Is it really so bad to give in to hatred and black and white morality?

[YUPPIE]

I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.

But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.

[Stelio Kontos]

I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.

But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.

How come I knew OP would be behind this thread when I read the title mumbo jumbo?

[ErrandRunner]

I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.

But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.

Humans think they know truth, but what they "know" is only an interpretation of how they, other life forms and matter interact with reality.

[Teleros]

Is it really so bad to give in to hatred and black and white morality?

First, black and white morality is frankly the only way you're going to get a civilisation to function in the long run. Consider: is poisoning the village well a good or a bad thing? B&W morality leaves no wiggle room, but if you have shades of grey, then you could be in real trouble. What if I only put a little poison in the well? Just a drop, that's okay, right? Nobody will even notice. Well, if it's okay to put 1 drop in, what about 2 drops? Or 3? Or 4? And come on, even though Mrs Jones was a bit ill the next day there's no proof it was the 5 drops of poison I put in the well, maybe she just had a funny turn.

And on and on it goes. You can apply this to just about anything, be it usury ("lending at interest" is now "lending at too-high rates of interest"), age of consent, and more. If you allow for the possibility of a slippery slope, then sooner or later you'll find yourself sliding down one.

Second, "give in to hatred" is itself a moral statement - if we want to get back to our core assumptions, we must first discover whether hatred is good, bad, or something else - like context-dependent. Even in the Bible, hatred is not a sin in and of itself, and Aristotle too had a much more nuanced and frankly sane view than the modern "hate = bad" reaction that passes for thought today.

I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist

That rather depends on your starting assumptions. For example, I can use materialist assumptions to show that morality does not exist at all, or I can use Christian or Aristotelian ones to show that it most certainly does. Furthermore, even if B&W morality does not exist, you can still say something is better or worse than something else based on shades of grey morals.

It's so much easier and gratifying

Yeah, that just means you're human. We're not very good at logical thinking, but we're very good at rationalising whatever it is we happen to believe. As an exercise, pick something that gets you fired up, and just ask yourself "why?" over and over until you get stumped. Then, examine what you're left with and see how much sense it makes to you.

[P for Pancetta]

I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.

The dangerous mea culpa of the prerogativification of moral thought as described by the instigator is an indication of the utter besmirchment of the fractal commonality often found among the primogenitorial entities associated with the defining features of the psychoanalytical criterion governing the definition of irrational-antipathy. As such that to say as to what the designated characteristics of such things that truly govern antipathology are as the De Facto definition exemplified by the Machiavellian attitudes as pertained but not limited to the proto-vascularisation of the third movement of capricisitation is not to say.

But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.

EXCEPTION! Mindfulness of the primogenification is of utmost endangerement to the constipation and consideration of and but not as to the existence and proliferation of the status quo.

[AeneasBK]

Did the Architect from Matrix Reloaded drop by?

[Viconia]

Yes, it really is so bad. Just go throw an objective argument to Twitter and see how people of various ideologies strawman the fuck out of it because they can't see nuances in anything.

[Mayhem]

First, black and white morality is frankly the only way you're going to get a civilisation to function in the long run. Consider: is poisoning the village well a good or a bad thing? B&W morality leaves no wiggle room, but if you have shades of grey, then you could be in real trouble. What if I only put a little poison in the well? Just a drop, that's okay, right? Nobody will even notice. Well, if it's okay to put 1 drop in, what about 2 drops? Or 3? Or 4? And come on, even though Mrs Jones was a bit ill the next day there's no proof it was the 5 drops of poison I put in the well, maybe she just had a funny turn.

I guess you hate pesticides, medicine, and well almost everything because they poison the well just with a few drops.

Considering now that our civilization functions, what does that say about your statement?

[Teleros]

I guess you hate pesticides, medicine, and well almost everything because they poison the well just with a few drops.

Because clearly all poisons are equal .

2/10.

[Mayhem]

Because clearly all poisons are equal .

2/10.

That's a pretty grey area answer, huh, funny.

[Sunseeker]

How come I knew OP would be behind this thread when I read the title mumbo jumbo?

Eeeeyup, saw that one coming.

[shadowmouse]

but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.

Small problem. Check OP's post history and you will find that by his own words he has a lengthy list of mental health issues. With that out of the way ...

Guy, there is a reason for the meds and counseling you were getting. It is possibly "super satisfying" to you, but you are not viewing the world through a normal filter set.

[Adam Jensen]

Yes, because there's almost always nuance and in most ethical situations not everyone has all the information.

[YUPPIE]

Yes, because there's almost always nuance and in most ethical situations not everyone has all the information.

you seem to get it but I'm gonna ask you then:

like some guy makes an accident that troubles you. And it's legitimately an accident and he didn't mean to do it but it causes you a lot of hurt. Instead of seeing it this way and forgiving, isn't it more easy to just call him evil and hate him?

That's one tame example

[Adam Jensen]

you seem to get it but I'm gonna ask you then:

like some guy makes an accident that troubles you. And it's legitimately an accident and he didn't mean to do it but it causes you a lot of hurt. Instead of seeing it this way and forgiving, isn't it more easy to just call him evil and hate him?

That's one tame example

Easier doesn't mean right. Yes it's easier. But it's also wrong.

[Endus]

Moral relativism is a disease.

I'm sure you can therefore explain the one objectively "true" morality to us all, then, having solved a problem that philosophers have failed to achieve in literally thousands of years of study.

Note that you need to be able to explain that objectiveness to such a degree that we'll all agree that you're right, and it's a fact. Just declaring that you prefer a particular viewpoint yourself is just you describing your own subjective preference.

And that's the thing; you're not God, so your subjective preference doesn't mean anything outside of your own head. And everyone else has their own subjective outlooks. And without an objective touchstone to refer to, there's no way to establish any one subjective interpretation as "correct" and the others as "wrong".

And that's moral relativism. Basically, the recognition that other people's views have subjective validity too. That's it. Opposing it is like trying to argue that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the untopped pinnacle of filmmaking and everyone who disagrees with that is wrong. You're trying to force your subjective views on others who disagree, and you've got no objective basis for that.

[Adam Jensen]

How is it easier to hate someone instead of just acknowledging it was a screw up and moving on?

People are emotional and respond easier to that than they do logic and reasoning.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Yes, I'd say it's a bad thing to be a simpleton.
Being able to see nuances and not fly off the handle like those giving in to pure hatred and black or white-thinking is something to cherish.

[Rennadrel]

How come I knew OP would be behind this thread when I read the title mumbo jumbo?

Not to mention has changed their username 3 times at least in the last few hours.

[Grimbold21]

This just in: Anger and Hatred are easy and immature emotional responses. Stability is hard.

- - - Updated - - -

you seem to get it but I'm gonna ask you then:

like some guy makes an accident that troubles you. And it's legitimately an accident and he didn't mean to do it but it causes you a lot of hurt. Instead of seeing it this way and forgiving, isn't it more easy to just call him evil and hate him?

That's one tame example

Your scenario answers itself.

You don't even have to add the "accidental" part. If someone goes out of their way to insult or harm you, of course our most immediate response to defend ourselves. But set that aside for a moment and think: why would you succumb to the temptation of hating someone who derives some measure of pleasure from hurting someone else?