[Yaowen]

A lot of times I am quick to assume malice as the motivation for actions in myself or others when that is perhaps based on an impoverished understanding of human nature.

Many times I don't see things clearly because I lack deep insight into things. And the problem with insight is often that it cannot be forced. Just because I have need of it at a certain time and place does not mean I can just force it to occur. Just because I want that tomato to be ready eat doesn't mean I can force it to ripen on my own timetable.

Sometimes what I regard as malice is sometimes just ignorance. Person A needs certain information that he or she lacks at the moment. Or perhaps person A has the information but has not matured enough to integrate it into their life at a sufficiently deep and helpful level.

Perhaps I need to see freedom of will as not just an all-or-nothing proposition. Perhaps there is a range of values in freedom of will. I am not totally determined by things but neither do I have the infinite knowledge and freedom of an Infinite Being.

Perhaps I can exercise my freedom of will in actions without always exercising that freedom fully?

How often do I sit down and engage in a thorough deliberation process before acting?

How often is the "full" exercise of my freedom blocked by obstacles I see or do not see? Are strong emotions hindering not my freedom perhaps, but perhaps the full exercise of it. Is ignorance hindering me more than I would like to admit?

Are habits of mine, even habits acquired innocently blocking the full exercise of my freedom of choice? How about fears I am aware of and fears I am unaware of? Hidden or not so hidden desires?

Is the idea of coercion too narrowly construed? Are not certain psychological factors coercive in a sense. Perhaps they do not prevent my action from being free but perhaps they prevent my action from being fully free?

Is it malice that is the determining factor of an action or temporary powerlessness to do the good that I desire or the bad that I seek to avoid?

Is moral maturity less like an "on" and "off" switch and more like a ripening process? The tomato isn't ripe until it is. One cannot always force maturity any more than one can force insight.

Do I sometimes have the facts in mind but lack that "aha!' moment when they all come together in an sufficiently compelling insight?

Many factors go into a decision process and not just freedom of will. How often do I will something with all my heart, mind, being and strength without being influenced by anything, without being affected by my past, my situation, my circumstances?

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think I should "assume" malice in the absence of evidence? Even the law considers that a person can be responsible for something without being fully responsible. Is this moral insight or a cop out?

If I cannot see the full depth of myself how can I reach full understanding of another person to the point that I can make final pronouncements about that person like "ok, that person is good or ok, that person is just bad?"

Lacking infinite knowledge can I ever set myself up as a final judge of another person in the sense of saying: "ok, I know enough to not only say that this action was bad but that this person is totally and irredeemably bad?"

In the movie, "The Elephant Man" a physician in the movie after failing to achieve the results he desired and after failing to anticipate all the consequences of his actions . . . he asks himself . . . "am I a good person or a bad person?"

We don't usually like our bad qualities and often try to shift responsibility for them to outside forces. As a depressed person I am certainly more likely to see extenuating circumstances in the behavior of others while being mercilessly critical of my own behaviors?

When is seeing complexity and depth a virtue and not just a cop out? And are there not reasons to not just assume that an attitude is a cop out because of a flaw in character and pure malice? Perhaps the phenomena of "cop outs" are also complex.

Or perhaps I am just wrong about these things? Can anyone identify with this?

[downandlonely]

Thanks @Yaowen, I do identify with what you have said.

I agree that it is better not to assume malice, but ignorance. I personally have had to deal with a lot of ignorant people lately, and I do think it was how they were raised. They do not know better. I do try to educate when I can, but it's a daunting task.

[eskielover]

Great insight!!!!

I struggled with this in my marriage. He did so many things that hurt our marriage I thought with so much it had to be intentional. By the end it didn't matter whether it was intentional or not, I HAD ENOUGH. After I left those behaviors continued so I realized it had to be his own inability & not intentional malice.

I never believed in judging anyone as completely evil/bad because I always saw some redeeming factors in everyone.....but at the same time, certain behaviors do determine whether or not I will allow someone into my close inner friendship. I can be friendly without being good close friends & their behaviors don't have impact on me then.

tbh i find it hard to not assume malice, when i get hurt by someone, i take it personally and internalise it

[LiteraryLark]

[Mittrei]

Personally I go with my gut when things happens in understanding things. Because when I rationalize too much I forget to ,take my feelings into account and to address them properly. But in response to the "perpetrator", I try to act with compassion and I simplify things by thinking the nastier persons are those who are hurting the most.

[Mittrei]

I meant I go with my gut when I am trying to understand events, sorry

[Fuzzybear]

Originally Posted by willowtigger

tbh i find it hard to not assume malice, when i get hurt by someone, i take it personally and internalise it

idk if i even made sense, i might of made internalise up as a word idk

[eskielover]

Originally Posted by willowtigger

tbh i find it hard to not assume malice, when i get hurt by someone, i take it personally and internalise it

Makes perfect sense. The thing is that this kind of thinking creates an environment where people can feel like they have to walk on egg shells around you for fear you may take anything they say the wrong way. Makes relationships difficult

[downandlonely]

This is challenging for me being on the autism spectrum (undiagnosed but I'm pretty sure). I don't say things to intentionally hurt people, but I have trouble with social cues and am very direct. I like when people are direct with me, but a lot of neurotypical people (women especially) find me very rude and sometimes intentionally cruel. I have lost many friendships because of this.

[Werewoman]

Great insights! You are wise, I think. I would only worry when you stop questioning.

[Fuzzybear]

I completely agree with the above. I think it would be time to worry if you stop questioning.

I wonder if a few people who did not know me but who were very rude - and never changed that rudeness and judgmental attitude - were in fact on the autism spectrum. I think probably not. I think my gut is usually (not always) accurate as to who actually is malicious. I don't think anyone is only evil although some seem to have impoverished black and white thinking and project that and other ''flaws'' onto someone they don't even know. I have been on a few other places online and have seen this happening to others too. It also happened in the ''family'' of origin.

That ''family'' of origin were relentless in their abuse towards me.

(not about anyone on msf)

Originally Posted by eskielover

Makes perfect sense. The thing is that this kind of thinking creates an environment where people can feel like they have to walk on egg shells around you for fear you may take anything they say the wrong way. Makes relationships difficult

I don't want people to walk on eggshells around me

[WastingAsparagus]

Originally Posted by Yaowen

A lot of times I am quick to assume malice as the motivation for actions in myself or others when that is perhaps based on an impoverished understanding of human nature.

Many times I don't see things clearly because I lack deep insight into things. And the problem with insight is often that it cannot be forced. Just because I have need of it at a certain time and place does not mean I can just force it to occur. Just because I want that tomato to be ready eat doesn't mean I can force it to ripen on my own timetable.

Sometimes what I regard as malice is sometimes just ignorance. Person A needs certain information that he or she lacks at the moment. Or perhaps person A has the information but has not matured enough to integrate it into their life at a sufficiently deep and helpful level.

Perhaps I need to see freedom of will as not just an all-or-nothing proposition. Perhaps there is a range of values in freedom of will. I am not totally determined by things but neither do I have the infinite knowledge and freedom of an Infinite Being.

Perhaps I can exercise my freedom of will in actions without always exercising that freedom fully?

How often do I sit down and engage in a thorough deliberation process before acting?

How often is the "full" exercise of my freedom blocked by obstacles I see or do not see? Are strong emotions hindering not my freedom perhaps, but perhaps the full exercise of it. Is ignorance hindering me more than I would like to admit?

Are habits of mine, even habits acquired innocently blocking the full exercise of my freedom of choice? How about fears I am aware of and fears I am unaware of? Hidden or not so hidden desires?

Is the idea of coercion too narrowly construed? Are not certain psychological factors coercive in a sense. Perhaps they do not prevent my action from being free but perhaps they prevent my action from being fully free?

Is it malice that is the determining factor of an action or temporary powerlessness to do the good that I desire or the bad that I seek to avoid?

Is moral maturity less like an "on" and "off" switch and more like a ripening process? The tomato isn't ripe until it is. One cannot always force maturity any more than one can force insight.

Do I sometimes have the facts in mind but lack that "aha!' moment when they all come together in an sufficiently compelling insight?

Many factors go into a decision process and not just freedom of will. How often do I will something with all my heart, mind, being and strength without being influenced by anything, without being affected by my past, my situation, my circumstances?

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think I should "assume" malice in the absence of evidence? Even the law considers that a person can be responsible for something without being fully responsible. Is this moral insight or a cop out?

If I cannot see the full depth of myself how can I reach full understanding of another person to the point that I can make final pronouncements about that person like "ok, that person is good or ok, that person is just bad?"

Lacking infinite knowledge can I ever set myself up as a final judge of another person in the sense of saying: "ok, I know enough to not only say that this action was bad but that this person is totally and irredeemably bad?"

In the movie, "The Elephant Man" a physician in the movie after failing to achieve the results he desired and after failing to anticipate all the consequences of his actions . . . he asks himself . . . "am I a good person or a bad person?"

We don't usually like our bad qualities and often try to shift responsibility for them to outside forces. As a depressed person I am certainly more likely to see extenuating circumstances in the behavior of others while being mercilessly critical of my own behaviors?

When is seeing complexity and depth a virtue and not just a cop out? And are there not reasons to not just assume that an attitude is a cop out because of a flaw in character and pure malice? Perhaps the phenomena of "cop outs" are also complex.

Or perhaps I am just wrong about these things? Can anyone identify with this?

I like your way of thinking. I mean it's kind of an unanswerwable question to some extent. Because if we attribute characteristics to people such as, "they just have a character flaw," then there's no more thinking we can really do about this person (hypothetically). We have reached the end of the chain, so to speak.

But if we continue along the path of thinking and examining belief systems and how a person was raised, etc., etc., until we reach some foundational truth about people, then maybe it might be easier to think about people in a more positive light.

That, I think is responsible for a lot of social change. I mean, people didn't start by examining their core beliefs, (at least I think).

They started by just practicing the things that they were taught. And many still do that to this day. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. In a sense, we're just carrying on the behaviors taught to us.

But I think if we really want to effect social change, or any type of change, we must examine our inner core beliefs about things. It can lead us to some very unpopular opinions about things, or just more true beliefs in general, but I don't much find a whole lot of gain in having others approve of what I believe, these days at least. And it's not like I believe in crazy things, either. I just like having true beliefs ("true" is not meant to mean I'm right about everything here). Anyway, maybe that's some food for thought.

Does anyone on here feel like you have to walk on eggshells around me?

I learned to withdraw and shut down if anyone was being nasty, I don't lash out at others cause I learned willowtigger is a dirty scum bag and deserves to be bullied

[Fuzzybear]

Originally Posted by willowtigger

I learned to withdraw and shut down if anyone was being nasty, I don't lash out at others cause I learned willowtigger is a dirty scum bag and deserves to be bullied

Hey willowtigger,

I learnt those same things, that I deserved to be bullied and even that I was ''dirty''. Who taught those lessons? Someone, sometimes several/many people in our childhood.

The ''good'' thing is, those ''lessons'' are lies from toxic, poisonous people who didn't ''deserve'' to be teachers, parents, etc....

[Fuzzybear]

Originally Posted by willowtigger

Does anyone on here feel like you have to walk on eggshells around me?

I don't feel that way.

Have you read the book ''stop walking on eggshells''?

Originally Posted by Fuzzybear

I don't feel that way.

Have you read the book ''stop walking on eggshells''?

i'm not familiar with the book?

[marvin_pa]

Originally Posted by Yaowen

When is seeing complexity and depth a virtue and not just a cop out? And are there not reasons to not just assume that an attitude is a cop out because of a flaw in character and pure malice? Perhaps the phenomena of "cop outs" are also complex.
Or perhaps I am just wrong about these things? Can anyone identify with this?

I view seeing complexity and depth as definitely a virtue - gaining some insight as to the behavior and functioning of the people one comes into contact with, allows me to better understand and deal with them, along with ultimately better understanding how I act & react to such encounters.

To me, many (if not most) things fall into a spectrum - shades of gray, rather than pure black & white/right or wrong. I find this essential to dealing with both others and my own behavior, along with allowing my own & others perceived sins or wrongdoings to be handled with forgiveness & understanding. I don't view it as a cop-out, but more as educated fence-sitting.

I've dealt with bullying and discrimination at various points in my life & whilst I'll admit still having feelings of resentment to those that hurt me, this fence-sitting or seeing things from both sides has allowed me to deal with the scars in something of a manageable way and avoid fixated thinking & rumination.

[OafFish]

It's hard not to respond to hurt with hurt. To look for a reason and something to blame when you're hurt. Not everyone interacts with the world in the same way. I try to keep in mind that everyone has their own way of doing things and hurt isnt always on purpose

[AzulOscuro]

I don’t think either malice nor goodness exist. For me these are only moral concepts to try to named what is against or for the adaptation to social groups for the sake of its functioning.

As animals, we are born just like that animals. Are animals good or bad? No. They behave and do what it’s needed to go on living, to accomplish the nature purpose of the species perpetuation. That’s it.
Is a female praying mantis evil because during the intercourse with the male, that one beheads the male with the purpose of the death rattles his sexual member speed the production of his sperm.
Is the male good for that sacrificed?
They are working on a superior purpose. Reproduction and perpetuation of the specie.

A child is born with this same command. As beings with a developed brain from the first instant of our birth we are subjects of many changes, influences, outside strengths, models, etc. And this is what shaped the way we are gonna accomplish our main purpose.
It has been decided that the desirable way for us to get the main purpose is to cooperate with the group. That’s why we try to comply rules and laws we ourselves have given us.

Evil is considered the one who goes again this cooperation and conversely, a good person is the one who is considered to work for this cooperation.
But, again, these are only concepts we have created at the service of the great purpose.

I know it’s a cold view, but I can’t avoid to see this topic like this. It’s a personal view, of course and maybe simplistic and even wrong.
My two cents.

[OafFish]

Originally Posted by AzulOscuro

I don’t think either malice nor goodness exist. For me these are only moral concepts to try to named what is against or for the adaptation to social groups for the sake of its functioning.

People aren't bugs, people have intent and malice is the intent to do harm. There are people who do harm, not from a survival instinct or to follow some genetic mandate, but simply to hurt for the sake of hurting.
It's important to recognize these malicious intents in people so they can be defended against and avoided.

There are also people who can cause hurt from ignorance or thoughtless or carelessness, people who don't intend on hurting people but do anyway. These people can be taught and reasoned with and usually appreciate the opportunity to grow.

But malice is all too real

[downandlonely]

I also disagree that we are like animals (although I agree that because someone is murdered, it doesn't make them a good person). There may be complex reasons people kill, but if we say that there are no bad people, are you saying we shouldn't have a criminal justice system at all? And that people should be just allowed to harm and kill others with no consequences? That is the way they do it in the animal kingdom...