Antithesis of Morality in the 21 Century
I find it quite disturbing that in the 21 century you have a total antithesis of morality, 2 sets of moralities living together and nobody really cares about it. Well it's actually a set of morality and a set of immorality, both coexisting, which is a big problem.
- On one hand you have a civilized moral society with 21 century values, especially since the advent of the Internet, people are more connected, more empathetic than ever, more friendly. I mean if you just ask somebody on the streets, they will be glad to help you. So people are much much more empathetic than ever before. So on one hand you have a moral society with empathy.
- On the other hand you have a disgusting bronze-age primitive society, where
rule by forceis applied, with primitive and barbaric methods frequently used such as violence, torture and even murder.
And the great irony is that the first kind of society doesn't really interact with the second one. Or quite ignores it. In some cases many people are outraged by the violence committed in the second part of society, but can do quite little about it.
I don't really know the artistic description how you can describe it, I think it's called grotesque, two sets of directly opposing ideas, living together, and nobody cares about the cognitive dissonance of it.
Like how the Nazi Concentration Camp guard, at his "job" his committed all those atrocities, unimaginable ones.... Then he went home, and was a loving father, who loved dogs, loved playing with his kids and loved his wife.
It's like people live in Schizophrenia. One side of them is an evil monster, and the other side is a loving person.
It's like: "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde"
The monster living inside every person, some people totally overtaken by it, but even if they aren't, people around them behave like monsters, and everyone just ignores that.
Like if your father is a riot police officer, how can you support that? He literally beats the shit out of people for a living, and he is proud of that. Beating up people who are just out there protesting for a just cause, isn't that democracy, hearing out the wishes of the people?
So it's very disgusting to see this. I know I know, it has always been like this. Society with a Government has always been violent, just look at history and past wars and atrocities.
But now it's more obvious than ever. I mean 90% of the people are good for the most part. But the other 10% do more harm than the rest of them combined.
And how it possible that the 90% is doing nothing from stopping the other 10% of doing harm. In a democracy, they would be stopped. But not in this system.
So the more empathetic and civilized 1 side of society becomes, the more violent and tyrannical the government employees become. It's ironic and grotesque.
Chomsky explained it very well, Government can only control people by violence, that is where they are strong, with their tanks and nukes. They are weak on empathy, they literally have no empathy, so they can't lead by example:
So it is in their best interest to keep the violent system alive, but it is in our best interest to remove violence from society.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
On one hand you have a civilized moral society with 21 century values, especially since the advent of the Internet, people are more connected, more empathetic than ever, more friendly. I mean if you just ask somebody on the streets, they will be glad to help you. So people are much much more empathetic than ever before. So on one hand you have a moral society with empathy.
I don't agree with you .
Since internet and everything relatively new like cars, electricity , etc.... we have never been so disconected from other people,
And the 21century values its a total invention. the humans help themselves since prehistory if they don't helped each others the Humanity would never have survived. And at the moment we have never been so individualistic.
If i can council you a good book about interaction between people, a book that everyone must read one time in his life and sooner the better is :
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - Pierre Kropotkine
Here is a detailed response, I am not talking about you in the article, but I am just debunking this flawed mindset, so don't get insulted, no offense is meant:
Are you sure about that, because there are 2 kinds of connections in a society:
Beacause I think the "good old days" are very overlooked, the amount of violence in the past was exponentially higher, than what we have now, even with all the police brutality and things like that.
So we haven't been disconnected from eachother, we have just lost the coercive ties to eachother.
The American constitution and form of government was founded on the idea that the population followed the 10 Commandments and they did not need a government gun pointed at them in order for them to do the right thing. They had developed a finely honed conscience that prevented them from sinning and doing evil to their neighbors. We are talking about the majority of citizens since there is always a bad apple in the barrel. Without the 10 Commandments as our guide expect to see more government telling you what to do until we are completely enslaved. If you want freedom be an advocate for Christianity and you will experience more freedom not less.
The less Christianity in our society the more we will be enslaved by government and the evil people who will be allowed to run it because of our lack of Christianity.
Without Christianity running our lives we are doomed to end up in slavery!
So what if violence is the only way an individual feels they themselves can be kept in line?
I've spent the past year trying to better understand people that disagree with me. Namely conservatives. One in particular that speaks fondly of "Unkle Adolf".
I've found that, from a point of understanding their thought processes, you really do have to look at them as another kind of human. Not sub-human, that just exacerbates the communication problem, but a different type of human. The same is true for both sides (all sides?)
So where you call it grotesque, these people can't understand how you could take such a weak stance that would never work. Not only what they've been taught, but their life and the experiences therein have molded a mind that feels violence is the only way.
I'll stop short of saying they're possibly right, but I feel certain there are elements of how they think that are the best answer. And there are elements how you think that are wrong, or inefficient to your goal.
I vote for thoughtful understanding before we start labeling people grotesque.
You make a good point about looking at everyone as equal humans and avoiding labels.
However, note that @profitgenerator is labeling the situation as grotesque, not the people. So I believe part of the point it valid: some mindsets are indeed worthy of revulsion... people aren't "evil" (nor "good"), but some ideas might be.
Fair point, but calling the situation grotesque still implies that we're right and they're wrong, even if they're "wrong" because of a misunderstanding.
Though some situations are cut-and-dry, with numbers to back them up, a lot of political issues are more nuanced. There are factors that can be difficult to comprehend the consequences of, and I for one can't claim to know enough about how every aspect of government and politics work to be certain I have the best stance possible. We work with the information we're given, but that information can be corrupted no matter what side you're on.
Certainly politicians who work for their donors are circumventing democracy, which is hard to argue for, but the idea that politicians do so is based on the assumption that they get donations to work for companies rather than companies donate because that politician's philosophies happen to align with their interests.
We're not mind readers. We don't know the whole story. We think we're right, and we should take action to move forward with what we believe is right, but that shouldn't give us permission to dismiss the other opinion outright which all too often happens.
You may have heard of the moral dilemma where pushing one heavy man in front of a train will save the hundreds of passengers. If you break down the thought process to "I will push this fat man in front of a train" then it sounds repulsive. But when you consider the lives saved your position would hopefully be altered a bit.
There are a lot of people commenting without asking why. Speculation is a fine starting point, but we should be better about going deeper before making a verdict.
Very informative , awesome post Aloha Al