I can't talk about such people with admiration. Is that what you think I should have done?
On the same day, you also said role models are quite useful in steering our lives.
Did it have to be on a different day?
Can't we say that these poor people who operate on the basis of intimidation and fear have not had exposure to other modes of human interactions?
We could.
Then, can't we further say that they have become what they are as the inevitable result of the environment?
Do you want to say that it is not their fault?
Especially, if we take into account that they had no choice over their environment.
Suppose you are born into a family of mafia, and you grow up in a culture which allows murdering your enemies. Does that make you less of a criminal when you do commit a murder?
Why have you chosen an example that makes the matter more complicated? You know, murder has two aspects, legal and moral.
Anything that involves law comes with morality. Most of the laws have been put in place long before we were born, and hence, we have not explicitly agreed to all of them. However, it is a kind of a contract we have with the communities and the states that we live in. It would be immoral to breach any contract that you have made.
What about a law that prohibits jaywalking? I know that total defiance of red lights is your favorite pastime.
All right, let's exclude misdemeanors from our discussion. Back to the child of a mafia who has committed a murder, would the childhood environment be a good argument for a lighter sentence?
I think it would. The murderer did not have any choice over which family to be born into.
We have to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise we can put the blame on the environment whenever we do something wrong.
It will be difficult to say where that is, for example, in cases such as being trapped at high altitude after a plane crash. The living passengers of Uruguayan Air Force flight 571 resorted to cannibalism of the dead ones in order to survive.
We should focus on the particular case that you mentioned at the outset. Namely, if people act mainly by intimidation and fear, because they do not have been in any other environment, should they be forgiven for their behavior?
I think they should be.
What if they think such culture is the best in the whole wide world?
Ahem, I know what you are getting at! Let me remind you that they have not been exposed to other ways of life. That is why they cannot act differently, and that is also why they can believe that their culture is by far the very best.
I know that their morality is none of my business. What is my business is with whom I mingle. I would like to keep interactions with such people to a minimum.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
But they do! I let them be, so that they would let me be, but they don't. They take offense in the approach.
Well, you can't do anything about that one. As grown-ups, we should respect each others' preferences without being judgmental.
Ah, no such sweeping statements, please. What are you going to do with people who have certain preferences in the area of gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, and so on?
My point is that you may judge their ideas, but that should not be reflected in how you treat them.
My dear comrade, I have long ago made clear that I try to be nice to every human being. If I am nicer to someone, that is because I know her/him better than others and that gives me many more opportunities to be so. That does not prevent me from saying that I want to stay away from people whom I consider puerile.
You are judging people based on your own notion of maturity, but they may have a different idea about it.
We're going in circles! Difference in the notion of maturity is precisely why I have problems. They cannot be considered mature in my world, and I want little to do with them. In other words, their concept of maturity allows them to behave in the way I can hardly tolerate. To make matters worse, they are not mature enough to understand why I take issues with their ways of life.
It looks like there is no solution that would make everyone happy.
I take your statement as an endorsement of my strategy vis-à-vis intimidation and fear.
I think the problem is that you can't hide your feelings. They are written all over your face.
You seem to advocate a version of tolerance that comes close to forgiving. But have you ever thought why it is easier to forgive children?
That's because we know that they have insufficient experience and intelligence for better judgments.
Have you ever realized that to view your enemies as children is the best way to forgive them peacefully?
To think that they are limited in their capacity?
Yes. And, did you know that you can judge someone as limited only if you are less limited?
Put differently, if you think your enemies are a rank or more lower than you are as human beings, you can forgive them most easily?
It amounts to that. And, that is why I have to hold the intimidation-and-fear bunch in contempt. It's all about forgiving, you see.
I told you that you shouldn't be judgmental!
If I am to forgive their behavior because they did not have any choice over which environment to live in, we are admitting that environment has enormous power to mold who we are.
Correct.
That, in turn, means that the intimidation-and-fear environment is trying to pull me in with the great force that it has applied to others.
I guess you can say that.
The pull is so powerful that they could not resist it. Or alternatively, we could say that they were sucked in before they could even think of resisting. I, on the other hand, am aware of the force, thanks to my culturally méli-mélo upbringing, and wish to fight it. In order to do so, I need to put up a tall and thick barrier against that tide.
Let me guess, the barrier is called 'contempt'... No, no, you should put your hand down. I'm not sure if this is an occasion for high-five.
Why not? I proved the very necessity of not-so-pretty feelings on the grounds of protecting my own lofty morality!
Posts
