising is by choice. 



Whatexists said:


> So just stop.


Not going to happen. I am happy to continue. If you want to stop you can. See how that works? Choice. The real truth.



Whatexists said:


> You've made assumptions about what I meant based on your own expectations and then painted me to be something I'm not and have been railing against that in language that is frankly condescending and disdainful, even if your signature says it's not supposed to be. Go actually read what I've said under the assumption that I personally believe that choices are the result of rational decision making processes based on values, beliefs, and attitudes that are largely socialized but also personally decided on.


Choice is not just rational. It is also irrational and also a balanced third position that cares less about the rational and irrational questions. Those are fear, desire, and anger respectively.

And like most chaos apologists you DO NOT understand the real definition of condescension. I am challenging your ideas from a positive place of hope and wisdom. That intent CANNOT be condescension by the definition. Condescension requires that the person performing it feels and thinks they are more worthy than the target. That is literally what the term means. Explaining something is teaching, not condescension. If you want to say that my approach needs more tact and less arrogance, then that is possibly the case. You'll get less argument from me that way. But it is NOT condescension. For the record I genuinely believe everyone is equally worthy amid love.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

@series0 I've given your statement about morality being objective some thought, and I wonder if that is true and what determines moral and immoral behavior if it is not arrived at in a subjective manner? Also cannot help but notice your emphasis on personal choice in this matter, something which most definitely is subjective. Am I misunderstanding something about your statement or is there a contradiction present here?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gurthang said:


> @*series0* I've given your statement about morality being objective some thought, and I wonder if that is true and what determines moral and immoral behavior if it is not arrived at in a subjective manner? Also cannot help but notice your emphasis on personal choice in this matter, something which most definitely is subjective. Am I misunderstanding something about your statement or is there a contradiction present here?


It's very cool that you ask carefully, not throwing accusations. That is a rare approach, I find, even here.

So there is no contradiction as long as both sides of the issue are properly understood.

Granted we exist in a subjective well of experience related to the inaccuracies of our own observations and beliefs.
Asserted that despite this subjective prison reality, IN ALL WAYS, is objective.
Asserted that there are three paths along which truth can be emerged as more proximal within oneself:
1) Rational thought and judgement - fear based - order - Matches new experiences in every way with patterns known from the past. This allows for judgement and categorization, awareness in general; thence unto preparedness and even a recognition of the pattern of being IN SPITE of fear, which is joy.
2) Intuition by presence, or BEING, emerges a de facto truth - anger based - balance - This is existential truth held in tension by the power of fear and desire being essentially pushed back creating all of reality and NOW.
3) Will or passion creates new or emergent truth. Desire based - chaos - The randomness of directions for will allows for exploration, creativity, and a wealth of shifting aims. This is simulation, wishing. It is always based in the future.

Non-conclusion (we are not ever done so this cannot be a conclusion):
a) Even moral truth is just truth. It is objective.
b) We emerge bits and pieces of objective morality by earning wisdom in the same way that more mundane truths are emerged by gaining in intelligence/awareness.
c) Aiming at perfection is moral and correct. Expecting perfection is immoral. We aim for objectivity. We cannot claim it. But we realize THERE IS a perfection, an objectivity to aim for. Otherwise PROGRESS is impossible.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

@series0 You write "We emerge bits and pieces of objective morality by earning wisdom" - but surely our morality has gone through changes over time?

It was not more than some thousand years ago that i.e. the Romans considered rape to be a perfectly moral action as long as the person doing the raping was strong and did so from a position of domination. Slavery was common, and killing your slave if he or she refused his or her owner in any way was considered to be 'moral and just behavior'. How does this then fit into the puzzle? And furthermore, if morals are arrived at objectively and that our morality is constant (such as you previously claimed) , why do we not do this ourselves - why have our morality changed thus through the ages?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gurthang said:


> @*series0* You write "We emerge bits and pieces of objective morality by earning wisdom" - but surely our morality has gone through changes over time?


Our morality is not THE morality. The former is subjective delusion. The latter is objective truth.

Would you say that gravity has gone through changes over time? No. It is a and WAS a law of the universe. Our subjective understanding of that law has changed. The law NEVER did change.



Gurthang said:


> It was not more than some thousand years ago that i.e. the Romans considered rape to be a perfectly moral action as long as the person doing the raping was strong and did so from a position of domination. Slavery was common, and killing your slave if he or she refused his or her owner in any way was considered to be 'moral and just behavior'. How does this then fit into the puzzle? And furthermore, if morals are arrived at objectively and that our morality is constant (such as you previously claimed) , why do we not do this ourselves - why have our morality changed thus through the ages?


You misunderstood me and misrepresented me there. I never claimed we arrive at it objectively. We come to our understanding subjectively as I previously claimed. We NEVER arrive (also as I previously claimed). Perfection aiming IS NOT perfection expectation. You cannot seem to remove your bias even from reading my claims.

Again objective morality (moral truth) does not change, only our awareness of it changes.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

series0 said:


> Although socialization is a factor, choice is the real resting point for blame and accountability. If you stress socialization, you seem to be denying the role of being that person within the society / concentration camp who rises above the others. That rising is by choice.


Yup. Also argued that repeatedly. Like I said before, go read my posts before you patronize me about personal choice.



series0 said:


> And like most chaos apologists you DO NOT understand the real definition of condescension. I am challenging your ideas from a positive place of hope and wisdom. That intent CANNOT be condescension by the definition. Condescension requires that the person performing it feels and thinks they are more worthy than the target. That is literally what the term means. Explaining something is teaching, not condescension. If you want to say that my approach needs more tact and less arrogance, then that is possibly the case. You'll get less argument from me that way. But it is NOT condescension. For the record I genuinely believe everyone is equally worthy amid love.


Dude. You literally just condescended to me about what condescension was... and weren't even right.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> It was not more than some thousand years ago that i.e. the Romans considered rape to be a perfectly moral action as long as the person doing the raping was strong and did so from a position of domination. Slavery was common, and killing your slave if he or she refused his or her owner in any way was considered to be 'moral and just behavior'. How does this then fit into the puzzle? And furthermore, if morals are arrived at objectively and that our morality is constant (such as you previously claimed) , why do we not do this ourselves - why have our morality changed thus through the ages?


Dude, you're gunna love "Better Angels of Our Nature" if you haven't read it yet. :happy:


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

@series0 I do belive it to be a mistake to focus only on 'objective morality' when the question at hand was about 'our morality' (as in, all aspects of it).

If we should look at the definition:
_
morality
/məˈralɪti/

noun

-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

-a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
"a bourgeois morality"_

We see that it consists of more than objective morality (principles), there is also a subjective aspect (values).
Lawrence Kohlberg's model "Stages of Moral Development" (ref: https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html) appears to suggest the same, namely that morality is subjective up to the point where our understanding can transcend this subjectivity and arrive at the final stage which is based on principles.

This also ties into Plato's view that immoral behavior is based on ignorance of moral behavior (my interjection: and consequently also something which is unhealthy), which is the view I stand for and hinted at in some of my initial comments. 

Kohlberg's model summarized:


----------



## morgandollar (Feb 21, 2018)

I don't see it as being that black and white. Mental illness usually doesn't make people do bad things, but it definitely can in some cases, especially if the person turns to substance abuse. 

Also personality disorders, which cause a lot of people to act badly, are mental illnesses. Psychopathy and narcissism aren't something people choose, people with those conditions have a different brain structure, just like depressed people and schizophrenics.

I do believe that a small number of people are legitimately evil but I think only God can judge whether or not they are. I'm okay with using the term "unhealthy" to describe selfish and abusive people, as well as immature and ornery people.


----------



## morgandollar (Feb 21, 2018)

Sparky said:


> I have always wondered how certain people become "bad", and thought it might be due to upbringing, like abusive parents, lack of attention from parents when young, bullying, poverty and being looked down upon, or lack of proper role models. Now that I have gained some insights into Emotional Repressions and Emotional Directions, I feel like it's a combination of lack of proper role models or friends, emotional repressions, sexual repression, and poor Self- Emotional Direction, coupled with poor life choices, misguided direction, and not knowing how to act when faced with certain personal problems.


Not to sound all conservative and stuff, but I think a lot of it has to do with a lack of fathers (or masculine guardian figures in general).


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gurthang said:


> @*series0* I do belive it to be a mistake to focus only on 'objective morality' when the question at hand was about 'our morality' (as in, all aspects of it).
> 
> If we should look at the definition:
> _
> ...


I have posted Kphlberg myself. The thing is, you walked right into that one. There is no way to have 'stages' or measurement of any progress if morality is subjective, as I have already mentioned. You just do not understand so far what an actual subjective morality would be like. It would literally change from second to second, like whim can. It would have zero consistency. You could not depend on it culturally or over time or in any context. It never has and never will make any sense at all.

Kohlberg and I support OBJECTIVE morality, moral realism, within which opinions about morality do not matter to morality (truth) itself. You are talking around this point and not within it in terms of understanding.

I agree with Plato that immoral behavior is based SOMEWHAT on ignorance of moral behavior. That is because, again, as I have mentioned, it is not easy to ignore moral truth once you realize it exists. Further, when you do ignore it and realize it both, you suffer MORE the pangs of that immoral choice or choices. Kant was right. Deontological intent matters. If you are unaware of moral truth, you suffer less by forming uninformed intents that are otherwise well intended. Still, once you notice the consequences, you are then unable to form future intents in an uninformed way. At that point the same intents and results WILL cause more suffering.

The fact that newly informed intents WILL cause more suffering proves or helps to prove that morality is objective. It never lets up. It stays the same. Morality is a LAW OF THE UNIVERSE, like gravity. 

In fact, discussing subjective morality is delusional except to use it as I have to help to establish a justification for the existence of objective morality as a truth (again like Kant and Plato also). So, please, please, STOP talking about opinions as if they are equal. They are not. Between any two rival ideas on what is a good value, one is ALWAYS BETTER than the other. That is a fact. We are further morally bound (Kant's moral duty) to determine which one we believe is better.

But the concept of BETTER in terms of virtues is WRONG. One virtue IS NOT ... BETTER than another. All virtues are equal. It is only each person's interpretation of each of those virtues, what is the virtue, how it works, that is BETTER or worse than another person's rival interpretation. Note that BOTH interpretations are wrong. We are not perfect. But one of them is BETTER than the other. 

It is incumbent upon us all to STOP talking about subjective morality and start discussing what we believe objective morality is, so that we can determine which moral path is BETTER in each argument. If we keep giving the nonsensical notion of subjective morality credence, we are delaying the moral advancement of mankind. That itself is an immoral aim.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> Yup. Also argued that repeatedly. Like I said before, go read my posts before you patronize me about personal choice.


I have read your posts. And your inability to understand the proper definition of condescension casts doubt on your awareness in general. 



Whatexists said:


> Dude. You literally just condescended to me about what condescension was... and weren't even right.


i was right in my opinion and so we must merely agree to disagree.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

@Serie0

_" You just do not understand so far what an actual subjective morality would be like. It would literally change from second to second, like whim can. It would have zero consistency. You could not depend on it culturally or over time or in any context. It never has and never will make any sense at all."_

I think this analysis omits several things, first of all values. People would not change their morality on a whim, from second to second, any more than they would change their values on a whim, from second to second. Then there is also peer pressure and other social mechanisms like reward and punishment.

Why do you present it as either subjective or objective, when the case I presented is that it could very well be both subjective (values) and objective (principles). I think this is a misrepresentation , and I wonder whether you are trying to get to the bottom of this or simply 'win the argument' or confirm your own bias? I do think you should refrain from calling discussors of an opposing view delusional and claim they have immoral intent, as this does nothing to advance the discussion.

_"It is incumbent upon us all to STOP talking about subjective morality and start discussing what we believe objective morality is"_

How arrogant, like saying "Let us have a discussion, by the way I am right and you are wrong so you should stop talking". Nobody here have concluded that you are right, other than you - now this does not mean that you must be wrong, only that you could be. Perhaps you are right, but still wouldn't it be wise to adjust such attitudes and take up a more humble stance?


----------



## Abbaladon Arc V (Jan 16, 2018)

Bad ? 

Good ? 

Unhealthy ? 

Only concept not generality for me. 

Let's ENTP finish this thread


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

morgandollar said:


> Not to sound all conservative and stuff, but I think a lot of it has to do with a lack of fathers (or masculine guardian figures in general).


Wouldn't a father or father figure who was deeply sexist and racist but kind to his own children (or at least his male children) so his sons admired him and saught to emulate him (the way children usually do seek to emulate their parents) lead those children further in a not great direction then not having a father figure in the first place?


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> @series0 I do belive it to be a mistake to focus only on 'objective morality' when the question at hand was about 'our morality' (as in, all aspects of it).
> 
> If we should look at the definition:
> _
> ...


This is awesome. I've had a strong distaste for referring to morality as subjective for a long time because it puts too heavy a weight on individuals getting to decide what is right and wrong without reference to things outside themselves like other peoples opinions or principles. I was toying around with objective, which felt wrong for some reason I couldn't put my finger on but became clear when series0 explained exactly what his beliefs are regarding an objective morality. Morality isn't a law of the universe. It's man made. It's a knowledge or understanding we've accumulated. A set of skills we've developed. Ways of thinking and making decisions. 

This breakdown of the subjective and objective aspects of morality and ethics is what I've been looking for. Thank you for posting this. I couldn't agree with it more. I'm going to go edit my post a few pages back in which I talk about my view of morality to reference this post.


----------



## Gurthang (Aug 21, 2019)

Whatexists said:


> This is awesome. I've had a strong distaste for referring to morality as subjective for a long time because it puts too heavy a weight on individuals getting to decide what is right and wrong without reference to things outside themselves like other peoples opinions or principles. I was toying around with objective, which felt wrong for some reason I couldn't put my finger on but became clear when series0 explained exactly what his beliefs are regarding an objective morality. Morality isn't a law of the universe. It's man made. It's a knowledge or understanding we've accumulated. A set of skills we've developed. Ways of thinking and making decisions.
> 
> This breakdown of the subjective and objective aspects of morality and ethics is what I've been looking for. Thank you for posting this. I couldn't agree with it more. I'm going to go edit my post a few pages back in which I talk about my view of morality to reference this post.


Careful, what if I'm wrong?


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Gurthang said:


> Careful, what if I'm wrong?


Then I'll adjust my thinking when I encounter good arguments to the contrary. I used to believe a lot of things that I now know to be untrue. I learned that they were untrue by communicating them clearly and honestly and having them opposed with clear logical arguments. My stance on any giving subject is always subject to evolution and improvement. If this way of looking at things turns out to be wrong then I'll adjust my perspective. I'm constantly seeking a broader understanding that takes into account more alternate perspectives anyways. But at the current time this is a very accurate and articulate statement of how I currently do see things. So adjusting my earlier post, which was an attempt to define how I currently see things, to include this is something I can get behind. I'm not afraid of saying things that are wrong or being called out for being wrong. 

To be clear, I'm not changing my opinion to adopt your statements. I'm changing my representation of my opinion to adopt your statements because you said what I was trying to put my finger on very clearly.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

@Gurthang and @Whatexists - Perhaps it is my relating my perspective or delivery that is at issue. Maybe 'just some dude' on the internet is to objectionable. Is this guy the same to you? I am curious.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Quote Originally Posted by Gurthang View Post @Serie0
Name quote fail is why I did not respond until now.

" You just do not understand so far what an actual subjective morality would be like. It would literally change from second to second, like whim can. It would have zero consistency. You could not depend on it culturally or over time or in any context. It never has and never will make any sense at all."

Quote Originally Posted by Gurthang View Post
I think this analysis omits several things, first of all values. People would not change their morality on a whim, from second to second, any more than they would change their values on a whim, from second to second. Then there is also peer pressure and other social mechanisms like reward and punishment.
No, you are wrong. They WOULD if morality were subjective. It is not, so they don't. The REALLY RIDICULOUS thing is that you can't follow that argument. The only reason they can hold onto the firmness of truth and any moral aim IS PRECISELY BECAUSE that aim is NOT subjective cotton candy. It is objective and firm. 

Although I cannot overestimate the stupidity of mankind (and subjectivists) I can also explain that. Moral agency is an absolute value. Human are possessed of the highest absolute value of moral agency (that we know of). That means whereas animals run from -1 to 1; humans run from -27 to 27. So we have people closer to objective moral truth by far than any animal could be, and people who CHOOSE to be so rank in their evil that they are far far more evil than any animal could be also. Even so, and this is the takeaway, if morality were subjective (and it is not), then there would be a trend somewhere, in some society, visibly, obviously, amid all the cultures of today (and remember cultures can be small like Waco Texas or a Potlatch tribe in Canada), that relatively consistently held to darkly evil ideas like literally killing the children of adjoining cultures as often as possible as fun, as entertainment, as a moral crusade. They would declare that truth openly as GOOD, their subjective aim. But although we have largely hidden immorality, that sort of open cultural lighthearted evil is not there except amid actual clinical insanity. The reason this is true is that MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. It stability around a core set of ideals is not fundamentally debatable. ... Yet here you are debating. You cannot understand.

Your tendency to prefer SOME moral delusions is tempting you away from the courage to declare moral objectivism in principle and face moral duty. 



Gurthang said:


> Why do you present it as either subjective or objective, when the case I presented is that it could very well be both subjective (values) and objective (principles).


Because your division is delusional. Something is either objective (independent of observers, a truth) or subjective (dependent upon perspective, delusion). That is THE DEFINITION of those two terms. Your struggle to say otherwise is subjective delusion.



Gurthang said:


> I think this is a misrepresentation , and I wonder whether you are trying to get to the bottom of this or simply 'win the argument' or confirm your own bias? I do think you should refrain from calling discussors of an opposing view delusional and claim they have immoral intent, as this does nothing to advance the discussion.


This is an ad hominem insinuation, effectively. I am NOT trying to win. I am not a fan of enneatype 3 overexpression of that desire. I am trying to advance the cause of valid wisdom over delusion. Granted, we are both not perfect, so neither of us is finally correct. That does nothing to prevent one of our two sets of approaches in general from being BETTER. If I win, we both lose. I am not trying to win, singly. I am trying to win in the unified sense, where we both win, because TRUTH is respected. 

"It is incumbent upon us all to STOP talking about subjective morality and start discussing what we believe objective morality is"



Gurthang said:


> How arrogant, like saying "Let us have a discussion, by the way I am right and you are wrong so you should stop talking". Nobody here have concluded that you are right, other than you - now this does not mean that you must be wrong, only that you could be. Perhaps you are right, but still wouldn't it be wise to adjust such attitudes and take up a more humble stance?


I have made a case. I have explained it. I do declare that it makes more sense than your case. You have not really made many claims or much of a case. You are basically only saying, 'series0 you are arrogant and wrong'. That is not an argument. arrogance again, like condescention, is not being appropriately used. Arrogance REQUIRES --- BY DEFINITION that I have negative intent or immoral intent. Since morality is objective and I intend only to spread wisdom, the fact that you feel I am arrogant, or that everyone agrees incorrect with you on that point, IS NOT RELEVANT. Opinions do not matter. Truth does. I actually submit my arguments for all to see, the actual reasoning. That vulnerability is a humble presentation if humility is understood. The fact that I merely believe strongly what I say, because I have done my homework, is not arrogance, nor condescension. About it all, you and others are still wrong.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I can't edit the above post so I cannot fix the issue. Everything after 'you cannot understand' is not relevant. Really, that says most of what I needed to say.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

series0 said:


> I can't edit the above post so I cannot fix the issue. Everything after 'you cannot understand' is not relevant. Really, that says most of what I needed to say.


Here's the trick for you and everyone: 

Find your post that you want to edit - *right click* on the *edit post* button - *open in new tab*. Works 99% for me.

@*Whatexists*

I cannot help but to deduce that your OP was coming from an argument of able-ist. Was it?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> Here's the trick for you and everyone:
> 
> Find your post that you want to edit - *right click* on the *edit post* button - *open in new tab*. Works 99% for me.


Thanks for the idea. It did not work. The same issue is present.

So, I got one version of it to SORT OF work. It doesn't have proper uniform formatting as above. But at least it is a workaround.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Here's the trick for you and everyone:
> 
> Find your post that you want to edit - *right click* on the *edit post* button - *open in new tab*. Works 99% for me.
> 
> ...


First I have to clarify something. When you say able-ist, do you mean it in the way it's used in social justice contexts? As in, "Prejudice against disabled people" (wittingly or unwittingly)? That is the context in which I am familiar with that word. 

If so it wasn't intended to be. I'll have to consider the possibility that it was an able-ist perspective. My intent was to put forward that mental health issues are not primarily the cause of people mistreating others, being rude, taking advantage of others, etc. That people with mental health issues are not more likely to mistreat others then people without mental health issues. And that blaming the mistreatment of others on mental health issues is unfair to people with mental health issues. In other words, my intent was to challenge a set of unfounded but common beliefs that stigmatize people with mental health issues and protect people who mistreat others from accountability simultaneously. If that is able-ist then I would like to hear the argument for why as it would help me avoid able-ist actions and beliefs in the future.

If you mean something else by able-ist then please explain.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> First I have to clarify something. When you say able-ist, do you mean it in the way it's used in social justice contexts? As in, "Prejudice against disabled people" (wittingly or unwittingly)? That is the context in which I am familiar with that word.



My guess is that he does. Obviously as well, he is holding up a mirror to you or intending to.



Whatexists said:


> If so it wasn't intended to be. I'll have to consider the possibility that it was an able-ist perspective.



This was wisdom. You should have stopped the post here.




Whatexists said:


> My intent was to put forward that mental health issues are not primarily the cause of people mistreating others, being rude, taking advantage of others, etc.



Ok, so far so good. At this stage you have only rejected the _primacy _of this cause. I still disagree, but that is a small step only at this stage.




Whatexists said:


> That people with mental health issues are not more likely to mistreat others then people without mental health issues.



And here we see the expanding nature of the chaos apologist's argument style. You expand upon non primacy and now say unequivocally they 'are not more likely to mistreat others'. 

Yes, the mentally ill ARE more likely to mistreat others along a certain threshold of moral awareness. That is because their disability FUNCTIONALLY affects their moral awareness at a LOWER level. So you are not only wrong but wrong in multiple ways at the same time. Further, this IS NOT an ableist argument as I will show. This conflation is the SAME conflation that you have with respect to your misunderstanding of arrogance and condescension.



Whatexists said:


> And that blaming the mistreatment of others on mental health issues is unfair to people with mental health issues.



No, it is not.




Whatexists said:


> In other words, my intent was to challenge a set of unfounded but common beliefs that stigmatize people with mental health issues and protect people who mistreat others from accountability simultaneously. If that is able-ist then I would like to hear the argument for why as it would help me avoid able-ist actions and beliefs in the future.



Prepare to hear this same MORAL argument FOREVER, because morality is objective and this moral truth, its BETTER interpretation of moral truth, WILL NOT EVER CHANGE.

Explanation:

Chaos apologists conflate equality of worthiness with equality of function. This is also true for the negation, they conflate inequality of worthiness with inequality of function. Neither conflation is correct.

This means:
Worthiness can be respected and function expressed as lesser. That is morally possible.
Function can be greater and worthiness DOES NOT increase. That is moral truth.

Ergo:
The mentally challenged or disabled ARE morally functionally disabled often enough. E.G. You are wrong.
Moral health has many faces and one of those is physical health, including mental health. E.G. Your title proposition for the OP is wrong.

As well and to whit:
Ableism to be an accurate charge MUST propose the fundamental *unworthiness *of the target BECAUSE of their disability.
As long as that unworthiness is not contended, that label not applied, the person stating the target is *functionally *unable (mentally and thence possible morally) is merely CORRECT and not immoral.

This is the same conflation that immorally asserts that someone who is not contending the *unworthiness *of a target because of their poor argument is condescending or arrogant. That is because the challenge to those arguments is *functional*, not based on worthiness.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I'm convinced there are some people who have crossed a threshold beyond what most normal human beings can _fathom._

You can't fix someone who's malevolent and maliciously finds happiness in the sufferings of _others. _

They're the same as serial killers, but they do so in very subversive ways of what appears to be benign, and when added up all together, it collectively destroys the spirit of _everyone_ around them, the fate of humanity, and including the environment that shelters them. _That's what misery does best._

I agree, we shouldn't call these people unhealthy, but I disagree that they will ever change. They feed onto peoples' pains. They're _vile. To the bone._


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

strawberryLola said:


> I'm convinced there are some people who have crossed a threshold beyond what most normal human beings can _fathom._
> 
> You can't fix someone who's malevolent and maliciously finds happiness in the sufferings of _others. _
> 
> ...


Well, I disagree and will continue to try to change them. 

Can you not see that your final decision to judge them, permanently, is THE SAME error you accuse them of? It is the same along a different virtue. Because it is always true, that until they die, THEY CAN CHANGE, then, happily, you can change that wrong opinion as well. It is only THAT truth which allows for forgiveness.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

@contradictionary do you agree with series0's breakdown of my perspective? If so you should be aware that he makes a number of statements that are not supported by evidence and that the statistics on the issue contradict. I've sighted well regarded works of literature to contradict these statements in the past, the most important of which is likely, 'Trauma and Recovery', although 'Why Does He Do That' by Lundy Bancroft is also excellent and addresses the issue, as do many other works by well regarded authors. Since this has come up repeatedly I've asked some friends of mine who are experts in mental health if they can provide me with specific research I could link here for people to read to support what they've told me many times regarding mental health and it's relationship with moral reasoning.



> "Yes, the mentally ill ARE more likely to mistreat others along a certain threshold of moral awareness. That is because their disability FUNCTIONALLY affects their moral awareness at a LOWER level. So you are not only wrong but wrong in multiple ways at the same time. Further, this IS NOT an ableist argument as I will show. This conflation is the SAME conflation that you have with respect to your misunderstanding of arrogance and condescension."


This assertion is simply untrue. It flies in the face of every single expert opinion on the subject I've ever read or heard and all of the statistics on the issue I've seen. I'm working on getting statistics from good sources, as I stated above. I'll supply them when I have them. However, the two works I've supplied above do provide, together, a comprehensive coverage of the subject matter. For more information on the reasons people hurt other people, including how mental illness plays into it, I highly recommend, 'Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker. 



> "Chaos apologists conflate equality of worthiness with equality of function. This is also true for the negation, they conflate inequality of worthiness with inequality of function. Neither conflation is correct."


I don't conflate function with worthiness. I believe that worthiness, the value of human life, stems from something inherent to human life that cannot be alienated from a person. As such no physical or mental disability could impair it. Furthermore, and here I recognize that people will assume this is in contradiction to my OP do to my use of 'bad people' in that post and others, I don't believe that even people who commit profoundly evil acts cease to be human beings or lose their inherent value. The firmness of my belief that such people need to be held accountable stems from my knowledge that doing so is the most compassionate thing we can do for them and the first step to helping them change. 
@strawberryLola I hear you. Clearly, based on what I just said, I don't agree that they're vile to be bone and that there is no hope of changing them. But I do understand that perspective. And there may definitely be individuals who will not change as there are certainly individuals who do not change even when the most effective methods of helping people change are applied to them.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Whatexists, I appreciate your optimism in rehabilitating these people. There's a difference between delinquencies based on acts committed by social inequities- finding means for survival as the situation makes it hard for some people that they have no choice they’ve fallen through the cracks of society- those people truly have potential as the problem is _situational_.

But even some kids who have been raised in the most loving home environments end up harming people and society, as a whole. I’m convinced that the neurocircuitries of their brains make it so that empathy is unattainable, nor achievable. They don’t compute emotions like most people do, but do exhibit _cold empathy. _I also think social environments play a huge role on intrinsic impulses.

Do I feel sorry for people who vehemently harm others? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But feeling sorry and having hope for someone who consistently shows a lack of remorse or callous behavior and jeopardizes the safety and sanctities of basic universal human rights- it’s like trying to retrain a rabid viscous dog that notoriously attacks everyone at every cost. At what point should people risk endangering themselves at their own personal expense to show compassion and kindness when that kindness gets repeatedly violated? There has to be some kind of retribution for their actions. But I get what you’re saying also. Perhaps, social deviance can be drastically reduced when a system changes (the social environment) combined with intervening at the most critical points in a person’s stage of development that could positively improve outcome in the trajectories of their lives long-term. They key vantage points could mean the sooner the behavior is caught the better. 

It’s commonly said that it takes a village to raise a child, and I agree. Maybe we need a new way of re-framing how and what community means, social contracts and agreements, to help instill a sense of belonging, community engagement. I’m in the camp of nature intertwining with nurture (20/80) with nurture, a person’s environment mostly influencing nature upon their DNA.

And thank you for your thoughtful response. You asked a very poignant question especially in modern times where social isolation can exacerbate the problem inherent in a depersonalized and impersonal modern society.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

The quality of one's mental health has everything to do with the quality of one's thoughts and judgments.

One might approve the right values for the wrong reasons, like a broken clock can point at the right time for a fraction of a second. It depends on how the clock is broken and the situation.

Misbehaving is the result of having one fucked up mind that cannot put one's thoughts/reactions into proper order. That's what misbehaving is, an inconsistent set of reactions/ideas which result in self-destruction, whether that is through self-punishment or object-punishment.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Whatexists said:


> @*contradictionary* do you agree with series0's breakdown of my perspective? If so you should be aware that he makes a number of statements that are not supported by evidence and that the statistics on the issue contradict. I've sighted well regarded works of literature to contradict these statements in the past, the most important of which is likely, 'Trauma and Recovery', although 'Why Does He Do That' by Lundy Bancroft is also excellent and addresses the issue, as do many other works by well regarded authors. Since this has come up repeatedly I've asked some friends of mine who are experts in mental health if they can provide me with specific research I could link here for people to read to support what they've told me many times regarding mental health and it's relationship with moral reasoning.


Yes, firstly you already clarify that it (able-ist arguments) was unintentional at best, that's good enough for me. So let's glide past that.

Secondly, i know there are books, there are empirical theories, based on researches. Good to read stuffs. But they simply can't give you the actual wisdom to see beyond the superficial numbers and texts.

For example, I believe your OP might actually have quite "reasonably good" motivation in order to detach the bad behaviors from the health status. Well I gotta say you might have differentiate only at the facade, because there is no way "a happy, calm, focused, and well-adjusted" person who greet you with huge smile while at the same time backstabbing you, can be considered healthy. 

If you want to address the problem of "unhealthy" mental condition i think this is not the proper way to address it. A spade is a spade.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

I think youre misunderstanding what "unhealthy" entails. For example, when a 4 is being emotionally masochistic, that is an unhealthy 4. When a 9 is numbing out so much that they cant face the problems in their life, that is an unhealthy 9.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Yes, firstly you already clarify that it (able-ist arguments) was unintentional at best, that's good enough for me. So let's glide past that.
> 
> Secondly, i know there are books, there are empirical theories, based on researches. Good to read stuffs. But they simply can't give you the actual wisdom to see beyond the superficial numbers and texts.
> 
> ...


I wish what you are saying about how a person who can be happy, calm, focused, and well adjusted could never stab you in the back were true. But it is not. I highly recommend reading, "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft. It's about domestic abuse and how the mind of an abuser works. In short their problem is an ethical one, not a psychological one. This may be difficult to believe in our modern world in which an ever increasing percentage of us are developing good empathy and good compassion. In which cultural values of inclusion and respect have been more broadly taught then at any previous time in history. But even a cursory examination of history quickly comes up against the truth that for most of human history violence and cruelty were very basic parts of human life. I'd highly recommend reading, "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker for a very clear picture of violence in human history and how and why it is in decline. Perfectly healthy human beings are absolutely capable of horrifically mistreating other humans.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Hexcoder said:


> I think youre misunderstanding what "unhealthy" entails. For example, when a 4 is being emotionally masochistic, that is an unhealthy 4. When a 9 is numbing out so much that they cant face the problems in their life, that is an unhealthy 9.


Actually I do understand that. And in essence there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem comes when we start to generalize the phrase, 'unhealthy' and apply it to behavior that is not just self-destructive but also destructive to others or that takes advantage of others.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Whatexists said:


> Actually I do understand that. And in essence there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem comes when we start to generalize the phrase, 'unhealthy' and apply it to behavior that is not just self-destructive but also destructive to others or that takes advantage of others.


Yes, that's called toxic and unhealthy. I don't understand why you would think it should be called something different, there's nothing wrong with this terminology. And yes, there is something inherently wrong with it...it's destructive and consequential.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I think you’re both right, but agree with WhatExists that the term ‘unhealthy’ seems to be watering the behavior and it’s consequences down a bit. Toxic sounds more fitting but even that term doesn’t exemplify the amount of pain and damage inflicted upon others. I wouldn’t know how else to phrase it except abusive, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, cruel, psychopathic, lack of empathy, deflection, scapegoating, gaslighting... how does one provide a definition for that all into one word when it has so many destructive qualities? Even abusive doesn’t exemplify the degree of psychological manipulation, tactics, and diversion it creates. It’s so strategically done to strip away people’s sense of self and identity. Egoist, malignant, flagrant, grandiosity... even swear words can’t capture the degree of monstrosities when dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Whatexists said:


> Actually I do understand that. And in essence there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem comes when we start to generalize the phrase, 'unhealthy' and apply it to behavior that is not just self-destructive but also destructive to others or that takes advantage of others.


This is your essential delusion. You and I agree on a lot actually. Your comments on the fundamental and intrinsic nature of human worthiness are excellent and given your take on this matter I did not expect that.

But, no, these people you think do cruel things, and they do, are NOT healthy. They are not. They are unhealthy and they always were.

Your issue now I think stems from a delusional understanding of what morality is. It is objective. That means that back in the past when those horrific actions were more the norm, guess what ... morality still said they were not. Morality is NOT a social construct. It is a law of the universe. We were LESS moral back then. The only progress possible, indeed evolution's only purpose, is morality.

So, it may have been acceptable ethics to do those things back then because we had not yet emerged enough understanding of objective moral truth. Now it is less so. In the future, hopefully, it will be even less so. And many many books written in the past or even quite recently that come from a perspective of subjective morality are confused and say things that appeal to a subjectivist but are essentially morally insane or unhealthy to a moral realist. And the thing is you can see that there were exemplars of moral understanding (not subjectivists) all throughout history. So this concept WAS in existence back then and there were people touting insane subjectivism back then as well. Desire is a very tempting emotion. Image pandering is not going to help any of us earn wisdom though. We have to balance desire with anger and fear and that alone yields a BETTER path to objective wisdom.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

strawberryLola said:


> I think you’re both right, but agree with WhatExists that the term ‘unhealthy’ seems to be watering the behavior and it’s consequences down a bit. Toxic sounds more fitting but even that term doesn’t exemplify the amount of pain and damage inflicted upon others. I wouldn’t know how else to phrase it except abusive, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, cruel, psychopathic, lack of empathy, deflection, scapegoating, gaslighting... how does one provide a definition for that all into one word when it has so many destructive qualities? Even abusive doesn’t exemplify the degree of psychological manipulation, tactics, and diversion it creates. It’s so strategically done to strip away people’s sense of self and identity. Egoist, malignant, flagrant, grandiosity... even swear words can’t capture the degree of monstrosities when dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths.


Personally, having grown up with an abusive father and studied abuse a lot. I think "Abusive" is absolutely a fitting and accurate word. Not all abusers are the physically intimidating violent people media paints them to be. Some accomplish the same level of tyranny and control through emotional manipulation, gas-lighting, scapegoating, deflection, condescension, isolating their victims from their peers and loved ones, etc. And even the physically intimidating violent abusers who beat their victims on a regular basis tend to also use those tactics.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Hexcoder said:


> Yes, that's called toxic and unhealthy. I don't understand why you would think it should be called something different, there's nothing wrong with this terminology. And yes, there is something inherently wrong with it...it's destructive and consequential.


But what is wrong with hurting others is not typically a mental health issue, it's an ethical issue. For example, most perpetrators of mass violence and most abusive men don't have mental illnesses. They have ethical issues and empathy issues. But the solutions to these issues isn't therapy or mental health medicine. It's education and holding them accountable until they're forced to see the harm they cause. Calling them unhealthy directs people who are dealing with them to try to get them therapy. But therapy typically makes abusers abuse worse. It may help them be happier and better adjusted people, but it will also teach them tools that can be used to manipulate and abuse others and teaches them excuses to defend their behavior.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

strawberryLola said:


> I think you’re both right, but agree with WhatExists that the term ‘unhealthy’ seems to be watering the behavior and it’s consequences down a bit. Toxic sounds more fitting but even that term doesn’t exemplify the amount of pain and damage inflicted upon others. I wouldn’t know how else to phrase it except abusive, controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, cruel, psychopathic, lack of empathy, deflection, scapegoating, gaslighting... how does one provide a definition for that all into one word when it has so many destructive qualities? Even abusive doesn’t exemplify the degree of psychological manipulation, tactics, and diversion it creates. It’s so strategically done to strip away people’s sense of self and identity. Egoist, malignant, flagrant, grandiosity... even swear words can’t capture the degree of monstrosities when dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths.


I can't help but to think this still comes from a place of lack of understanding. Why are they "unhealthy" in the first place? Think about it. Often times unhealthy people don't know what they're doing, even. The clearest case I can think of off the top of my head is the abused who becomes an abuser (without knowing that what they're doing is abuse because they think it's normal). If people will do that with abuse, how much more will they do it with less severe unhealthy behaviors? Should people be demonized for having flaws? What you're describing is the extremes, not the majority...and yes, even personality disorders are considered being unhealthy. That's why they're listed as a _disorder_ in the first place.

When they have things going on on a neurological level...yes, that is "unhealthy"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.htm
literally...it's the very definition of it despite the fact that they do those things...

And what makes a toxic person want to do some of the other things you listed? You can usually trace it back to their past and find that they have a shitty history / environment and therefore are not healthy people.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Whatexists said:


> I wish what you are saying about how a person who can be happy, calm, focused, and well adjusted could never stab you in the back were true. But it is not. I highly recommend reading, "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft. It's about domestic abuse and how the mind of an abuser works. In short their problem is an ethical one, not a psychological one. This may be difficult to believe in our modern world in which an ever increasing percentage of us are developing good empathy and good compassion. In which cultural values of inclusion and respect have been more broadly taught then at any previous time in history. But even a cursory examination of history quickly comes up against the truth that for most of human history violence and cruelty were very basic parts of human life. I'd highly recommend reading, "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker for a very clear picture of violence in human history and how and why it is in decline. Perfectly healthy human beings are absolutely capable of horrifically mistreating other humans.


I am sorry but, again, I can't really follow your line of thinking.

About the books. "Why does he do that?", asked Lundy. Well, there must be so many reasons for nothing simply coming out of the blue, even for such controlling and abusive man. But why does she do the things that caused him do that? Well, nobody cares. And how about the controlling and abusive woman in the first place, is she only exist in fairy tale? Well, nobody cares either.









Pinker, to me he is a wishful thinker who didn't realize that many of us already learned how to lie with statistics in much more sophisticated way. He sell optimism about "peace and progression" that is coming from daddy government. Let him try though.
Chicken soups for the souls. Don't worry, be happy. :kitteh:


----------

