11 Sep 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziI didn't define hate. I merely assumed a commonsense definition. I think it is perfectly intelligible to say I hate Hitler. Moreover, "despise" can be taken as roughly equivalent to "hate a lot". If so, then "despise" implies "hate". But "hate" perhaps does convey more emotion than "despise", as you suggest. Still, under some circumstances, such as reading about what Hitler did to Jews, I think I could get worked up enough to "hate" him, in your reading.
only if you stick to your definition of hate. i say you only despise hitler.
hate implies a spenditure of energy and a rise in blood pressure that is unnecessary. we should all strive to eliminate this kind of hate.
But bracket that for a moment. Is hate bad only because it involves the inefficient use of energy and needless elevation of arousal? Is hate bad only had because it damages the hater? That seems more like a pragmatic drawback than a moral defect.
If something is hateful, is hate of it nonetheless moral, despite being personally uncomfortable?
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReally?
No, I didn't. Eating faeces is also not very constructive but I have no moral objections to it.
So, if you learned that your daughter was going out with a poo-eater, you would merely conclude that he should adopt a more constructive approach to nutrition, but was otherwise a man of unblemished character?
But okay, I am happy to understand constructive in a purely utilitarian sense.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggI'd have to get a daughter first, and I don't intend to ever have any children.
Really?
So, if you learned that your daughter was going out with a poo-eater, you would merely conclude that he should adopt a more constructive approach to nutrition, but was otherwise a man of unblemished character?
But okay, I am happy to understand constructive in a purely utilitarian sense.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by WajomaYes. Whereas fear might primarily promote defensive measures, hate might primarily promote offensive measures.
Not necessarily, one may simply become subservient, by shutting down ones emotions or they might use hate to spur them to action. You need not fear your shackles but you may hate them and those that force them on you.
Again, if the target was hateful, that might be useful, for example, for eliminating or disabling the target, and ridding the world of what was hateful.
11 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by IshDaGeggOoops, try again in a sec
Yes. Whereas fear might primarily promote defensive measures, hate might primarily promote offensive measures.
Again, if the target was hateful, that might be useful, for example, for eliminating or disabling the target, and ridding the world of what was hateful.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggAnd also, *sustained* offensive measures.
Yes. Whereas fear might primarily promote defensive measures, hate might primarily promote offensive measures.
Again, if the target was hateful, that might be useful, for example, for eliminating or disabling the target, and ridding the world of what was hateful.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggIf the target were hateful for the wrong reasons?
Yes. Whereas fear might primarily promote defensive measures, hate might primarily promote offensive measures.
Again, if the target was hateful, that might be useful, for example, for eliminating or disabling the target, and ridding the world of what was hateful.
But if the target were hateful for the right reasons you would eliminate the target?
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggNotions of reason, like morality, evolved from a different part of the brain at different times than emotional responses like hate. Hate has been a useful emotion to have in certain environments over time. Acting morally has also been useful, although probably in very different sorts of environments.
Is it always morally wrong to hate?
Or is it only morally wrong to hate what is lovable?
Should one hate what is hateful, as well as love what is lovable?
Indeed, is it morally remiss not to hate, but to love, what is hateful, just as it is morally remiss not to love, but to hate, what is lovable?
Furthermore, are only people who hate what is l ...[text shortened]... red too? It seems to me that liberals believe mostly the first, conservatives mostly the second.
But again, morals are a collective societal "handshake" -- this is morally right, right? Right. We all agree. That makes a thing moral. If the society says, "It is morally wrong to hate," then we individually have to decide whether we buy into that or become "secret dissenters." If we are discovered, we could become "moral outcasts."
And we might hate that...
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by WajomaIt's not in dispute that its wrong to hate what is lovable, which I think is what often happens when someone hates for the wrong reasons.
If the target were hateful for the wrong reasons?
But if the target were hateful for the right reasons you would eliminate the target?
However, someone could still hate what is genuinely hateful for the wrong reasons. For example, I might hate X because I think he's a murderer when in fact I should hate him because he is a rapist. But such cases are not really relevant, right?
The hateful target doesn't always have to be eliminated. Sometimes you have to put up with the hateful for pragmatic reasons; and sometimes there would be reasons why it would, on balance, worse to eliminate the hateful than not to. But sometimes, elimination is the right option. In such cases, it strikes me that hate could be adaptive is bringing that option about.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I agree with all you've said. Much of it generalizes beyond hate.
Notions of reason, like morality, evolved from a different part of the brain at different times than emotional responses like hate. Hate has been a useful emotion to have in certain environments over time. Acting morally has also been useful, although probably in very different sorts of environments.
But again, morals are a collective societal "hand ...[text shortened]... s." If we are discovered, we could become "moral outcasts."
And we might hate that...
11 Sep 10
1 edit
I just want to point out the possibly gigantic implications, of hate being the appropriate moral response to what is hateful, being true.
Jesus said "love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you".
Let's assume he was issuing a moral injunction, and not merely issuing pragmatic advice.
Let's further assume he meant this statement to apply universally, and not merely generally.
Then, if hate is at least sometimes the appropriate moral response to what is hateful, and if people in general and your enemies in particular can sometimes be hateful, then Jesus was making a false moral assertion, since love is incompatible with hate.
But God, being omniscient, wouldn't make a false moral assertion. Hence, Jesus was not God. Hence, Christianity is wrong. Hence, millions of people are, and have been, laboring under a delusion.
Lucifershammer?