View Single Post
 
Old Dec 16, 2020, 02:21 PM
Yaowen's Avatar
Yaowen Yaowen is offline
Grand Magnate
 
Member Since: Jan 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 3,770
Dear rdgrad15,

I think I am similar to you in what you describe.

I tend to interpret this in a philosophical way. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that although we human beings are capable of self-reflection and deliberation, these often require some effort. Often we run on sort of "auto-pilot" so to speak.

Looking out is our default mode and probably this is so because it has a very important survival function. Looking inward is secondary. Perhaps that is why reflexive consciousness is so precious. It allows us to step back and view ourselves as though from the outside and allows us to deliberate about this and not just act automatically.

I think that human beings have freedom but that it is limited and finite. None of us are all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-perfect Infinite Beings. Often our freedom is constrained and impeded not only by external forces but internal ones too.

Often we exercise our freedom but not the whole of it. What I mean is that it is perhaps rare that we do things whole heartedly, with all our strength, effort, mind and will. Sometimes we are conflicted.

I am not saying these things prevent our freedom but they definitely limit it and prevent it from being infinite.

There is voluntariness and then there is "full" voluntariness. An infinite being would not face any limitations on voluntariness. Their freedom would not be impeded by ignorance, lack of awareness, limited information, lack of insight, fatigue and so on. Nor would an infinite being's voluntariness be limited by past experiences, blind spots, strong emotions, fear, and so on.

I notice that in legal matters, the main question tends to be: was there any freedom of will in this person. In moral matters, the question is often: how much freedom was involved here. Moralists ask questions about degrees of voluntariness and therefore degrees of responsibility.

I think a lot of stuff people do is done unconsciousness or barely consciously. Perhaps based on unhappy childhood experiences, a person might be very prone to be overly sensitive to rejection and might see it where it doesn't exist or doesn't fully exist. We might see it but they don't see it. You wrote about this in your post.

All of this leads me to be quite sparing when it comes to judging people. People are so complex and none of us has insight into the whole story of a person from the time they were born. Often we are not able to see clearly what comes from the full freedom of a person and what comes from freedom limited by various impediments.

I find it easier to say that a certain action is bad but not so easy to give a final pronouncement on the good or bad of a person in his entirety. I try to avoid that kind of judging if possible. I cannot see the heart of a person. The sage Lao Tzu has a saying: "I find good people good and I find bad people good if I am good enough."

As far as actions are concerned, I think that good and bad form a range or spectrum which admits of degrees. For example, there have been a couple of men in the last 100 years who caused the destruction of tens of millions of people through campaigns of genocide and forced starvation. I think here of Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao. Most human beings are not guilty of anything like this. Most of the moral failures we witness are far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from the moral failure of people like Hitler.

Things like nastiness, crudeness, and what you call "toxicity" form a range and spectrum too. I would say that in terms of "toxic" behavior, actions like those of Hitler who mandated genocide would be the ultimate of toxic action.

In moral philosophy there is a whole discipline devoted to the study of impediments to the full exercise of human freedom.

There is also something in logic called the fundamental attribution error: the tendency of people to under-estimate situational factors in the behavior of others and over-estimate situational factors in their own behavior. I guess an example of this would be if I said: I did this bad thing because I was stressed out and tired while this other person did this bad thing because he or she is a bad person.

In depression, sometimes this fundamental attribution error is reversed. Those afflicted with depression judge others in a kind of moral trial where there is judge, jury, prosecutor and team of defense attorneys so to speak. But when they judge themselves, they forget to have defense attorneys and only have judge, jury and prosecutor.

Of course none of these things is a valid response to the point you raised and it is quite possible I am wrong about these things as I am often wrong about things and am still growing in my knowledge, experience and insight.

Hopefully others here will have a better response to your post.

Sincerely yours, Yao Wen
Thanks for this!
rdgrad15