Before becoming a rabbi, I owned a registered investment advisory firm in Portland, Oregon. I counseled clients on one of their most valuable assets: money. To do this job well, the advisor must gain each client's trust. Trust does not come easily to any human being, and this is particularly true when it involves someone’s hard-earned life savings. They need to feel that you truly understand them as a unique individual, not just a number or another item on a list of clients.
Let me explain how I understand group judgmentalism - and groups of human beings in general.
Whenever we judge people by their group instead of individually we are wrong to do so. The reason is because people in groups are not all the same. Therefore, we are not judging based on truth. More typically, we are judging based on stereotypes of people in the group. Group judgmentalism is always wrong no matter how the group is put together.
We are going to put people in groups, but it is the judging part that is harmful. "All white people are racist" is a group judgment that is itself racist - and cannot possibly be truth. Group judgmentalism is never good for society or human relations.
We also cannot judge groups of people when they are members of the group of their own free will.
Let's take something like a group of Christians. Are they all good people or bad people based on their group? No one could possibly say with certainty one way or another. It is almost certain that there are good and bad people in every group therefore a group judgment that all Christians are bad is wrong - even though they chose to be Christians.
Group judgmentalism of individuals is wrong - period. Judge every individual by their unique individual character and not by any group characteristic.
Lastly, it is important to remember that group judgmentalism in this context only applies to individuals in the group, not the group entity itself. A group as an entity is also not defined completely by a minority of members of the group since every group of human beings will have bad people in it. Groups are defined by the primary purpose of the group.
If an individual chooses to be in a group, say a person becomes a member of a church -- then that is an individual act of that person. If a person is aware of that churches history -- say it has a history of bigotry toward black people, like the Mormon Church -- then a person is responsible for choosing to express fealty and reverence to a group that has a history of a particular behavior. Let’s say the church decides to do some horrible things, say like Jim Jones’ cult -- members of the group that don’t condemn that group, that continue show allegiance to that group, should be judged for their allegiance, even if they specifically were not responsible for those things. If a person is a member of a gang, and they hang out with the gang members and express respect to the gang members, and show deference to gang leaders, but they themselves do not commit any crimes, they should not be judged for those specific crimes, but they should be judged for allying themselves with that group. It is an expression of a person’s character, and potentially personality, what groups they fraternize with. We absolutely should be judged by the people we choose to be loyal to and respect. It would be wrong and foolish not to judge people by the groups they choose.
If I meet someone and they tell me they regularly go to Klan meetings and burn crosses, but that they love black people, I can guarantee you they are going to be judged by me in a *negative* way because of their membership in the Klan and if you tell me that is wrong, I’m going to judge you *negatively* for telling me it is wrong.
Group judgements are wrong when they are about superficial traits that don’t have any logical relationship to a person’s character or personality, such as race. And they are additionally only wrong if they are bigoted--in the sense they do not change even after we learn more data about the person that challenges any prejudices.
We all have prejudices about people based on generalized groups they belong to and the experiences and data we have been exposed to. And these prejudices are *sometimes* a necessary and efficient heuristic (although also sometimes widely inaccurate) for making decisions that can often be very helpful for our safety. For example-- I am more likely to walk across the street at night in a sketchy neighborhood when I see a male walking toward me than a woman. If I see it is 4 males, it even increases more than if it is 4 females. That’s because I have a prejudice towards males regarding their likelihood of violence in sketchy places at night. That is a good prejudice to have; it can keep me from being mugged or worse. If those males feel offended by me avoiding them, they are at best naive about dangers. If I were to run into those males in the daytime and they turned out all to be awesome people after spending hours with them, and then I see them at night again, I wouldn’t avoid them. My prejudice is not bigotry.
If you were to tell me that I was wrong for crossing the street to avoid the males but not females, I’d call you an idiot and say your judgement of my behavior and prejudice was wrong.
Bigotry toward people because of a group they belong to is when our judgements don’t change about individuals despite new information about them that *should* invalidate our judgements if we were reasonable. Learning that the Klanman plays tennis with black people every weekend and is super respectful will not change my fundamental suspicion and dislike of him-- that’s not bigotry because the information isn’t strong enough to outweigh the fact that he hangs out with Klansmen burning crosses, a group that has a history of killing and terrorizing black people. Spending a few hours learning that the men at night who I avoided were all local college students at Berkeley who loved cats, and who spent their nights competing in programming tournaments and their weekends watching anime and discussing ethics would change my opinion of them such that I don’t avoid them in sketchy neighborhoods if I identify them. But if I can’t, cuz it’s too dark, well, I’m going to fall back to my *accurate-ish* prejudice about males. That is *wise*. Encouraging people to be fools is wrong. Well, unless, for example, we are spies and in a righteous war and we are encouraging our enemies to be fools to defeat them.
“Group judgementalism” is sometimes good for society, human relations, and the individuals doing the judging.
A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.
In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance.
Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.
I agree that we need to be tolerant of the intolerant in order to have a dialogue with them as Daryl Davis discovered. Daryl was able to demonstrate to KKK members that he was as human as they are by his unique individuality and not by any group membership. This is why judging by individual identity is so important.
Healing human relationships, especially after the bloodiest human century in history - the 20th, is the highest calling a human being can have. Throughout history there have always been people who want to divide and hate other people who are not part of their group. The healers have been rare - but we need more of them.
It’s unfortunate that the voluntary groups that have been among the worst about “dividing and hating other people who are not part of their group” throughout history, such as most major religions, specifically for stupid reasons, continue to attract and retain followers and apologists.
Daryl, didn’t simply “heal human relationships”, he also destroyed them, particularly the relationships between some klansmen. And also part of the transformation the klansmen took was them *renouncing the group they were once part of*. The ex-klansmen ended up “hating” the klan.
Sometimes, “the highest calling” can be the severing of toxic, abusive, or tyrannical relationships--and trying to heal them would be evil.
“Hate” is a fundamental human class of emotion, and there is no way to eliminate it--and it is sometimes right to express it. You revealed it in your comment referring to a people “who want to divide and hate other people”, juxtaposing them and their behavior with what you revere as the “highest human calling”, which appears to also be, probably not coincidentally, what you believe you are engaged in yourself—quite the high(est) opinion of your activity you have.
The doublethink is strong with you. Tell us, how low do you think it is to want to “divide and hate other people?” What do you think is the “lowest calling”? And explain how a person’s calling can be “the highest” and simultaneously this statement of yours can hold: “ Neither human being is better than the other or has more value. There is no hierarchy. “.
The word “higher” automatically creates a hierarchy conceptually—there can be no “high” without a “low”.
And if you are ascribing ethical judgements of peoples’ behavior and orientation as being “high” you are going to be projecting a hierarchy of value. Humans who are conceived as fulfilling “higher callings” are going to be perceived as being more praiseworthy than humans who are conceived as fulfilling “lower callings”. The term “sage”, for example is a title of *high* honor. People consider sages “wise”, and they are praised for it; they are revered. Other people though aren’t given such a title and they aren’t revered. That behavior--of revering some people and not others as “moral leaders” or “sages”--is one expression of moral hierarchy. Another is when religious groups assign titles to people such as “Father”, “Pastor”, “Rabbi”, or “Captain of the Sea Organization” (Scientology). Moral hierarchy is part of the human psyche, and no amount of bullshit or doublethink can transcend it. It can only alter where stuff is in a person’s moral hierarchy or obfuscate awareness of it for people. I think such obfuscation is harmful to the ethical development of humanity. A clear example of the dangers of the obfuscation of moral hierarchy through bullshit is communist revolutions.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
Huh? So you're saying the Rabbi's philosophy is not valid because it might make a former Klansman hate the Klan? And you're accusing HIM of doubespeak?
“A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.”
The judgements I discussed all took context into consideration, regardless of how quick or not they were. Most of ethics is extremely context sensitive, which is why it is often the case that neat principles and generalities are wrong when applied to the messiness of life.
“In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance. “
Walking in a sketchy neighborhood at night is no different than walking during the day with regard to attention to nuance, but rather the data we have access to. In the midst of the chaos of war a person isn’t granted a lapse in a consideration of nuance when making life and death decisions. An emergency room doctor shouldn’t abandon a consideration of nuance.
And of course, as you acknowledge, some of the choices I describe are in “calmer” situations -- such as the Klansman who I meet: there is no clear and present danger. Even after learning the klansman plays that tennis, it could be in the context he isn’t even around: it wouldn’t alter my judgement.
“Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. “
Jesus wasn’t a “sage”; he was a lunatic. According to the fictionalized records we have, the gospels, he claimed a world changing tribulation was going to come in his generation and that a god was going to come to his aid and overthrow the Roman Empire on his behalf and place him as king of the Jews. And he declared that everyone who didn’t follow him or the god he believed in was going to be violently punished. Jesus despised those who opposed him. He thought they deserved violent punishment. He talked about “loving enemies” in one moment and throwing his enemies in a fire in another. Lunatic--not sage.
“The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.”
I know of Daryl Davis. I appreciate what he has done with Klansmen. But the notion that he hasn’t judged those Klan members in a negative way is erroneous. He wouldn’t be helping “them see differently” if he didn’t think they were seeing wrong in the first place. The fact that he even decides to spend time with Klansmen is precisely because he has a prejudice against Klansmen -- particularly that their membership in the Klan is wrong and he wants to get them to reject it. I’ve seen his interviews and speeches. He takes pride in deconverting Klansmen. He takes trophies of their robes. I imagine the term “warrior” may as much accurately describe Daryl Davis as “healer”.
I didn’t advocate a simplistic “collective guilt” for Klansmen. I expressed *nuance*. For example, I said that gang members who didn’t participate in the crimes of other gang members shouldn’t be prosecuted for those crimes. I simply said that we should judge them for being associated with those gangs. We should judge their association as wrong. Just as Daryl Davis judges the association of klansmen with the klan as wrong and thus tries to get them out of the Klan. It’s not like I said we should throw all the gang members into a fire like Jesus did “the goats.”
Just because I’d judge a klansman for being in the Klan doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a dialogue with him. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t eat dinner with him. But just like Daryl Davis, Id have an interest in seeing them *repent* their association with the Klan.
Likewise, Jesus may have hung out with people commonly despised by his society, but he also urged them--commanded them, even--to repent, and threatened them with supernatural punishment if they did not. Personally I find that itself to be despicable. I’d still talk to Jesus.
When I was in college, Christian preachers and pastors would occasionally come to my campus and preach heaven for those who obeyed the god they believed in and destruction or hell for those who disobeyed the god they believed in. I found that behavior contemptible. It was “sinful”--but it didn’t stop me from talking to them. I even sometimes *visited their churches*. I reached out to their souls, despite the fact that they ostensibly worshipped a god whose followers over the past few thousands years routinely oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people, such as myself, who simply didn’t believe, disputed, confuted, or disrespected the idea of their god because the book they idolize expresses disdain, hatred and wrath toward people who don’t believe, dispute, confute, or disrespect the idea of their god.
I’ve learned that Christians are much less likely to be willing to hang out with me and discuss philosophical topics than I am willing to hang out with them; despite their praise for Jesus for hanging out with people he thought did despicable things, it is more common than not that Christians will reject my company once they discover something they despise about me, which isn’t that long, as I’m open about my attitudes toward Christianity. Some do though, and I find that respectable.
I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in the business of promoting or defending Christianity or the Jesus of the Christian canon. I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.
In my studies, I've found that much of what we've been led to know about Jesus and his sayings was written by early Christians (mostly Jews -- except for Luke) who often used strong language to promote Jesus as an alternative to Judaism --thus, the writings were politicized.
The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. The politicized writings became part of the Christian canon, while writings with alternative views of Jesus were sidelined.
Thus, much of what was written about Jesus and what he said cannot be taken as literal truth. There are a few facts we can glean from what was written, including the writings of the historian Josephus. Jesus was promoting a way of resisting Empire without violence, using methods of internal transformation.
Part of the transformation process involved a renewal of how we perceive and treat other people, plus how we deal with our own harmful impulses. None of this was new. These teachings are rooted in those of the earlier Jewish prophets, and there is nothing "lunatic" about them. For me, Jesus -- who was very much a Jew -- was working within that prophetic tradition.
I choose that core teaching, rooted in the prophets, as my guide. We live in a neoliberal global economy that is creating huge divisions in our society. One of the ways to resist the division-generating nature of our system is to build bridges amongst ourselves. That involves seeing without prejudice, as well as owning our own missteps and treating others kindly.
And yes, as you say, making judgments is necessary in order to navigate the world around us. But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.
Any judgment should be lightly held, like a baby bird. Going back to what the rabbi wrote in his post (and here I'll paraphrase), approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.
A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it. I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful. It does not create a welcoming space for dialogue.
Thank you, Ruth, for your thoughtful response. You are right that any discussions need to be respectful of others if one is truly interested in improving human relations and understanding. I wish you well.
“ I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.”
It seems you have a respect for popular people. Quite ordinary. Mao had huge influence on the world—respect him?
Moses committed genocide according to the Torah. If part of your respect rests on cherry picking what allows you to feel respectful toward certain people, that would be a manifestation of prejudice — a prejudice to see good even when there is evil. That is not a virtue: it is like having black mold growing on your children’s bedsheets but insisting it is just food coloring. It is important that people do not rationalize away the evil of powerful and popular people.
“ The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. ”
All we have are the writings of Christians about Jesus and the writings about the contemporary history. Those writings include lots of stuff about supernatural punishment toward people that don’t follow Jehovah. And that would be in alignment with Jewish apocalypticism of the time. Being a Jew who thought he was a messiah that a god would help by destroying his enemies is in alignment with the historical period (we have records of other would be messiahs being executed by Rome) and the Jewish prophets. Do I need to quote the violence from them?
Suggesting that Jesus didn’t express any violence or threats of violence based on the writings we have available is irrational—but quite understandable from a perspective that wants to preserve popular figures as projections of a person’s own ideology.
“ But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.”
I do not think “negative” judgements, such as thinking a person should repent are the only forms of judgement. “Positive” judgements, such as judgements of respect are also judgements. Making of “judgements” — that is the various emotional evaluations of people that range from love, to respect, to hate, to reverence, to fear is simply part of the human psyche; and core to it, and interact with each other. What we judge as worthy affects what we judge as unworthy. What we judge as dangerous affects what we judge as peaceful. Some of the judgements in my past that were among my worst mistakes were judgements in which I trusted or respected someone or something that I should not have.
“ approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.”
We cannot do this. We are not beginners in life. We all accumulate experience throughout the years and those make a mark on our minds, whether we like it or not. To think we can (or more delusional—do—)always have a “beginners mind” is futile, and often just spiritual conceit— as it is sometimes part of some sort of ethic that exults it. Even viewing the “beginners mind” with respect is itself a judgement that is based on experience.
“ A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it.”
I don’t think you are worthy of policing my tone or language. It is quite disrespectful to suggest you are.
“ I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful.”
Jesus was a lunatic, lunatic, lunatic. There is three more instances for you.
It is quite disrespectful to admonish a person for using the word “lunatic” to describe a person who according to a reasonable reading of a text allegedly believed those who didn’t obey him were going to be thrown in a fire. The word lunatic is actually the word CS Lewis used, a Christian, in his book Mere Christianity to describe what Jesus would be if he is not in fact the son of a god. You turn Jesus into just a “sage” that reflects your own ideology—you degrade him; according to Lewis that would be disrespectful.
Do you think all people should be protected from “disrespectful” language or just the people you respect? For example — you think it is “disrespectful” for a person to call Hitler a lunatic? Jim Jones? Stalin? Charles Manson? Ted Bundy? are you concerned about hurting the feelings of Ted Bundy’s groupies, such that you would admonish the parents of one his victims for their language or tone for calling him a psychopath? There is dialogue; but it sounds like you only want to hear it if it comes with the words and tone that you approve.
Perhaps you should be more welcoming of the full range of human emotions and the full range of reality. Some people are in fact psychopathic lunatics. Believing a god commands you to commit genocide on a group of people to acquire land is a blaring sign. I’m talking about Moses. To respect psychopathic lunatics is disrespectful to their victims. Or do you have no problem with Charles Manson apologists? Do you keep a “beginners mind” with that? Perhaps if the former king of Tibet had not tried to keep a “beginners mind” and “build bridges”(and receive donations) he would not have endorsed the psychopath Shoko Asahara, who financially profited from that endorsement, and eventually led his followers to create biological weapons and carry out terrorist attacks.
The fact that calling Moses (or Jesus or anyone else) a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans should be as relevant as the fact that calling Jim Jones a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans. Not calling out lunatics out of concern for hurting the feelings of their often loony following has caused much more distress and pain to *innocent* people than the act of calling lunatics, lunatics.
If you were to present your view as a Machiavellian real-politik political strategy rather than sincere ethical philosophy I could maybe be persuaded that at times it’s better to be perceived as a friend(like Daryl Davis’ schtick) than it is to be open with one’s actual feelings and beliefs which are not at all friend-like, but that doesn’t appear to me what you are advocating.
To avoid confusion it may also be helpful to emphasize that this is an ethical individualism theory, not a group theory. When "group judgmentalism" is mentioned, it is not about judging the group entity itself, but the individuals in the group. Groups should be thought of as collections of unique individuals and therefore the individuals in the group should be judged only by their individual character.
The group should be judged by the purpose of the group. If the group is composed of Nazi party members - then it is a bad group. This still does not mean that every individual in the group is bad since Oskar Schindler was a Nazi party member and yet saved thousands of Jewish lives during the Holocaust.
Maybe another article called "Ethical Groupism Theory" would be about how we should judge groups of human beings. Again, the judgment would only be based on the group entity, not all of the individual human beings in the group. The individuals in the group should only be judged by Ethical Individualism Theory or EIT.
EIT embodies the moral clarity required to develop and sustain a culture of liberty, where liberty is freedom to excel and to prevail consistent with reverence for life.
An ethnically outlook so important yet so obvious, it’s sad that we have to keep relearning it over and over: “not recognizing the uniqueness of every human being is the first step in dehumanizing them. Seeing them only as a member of a group will deny their individuality, and too often leads to denigration and/or demonization.”
While I agree that we should not see individuals as only members of a group, it is also true that individuals often choose to be members of some groups and not others. And the choice to be part of a group is something individuals should be judged on. People choose to be neo Nazis, and even if a person doesn’t actively participate in everything other neo Nazis do, they should be judged for choosing to be part of that tribe. They shouldn’t be punished or judged at the same level as the individuals who do horrible things if all they are doing is writing “I’m a neo nazi” on Reddit, but they should nonetheless be judged for being part of that group. Some groups we don’t choose to be a part of and are not reflective of anything about our character, like our racial ancestry or our gender, and we shouldn’t be judged at all based on that. But not all groups people are part of are like race and gender.
I really enjoyed your article. Your outlook would be extremely beneficial, not only in the business world, but for dealing with people in general life.
Yes, I agree it may be used for every unique human being as to how they try to relate to others. It is a positive approach for human relations. Thank you.
I agree with this approach in individual encounters with people. From my experience, people are different when they are alone and should be treated as such until they prove themselves otherwise. I also think that when people are in groups, they behave differently and should be approached carefully based on said group. However, they must choose to identify with said group in a real way. I'm not going to say all liberal leftists are Marxists just because the loudest members are and refuse to speak to any of them because of those members. The reason for this is that maybe they aren't all Marxists but are unaware of some ideas being pushed or maybe they are young and idealistic and will change when something happens in their life. I refuse to throw away everyone in a group just because the media tells me these are bad people. Some are, some aren't. And, until I speak to them individually, how will I know? There's a fine line is my meaning.
Groups are only collectives of unique individuals and any judgment made that applies to everyone in the group will be wrong. Individual human beings need to be judged only by their individual character rather than what group they may or may not be able to be put into. People are not groups, they are unique individuals. Thank you.
Wow. RRM, you are an insightful person. I was about to same the same thing regarding judging neo-nazis (I deleted it because I don't want anyone to mistakenly think I have sympathy for that group).
We need to recall Sen. Joe McCarthy and his anti-communist witch hunt. He went after people who attended a few communist meetings decades prior out of curiosity or because they were invited by a pretty girl.
Also, think about all of the folks who accused Goth kids of being Satanists and committing blood sacrifice.
So many members of so many groups join just to belong somewhere ...
I was raised in a fairly religious household, but have been agnostic for 40 years. Your approach seems like a somewhat humanist version of “we are all equal in the eyes of God”, “We are all God’s children”, etc, that I was taught (and still believe, sans the God part). It seems philosophically and morally obvious to me. Things like the Golden Rule naturally flow from this.
As greater numbers of people have not been raised in a religion, it seems they have not been exposed to these precepts and their follow-ons like the GR. They substitute equality of outcomes for equal human worth.
I also believe that many of the stereotypical religious scolds of old are now the Woke etc scolds of today. Only worse with the ability of social media for the to organize and amp each other up. They set themselves up as judge and jury, and social executioner.
My mom used to say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner”. There’s a natural restraint in that. After all, how can you love someone and seek to destroy them too.
Also forgotten is the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”. Woke etc solve this by demanding utter conformity and participation in punishing apostates. It shows you are without sin, so are free to cast virtual stones. It’s all the worst aspects of religions dressed up as compassion and “protecting the most vulnerable”.
It’s extremely enticing and intoxicating for many people.
Good post. It is unfortunate that "woke" ideology lacks compassion, forgiveness and humility - some of the best parts of any religion. This is also why its approach to human relations is so negative. In the long run, I don't believe that woke will survive because most people in America are not this negative or cynical. That is why a positive alternative approach to human relations is so critical to have at this juncture. Thank you.
Rabbi, excellent sentiments, well-argued, badly needed. I apologize in advance if this seems trivial, but my aim is only to strengthen your ideas. Usually a theory is intended to explain a phenomenon, and to be a good one it must be well-grounded in a given discipline. I think what you're saying would be better presented as a philosophy, particularly since it is prescriptive. Also, it is a philosophy that has a strong defense in existent social science theory, particularly in the concept of cultural relativity as espoused and demonstrated by Franz Boas and his students. I also see echoes of it in the prescient and insightful social analysis presented by Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents. Freud may have gotten plenty wrong when it came to universal human nature and sex, but he was a keen observer of his own cultural milieu. He understood that the more love we have with our in-group, the more we vilify the "other." He demonstrated the negative power of strongly identifying with our labels. Cultural relativity helps us understand the mutual exclusivity of moral systems and cultural norms. It also teaches that ethnocentrism, prejudice, and xenophobia are universal human traits--not simply the destiny of one "bad" group or another. Recognizing we all have the same capacities for "good" or "evil" is a force for humility, solidarity, and compassion. It's also how we can debunk claims of "historical trauma," a fallacy that is rooted in the same thinking (Social Darwinism) that presaged eugenics. Sadly, even though these ideas were discredited in the 19th century, they are making a come back--this time as a way to extend and cement group victimhood identity to the point where it is the chief defining feature of the group. This also extends the potential platform for grievance. This kind of thinking will lead to war between groups who are sure of their moral superiority based on their victimhood credentials in what basically amounts to a modern expression of ethnocentrism. Your philosophy helps us see and disengage from these highly corrosive thoughts and behaviors.
Thank you for your kind words and advice. My book referred to Ethical Individualism as a "Human Relational Philosophy" and it was interesting to find out that this phrase could not be found on a Google search.
I believe you can find other authors that have stressed individual identities as being a better approach for all human relations than groups. Nonetheless, tribalism and group judgmentalism seems to be part of human nature as you suggested. We are adaptable, however, to learning how to overcome some of the worst aspects of our nature and creating civilizations that thrive.
Ethical Individualism, in my opinion, is the learning that children and adults should have in order to put into proper context what it means for two human beings to meet each other for the first time. Thank you again for your positive and constructive thoughts.
EIT could use more development to address difficult trade-offs. How would it answer these questions: 1. Does equal value mean equal pay? 2. Do you give equal consideration to the rights of people who live very far away? 3. Relatives vs friends vs acquaintances vs strangers? And so on.
I agree that EIT is not fully described here, but I have written a short book about it that is on Amazon. For #1 the answer would be that equal value does not mean equal pay. Equal value is related only to the worth of every human being - not their worth as an employee or worker.
#2 the answer is that this applies to every human being on the planet.
#3 the answer is the same as #2. We should view every human being with equality of respect simply for being human. This is a baseline of respect that accepts our common humanity as the value for that respect. Since we are all human - we are all equal. It is when we deny that human equality to other people what we have problems with human relations. Thank you.
Yes, that is closer. Respecting someone's humanity equally is not the same as loving or trusting someone equally. It simply means you don't ever consider them to be either sub-human or super-human. Too often human beings want to either elevate themselves above others or think of others as sub-human. The Nazis thought of themselves as super-humans - a race superior to others. That is not possible if you respect the equality of all human beings - human qua human.
Jul 17, 2023·edited Jul 17, 2023Liked by Rabbi Russell McAlmond
Thank you for your article! Perhaps you know that Rudolf Steiner coined the term Ethical Individualist in the early 1900's in his book, "The Philosophy of Freedom." He imagined a time when people would be motivated to be ethical as a part of their inner development, not coerced through outer societal or religious motivations. There is a website: philosophyoffreedom.com where you can see videos and articles on his work.
Yes, I am familiar with Rudolf Steiner and his approach is slightly different in focus. He was more concerned with internal development where Ethical Individualism is concerned with relations between other human beings. I refer to it as a "human relational philosophy." Thank you.
That will never happen. Humans are motivated by needs of social belonging and respect, and that is what also largely underlies ethics. He imagined the impossible, and given it is impossible for humans, anti-human. Inhumane.
Another branch of philosophy is epistemology. I have an epistemological idea that may complement EIT. My Maxim is, “Everyone is mostly wrong about everything, always.”
This is not meant to be negative but to only recognize how limited we are as individuals in knowing. Our perceptions are faulty. Our reasoning is faulty. We all develop explanations for how and why things are. But, our explanations are likely wrong especially if developed in isolation.
It also recognizes that we know the world through unique perspectives and unique ways of examining things. By recognizing my own limitations I can be more open and even eager to listen to others because they can help me see beyond my limitations. Of course they may be wrong too, but through the interchange of ideas and challenges of positions, the little bit that may be true will remain.
“EIT considers all people to be equal in status as humans. In other words, no one has more value than another, and everyone deserves equality of respect simply by their existing as a multi-faceted individual. This is not a moral judgment, but a consideration of the value of every human life.”
This is rubbish. And it’s a moral judgement. And a bad one. It makes sense though that you are presenting your theory to businesses, because so much business is about marketing bullshit. Bud Light might really appreciate the bullshit.
Respect (and “value”), in some sense,
is a scarce commodity. Part of the reason we cannot in fact apply equal respect to everyone is because we do not have unlimited time or resources. Or if a person were to actually dole out equal respect to everyone, it would be so diluted as to be itself unworthy of respect.
I wonder if Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism would show some respect to me by publishing something I could write in response to your post explaining why your theory is unworthy of respect. Or whether it would be intolerant of my disrespect of bullshit ethical theories that appear like they could be tailor made for corporate pr campaigns.
“ Judaism is founded on two pillars, one of which is to “Love Your Neighbor.” My interpretation of the word “love” in this instruction is “respect.” Becoming a rabbi helped me to understand this as a universal approach to human relations.”
What “pillars” were Moses striding when he was allegedly commanded by the god of Judaism to have his marauding army murder all the Canaanite men, boys, and women who had children or were pregnant, and enslave the women who were virgins? If we read the Torah honestly, Judaism was founded on genocide, military subjugation, spiritual terrorism, and racial tribalism. “Love” in the Torah (and the Christian New Testament) is just gaslighting. Did you learn that while becoming a rabbi?
EIT is a positive approach for human relations, yours is obviously a negative one. A discussion is not possible with someone who only sees the negative of everything. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thank you.
“EIT is a positive approach for human relations, yours is obviously a negative one. A discussion not possible with someone who only sees the negative of everything. “
Lol. I see everything “negatively” because I don’t respect your particular philosophy and my approach must be “negative” because I dislike your philosophy? That is quite the prejudice you expressed there. I certainly think it is “positive” to discern pernicious bullshit. It’s honorable and virtuous. And I absolutely love watermelon. I see a lot of “positive” in watermelon. So juicy and sweet and delicious.
And it’s certainly not “positive” to suggest a discussion isn’t possible with a person. So “negative!” Oh no, its “negative!”. I find your views about “the equality of all human life” to be rubbish but I still think it is possible to discuss it with you. What sort of “positive approach to human relations” shuns dialogue with people who disagree? What a travesty of ethics you present. Being willing to discuss a topic with an honest critic, barring some exceptions I’ll grant(there is none here), is a virtue. You are heralding yourself as a moral leader and you won’t have discussions with people you deem “negative?” If that is considered honorable by lots of people, no wonder shit is such a mess.
Thank you for your response. You simply validated my opinion. “Oh we should respect everyone equally but I’m not going to have discussions with people who dislike an opinion of mine and I will try to demean them by suggesting they *only* see the “negative” in *everything*.” Lol, and yuck--the stench of bullshit.
Let’s have a zoom conversation about the “equal value of all human life”. We can have FAIR publish it.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is negative and disrespectful. One can disagree with any article or concept without being disrespectful. I am not "demeaning" you - it is your comments that are doing that. I respect your humanity equally with all other human beings. I don't respect your comments or negativity.
I've been here with this person. Disengage. No logic whatsoever and rarely responds to the point. Sucks one into a spiral of silliness and thrives on the fallacies of Avoiding the Issue (Sidestepping), Ad Hominem & Appeal to Self Interest. (This of course is why our politics is so vicious today, from MAGA on the right to the Woke people on the Left. Its vapid self interest instead of a communal goal, which you are aiming for).
I doubt you've heard of this by the filmmaker John Sayles, but to any cynic I ever teach or meet, I share this:
What about the Guys in the Lincoln Brigade." – John Sayles, 1987
One of the major obstacles in the way of human progress and understanding is cynicism: the belief that people only act in their own self-interest or what they perceive as their self-interest. It suggests that beneath every seemingly selfless act lies a dark core of greed, hatred, or fear. According to the cynics, to make people behave and society function, one must know how to exploit and manipulate this dark core. They argue that it's just the way people are. While you may listen to this perspective and even agree to some extent, there comes a moment when you ask, ".What about the guys in the Lincoln Brigade?"
At this point, the cynics will attempt to undermine the significance of those individuals who volunteered for the Lincoln Brigade and shipped out to Spain to fight for the freedom of others. They may talk about youthful naivety and misplaced idealism, as well as the conflicts and divisions that arose among different factions. However, these individuals do not fade away; they remain in history like a lone tree on a battlefield untouched by bombings, prompting you to question, ".How did that happen?"
They persist. When you speak to them or read their accounts, what you repeatedly hear is that they went to Spain driven by a belief in the potential of people, in how people can coexist harmoniously. They put their lives on the line for this belief, and many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.
"But they lost," the cynics remark, unaware that what matters more is that they fought—fought when they didn't have to, fought without receiving public acclaim in their hometowns, fought to refute the cynicism that keeps people in darkness.
They won't fade away. In a world governed by cynics, in an era when caring for someone you've never met is seen as weakness or betrayal, how much strength do we derive from the thought of them? How much pride and solace do we find in being able to say, ".But what about the guys in the Lincoln Brigade?
“I've been here with this person. Disengage. No logic whatsoever and rarely responds to the point. Sucks one into a spiral of silliness and thrives on the fallacies of Avoiding the Issue (Sidestepping), Ad Hominem & Appeal to Self Interest.”
Wow so negative! Be positive! Engage!
Hey there anonymous Salim who claims they are a college professor but doesn’t seem to have a elementary understanding of actual informal logical fallacies and uses accusations of informal logical fallacies in a way that should probably have its own classification as an informal logical fallacy.
“I doubt you've heard of this by the filmmaker John Sayles, but to any cynic I ever teach or meet, I share this:”
You think I am a cynic? How ridiculous. What did I write for you to think that beneath every “selfless” act is greed, hatred or fear? I certainly don’t believe that, I think there are acts that people describe as selfless that are motivated largely by love as well. But indeed I personally wouldn’t call them selfless. I think my love is part of my self. And so is my hate. My acts of love are a form of self-expression, not “selflessness”. Having a self interested in both giving and receiving love seems like a pretty common human trait, and I don’t understand why people denigrate it or are afraid of it.
People who do insist on their acts as being conceived as selflessness are driven mostly by pride or guilt though because it’s so commonly praised or because it’s perceived evil twin, selfishness, is so commonly condemned. Nothing upsets tyrants like peasants who are “selfish” or whose self interests aren’t subsumed by the the interests of the tyrants, and who have a tendency to project their own interests as abstract platonic spooks like “god”, “nation”, “humanity”, and even, most perversely blasphemous, “love.”
I’d have a zoom conversation with you too if you were up to it. But you are afraid, legitimately, that because you are white your career could be affected by the woke brigade if your views became public--yet you still think racism is a bigger problem in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Perhaps one day the Democratic Party will shun enough of its racists from positions of influence and power and you will feel free to talk openly in public with me about things.
White racial tribalism is shit. When the Democratic Party isn’t driven so much by racists you will be able to say “black racial tribalism is shit” in public and have no fear of losing your job. I can say both. Its a splendid freedom. You won’t even have to capitalize “black” anymore. You probably won’t even have to watch your pronouns anymore because those racists are mostly the same people trying to dictate to everyone a new religion of biology.
Some folks get their daily hit of dopamine by being a contrarian. I actually have a lot of respect for contrarians and playing devil's advocate; it can shed light and strengthen theories by testing them...but not when it descends into trolling and becomes a pissing contest to see who gets the last word. I say let this person have the last word, because that's all they want--that and the ability to say that drained your energy, time, and good will.
“You are entitled to your opinion, but it is negative and disrespectful. “
Yes, I am. And so is yours. And we are all entitled to have opinions that are “negative” or “disrespectful.” There are some opinions in fact that we all should have that are “negative” and disrespectful. For example--Nazism : we should disrespect that philosophy right? We should be negative toward it right? Or do you think my contempt for Nazism is demeaning to me?
“One can disagree with any article or concept without being disrespectful.”
Yes, a person can. That doesn’t mean they always should. I think that *sometimes* it’s good to be disrespectful.
“I am not "demeaning" you - it is your comments that are doing that.”
You are in fact trying to demean me. You may not be aware of it. But you are. For example, there is no way my comments, which are soulless words on a screen, could “demean” me. Only conscious beings can feel something demeans something. And *you* feel that what I am saying demeans me --which means *you* are demeaning me: in your mind. That doesn’t mean I feel demeaned. I don’t necessarily feel demeaned because someone feels I ought to. You think my words should demean me--that is, you think I should feel some painful social emotion; something like guilt or shame because of my words. Alas, that is not what I feel.
“I respect your humanity equally with all other human beings. I don't respect your comments or negativity.”
I don’t know what your “respect” for my “humanity” means or entails. It just sounds like pious bullshit. Did Moses respect the humanity of Canaanites when he ordered his followers to murder them so that they could possess their land? Personally I think respect for others humanity should at minimum include not worshipping gods who supposedly expect absolute obedience and command their followers to commit genocide to acquire land. What are your thoughts on that? Your respect for my humanity, whatever it is, doesn’t seem to be sufficient to have a dialogue with me, nor does it prevent you from feeling that my words demean me. Perhaps you could begin respecting my “humanity” by having a zoom dialogue with me and publishing it on FAIR? It doesn’t seem like you are willing to give me that respect. Id give it to you though. I suspect I actually respect you more than you respect me, ironically -- even if you don’t really deserve it. I guess I’m gracious.
Don’t be so negative Russell. Let’s have a zoom conversation. Let’s go have a walk on a beach before if you want. I mean, you said that everyone has equal value. You would walk on the beach with some people right?
Everyone does have equal value and deserves respect for being a human being. Some people don't deserve moral respect if they are bad people. As Dr Viktor Frankl wrote, "There are only two kinds of people in the world - those who are decent and those who are indecent."
This doesn't mean that indecent people are not human - they only have a bad character. Character is a moral judgment based on a moral code - not based on whether or not they are a human being or not.
I would be happy to walk on the beach with you and talk about this further. I do believe we have some common ground - after all you seem to be opposed to Nazis. We do have beaches in Oregon and you are welcome anytime.
“I do believe we have some common ground - after all you seem to be opposed to Nazis. “
Heck, I didn’t even refer to Nazis, only to Nazism. You are one step ahead of me. Glad to see you havent lost all your negativity.
Dunno how you can be opposed to Nazis though and claim “everyone does have equal value.” If a ship was sinking, and there were 200 people on board, and only 100 could fit on life rafts and there were 100 zealous Nazis and 100 children of Kpop singers and you had the power and 5 minutes to decide which were going to get the rafts and which were not, I hope your love of equal value doesn’t get in the way of you letting the Nazis drown, as any honorable, not just decent, person would. It would be disgraceful, not indecent, to randomly assign the life rafts “cuz equality”. I shudder. And tragic, ick. And horrifying--the banality of that evil. Imagine, a person directing the Nazis to the life rafts, muttering:
“But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven.
For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?”
A Valkyrie would come down from the heavens and smite that fool.
Oregon beaches, well if I am ever in Oregon, I’ll take you up on the offer. And of course if you are in Southern California, the beaches are very nice here. Until then though— I’d be down for a Zoom, even if it wasn’t recorded for posterity! I am a curious soul.
Let me explain how I understand group judgmentalism - and groups of human beings in general.
Whenever we judge people by their group instead of individually we are wrong to do so. The reason is because people in groups are not all the same. Therefore, we are not judging based on truth. More typically, we are judging based on stereotypes of people in the group. Group judgmentalism is always wrong no matter how the group is put together.
We are going to put people in groups, but it is the judging part that is harmful. "All white people are racist" is a group judgment that is itself racist - and cannot possibly be truth. Group judgmentalism is never good for society or human relations.
We also cannot judge groups of people when they are members of the group of their own free will.
Let's take something like a group of Christians. Are they all good people or bad people based on their group? No one could possibly say with certainty one way or another. It is almost certain that there are good and bad people in every group therefore a group judgment that all Christians are bad is wrong - even though they chose to be Christians.
Group judgmentalism of individuals is wrong - period. Judge every individual by their unique individual character and not by any group characteristic.
Lastly, it is important to remember that group judgmentalism in this context only applies to individuals in the group, not the group entity itself. A group as an entity is also not defined completely by a minority of members of the group since every group of human beings will have bad people in it. Groups are defined by the primary purpose of the group.
If an individual chooses to be in a group, say a person becomes a member of a church -- then that is an individual act of that person. If a person is aware of that churches history -- say it has a history of bigotry toward black people, like the Mormon Church -- then a person is responsible for choosing to express fealty and reverence to a group that has a history of a particular behavior. Let’s say the church decides to do some horrible things, say like Jim Jones’ cult -- members of the group that don’t condemn that group, that continue show allegiance to that group, should be judged for their allegiance, even if they specifically were not responsible for those things. If a person is a member of a gang, and they hang out with the gang members and express respect to the gang members, and show deference to gang leaders, but they themselves do not commit any crimes, they should not be judged for those specific crimes, but they should be judged for allying themselves with that group. It is an expression of a person’s character, and potentially personality, what groups they fraternize with. We absolutely should be judged by the people we choose to be loyal to and respect. It would be wrong and foolish not to judge people by the groups they choose.
If I meet someone and they tell me they regularly go to Klan meetings and burn crosses, but that they love black people, I can guarantee you they are going to be judged by me in a *negative* way because of their membership in the Klan and if you tell me that is wrong, I’m going to judge you *negatively* for telling me it is wrong.
Group judgements are wrong when they are about superficial traits that don’t have any logical relationship to a person’s character or personality, such as race. And they are additionally only wrong if they are bigoted--in the sense they do not change even after we learn more data about the person that challenges any prejudices.
We all have prejudices about people based on generalized groups they belong to and the experiences and data we have been exposed to. And these prejudices are *sometimes* a necessary and efficient heuristic (although also sometimes widely inaccurate) for making decisions that can often be very helpful for our safety. For example-- I am more likely to walk across the street at night in a sketchy neighborhood when I see a male walking toward me than a woman. If I see it is 4 males, it even increases more than if it is 4 females. That’s because I have a prejudice towards males regarding their likelihood of violence in sketchy places at night. That is a good prejudice to have; it can keep me from being mugged or worse. If those males feel offended by me avoiding them, they are at best naive about dangers. If I were to run into those males in the daytime and they turned out all to be awesome people after spending hours with them, and then I see them at night again, I wouldn’t avoid them. My prejudice is not bigotry.
If you were to tell me that I was wrong for crossing the street to avoid the males but not females, I’d call you an idiot and say your judgement of my behavior and prejudice was wrong.
Bigotry toward people because of a group they belong to is when our judgements don’t change about individuals despite new information about them that *should* invalidate our judgements if we were reasonable. Learning that the Klanman plays tennis with black people every weekend and is super respectful will not change my fundamental suspicion and dislike of him-- that’s not bigotry because the information isn’t strong enough to outweigh the fact that he hangs out with Klansmen burning crosses, a group that has a history of killing and terrorizing black people. Spending a few hours learning that the men at night who I avoided were all local college students at Berkeley who loved cats, and who spent their nights competing in programming tournaments and their weekends watching anime and discussing ethics would change my opinion of them such that I don’t avoid them in sketchy neighborhoods if I identify them. But if I can’t, cuz it’s too dark, well, I’m going to fall back to my *accurate-ish* prejudice about males. That is *wise*. Encouraging people to be fools is wrong. Well, unless, for example, we are spies and in a righteous war and we are encouraging our enemies to be fools to defeat them.
“Group judgementalism” is sometimes good for society, human relations, and the individuals doing the judging.
A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.
In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance.
Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.
I agree that we need to be tolerant of the intolerant in order to have a dialogue with them as Daryl Davis discovered. Daryl was able to demonstrate to KKK members that he was as human as they are by his unique individuality and not by any group membership. This is why judging by individual identity is so important.
Healing human relationships, especially after the bloodiest human century in history - the 20th, is the highest calling a human being can have. Throughout history there have always been people who want to divide and hate other people who are not part of their group. The healers have been rare - but we need more of them.
It’s unfortunate that the voluntary groups that have been among the worst about “dividing and hating other people who are not part of their group” throughout history, such as most major religions, specifically for stupid reasons, continue to attract and retain followers and apologists.
Daryl, didn’t simply “heal human relationships”, he also destroyed them, particularly the relationships between some klansmen. And also part of the transformation the klansmen took was them *renouncing the group they were once part of*. The ex-klansmen ended up “hating” the klan.
Sometimes, “the highest calling” can be the severing of toxic, abusive, or tyrannical relationships--and trying to heal them would be evil.
“Hate” is a fundamental human class of emotion, and there is no way to eliminate it--and it is sometimes right to express it. You revealed it in your comment referring to a people “who want to divide and hate other people”, juxtaposing them and their behavior with what you revere as the “highest human calling”, which appears to also be, probably not coincidentally, what you believe you are engaged in yourself—quite the high(est) opinion of your activity you have.
The doublethink is strong with you. Tell us, how low do you think it is to want to “divide and hate other people?” What do you think is the “lowest calling”? And explain how a person’s calling can be “the highest” and simultaneously this statement of yours can hold: “ Neither human being is better than the other or has more value. There is no hierarchy. “.
The word “higher” automatically creates a hierarchy conceptually—there can be no “high” without a “low”.
And if you are ascribing ethical judgements of peoples’ behavior and orientation as being “high” you are going to be projecting a hierarchy of value. Humans who are conceived as fulfilling “higher callings” are going to be perceived as being more praiseworthy than humans who are conceived as fulfilling “lower callings”. The term “sage”, for example is a title of *high* honor. People consider sages “wise”, and they are praised for it; they are revered. Other people though aren’t given such a title and they aren’t revered. That behavior--of revering some people and not others as “moral leaders” or “sages”--is one expression of moral hierarchy. Another is when religious groups assign titles to people such as “Father”, “Pastor”, “Rabbi”, or “Captain of the Sea Organization” (Scientology). Moral hierarchy is part of the human psyche, and no amount of bullshit or doublethink can transcend it. It can only alter where stuff is in a person’s moral hierarchy or obfuscate awareness of it for people. I think such obfuscation is harmful to the ethical development of humanity. A clear example of the dangers of the obfuscation of moral hierarchy through bullshit is communist revolutions.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
Huh? So you're saying the Rabbi's philosophy is not valid because it might make a former Klansman hate the Klan? And you're accusing HIM of doubespeak?
“A lot of these choices about making judgments which you discuss here are very much context sensitive. Of course we make quick judgments -- ones that don't necessarily take context into consideration -- when we are in situations that could cause bodily harm.”
The judgements I discussed all took context into consideration, regardless of how quick or not they were. Most of ethics is extremely context sensitive, which is why it is often the case that neat principles and generalities are wrong when applied to the messiness of life.
“In calmer situations we are called by ethics to read a situation -- or a person, or a group -- with more attention to nuance. “
Walking in a sketchy neighborhood at night is no different than walking during the day with regard to attention to nuance, but rather the data we have access to. In the midst of the chaos of war a person isn’t granted a lapse in a consideration of nuance when making life and death decisions. An emergency room doctor shouldn’t abandon a consideration of nuance.
And of course, as you acknowledge, some of the choices I describe are in “calmer” situations -- such as the Klansman who I meet: there is no clear and present danger. Even after learning the klansman plays that tennis, it could be in the context he isn’t even around: it wouldn’t alter my judgement.
“Also, in regards to judging people for allying with a group: there have been sages who walked among us -- Jesus comes to mind -- who hung out with some of the most despised members of society. “
Jesus wasn’t a “sage”; he was a lunatic. According to the fictionalized records we have, the gospels, he claimed a world changing tribulation was going to come in his generation and that a god was going to come to his aid and overthrow the Roman Empire on his behalf and place him as king of the Jews. And he declared that everyone who didn’t follow him or the god he believed in was going to be violently punished. Jesus despised those who opposed him. He thought they deserved violent punishment. He talked about “loving enemies” in one moment and throwing his enemies in a fire in another. Lunatic--not sage.
“The Black musician Daryl Davis has walked with Klan members and helped them see differently. He is an example of someone who disregards collective guilt in order to reach out to other souls. I would say he is a true healer.”
I know of Daryl Davis. I appreciate what he has done with Klansmen. But the notion that he hasn’t judged those Klan members in a negative way is erroneous. He wouldn’t be helping “them see differently” if he didn’t think they were seeing wrong in the first place. The fact that he even decides to spend time with Klansmen is precisely because he has a prejudice against Klansmen -- particularly that their membership in the Klan is wrong and he wants to get them to reject it. I’ve seen his interviews and speeches. He takes pride in deconverting Klansmen. He takes trophies of their robes. I imagine the term “warrior” may as much accurately describe Daryl Davis as “healer”.
I didn’t advocate a simplistic “collective guilt” for Klansmen. I expressed *nuance*. For example, I said that gang members who didn’t participate in the crimes of other gang members shouldn’t be prosecuted for those crimes. I simply said that we should judge them for being associated with those gangs. We should judge their association as wrong. Just as Daryl Davis judges the association of klansmen with the klan as wrong and thus tries to get them out of the Klan. It’s not like I said we should throw all the gang members into a fire like Jesus did “the goats.”
Just because I’d judge a klansman for being in the Klan doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a dialogue with him. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t eat dinner with him. But just like Daryl Davis, Id have an interest in seeing them *repent* their association with the Klan.
Likewise, Jesus may have hung out with people commonly despised by his society, but he also urged them--commanded them, even--to repent, and threatened them with supernatural punishment if they did not. Personally I find that itself to be despicable. I’d still talk to Jesus.
When I was in college, Christian preachers and pastors would occasionally come to my campus and preach heaven for those who obeyed the god they believed in and destruction or hell for those who disobeyed the god they believed in. I found that behavior contemptible. It was “sinful”--but it didn’t stop me from talking to them. I even sometimes *visited their churches*. I reached out to their souls, despite the fact that they ostensibly worshipped a god whose followers over the past few thousands years routinely oppressed, terrorized, and murdered people, such as myself, who simply didn’t believe, disputed, confuted, or disrespected the idea of their god because the book they idolize expresses disdain, hatred and wrath toward people who don’t believe, dispute, confute, or disrespect the idea of their god.
I’ve learned that Christians are much less likely to be willing to hang out with me and discuss philosophical topics than I am willing to hang out with them; despite their praise for Jesus for hanging out with people he thought did despicable things, it is more common than not that Christians will reject my company once they discover something they despise about me, which isn’t that long, as I’m open about my attitudes toward Christianity. Some do though, and I find that respectable.
Want to hang out and talk about Jesus? I’m down.
I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in the business of promoting or defending Christianity or the Jesus of the Christian canon. I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.
In my studies, I've found that much of what we've been led to know about Jesus and his sayings was written by early Christians (mostly Jews -- except for Luke) who often used strong language to promote Jesus as an alternative to Judaism --thus, the writings were politicized.
The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. The politicized writings became part of the Christian canon, while writings with alternative views of Jesus were sidelined.
Thus, much of what was written about Jesus and what he said cannot be taken as literal truth. There are a few facts we can glean from what was written, including the writings of the historian Josephus. Jesus was promoting a way of resisting Empire without violence, using methods of internal transformation.
Part of the transformation process involved a renewal of how we perceive and treat other people, plus how we deal with our own harmful impulses. None of this was new. These teachings are rooted in those of the earlier Jewish prophets, and there is nothing "lunatic" about them. For me, Jesus -- who was very much a Jew -- was working within that prophetic tradition.
I choose that core teaching, rooted in the prophets, as my guide. We live in a neoliberal global economy that is creating huge divisions in our society. One of the ways to resist the division-generating nature of our system is to build bridges amongst ourselves. That involves seeing without prejudice, as well as owning our own missteps and treating others kindly.
And yes, as you say, making judgments is necessary in order to navigate the world around us. But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.
Any judgment should be lightly held, like a baby bird. Going back to what the rabbi wrote in his post (and here I'll paraphrase), approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.
A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it. I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful. It does not create a welcoming space for dialogue.
Thank you, Ruth, for your thoughtful response. You are right that any discussions need to be respectful of others if one is truly interested in improving human relations and understanding. I wish you well.
“ I'm Jewish on my mother's side, and I've spent time studying the Jewish Jesus, in the way that I've also studied Lao-Tsu, Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, and Mohammed -- as people whose influence on the world has been huge, and whom I respect.”
It seems you have a respect for popular people. Quite ordinary. Mao had huge influence on the world—respect him?
Moses committed genocide according to the Torah. If part of your respect rests on cherry picking what allows you to feel respectful toward certain people, that would be a manifestation of prejudice — a prejudice to see good even when there is evil. That is not a virtue: it is like having black mold growing on your children’s bedsheets but insisting it is just food coloring. It is important that people do not rationalize away the evil of powerful and popular people.
“ The gospels were written a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, by people who did not know him personally, so we have no written accounts by any of his contemporaries who knew him well. ”
All we have are the writings of Christians about Jesus and the writings about the contemporary history. Those writings include lots of stuff about supernatural punishment toward people that don’t follow Jehovah. And that would be in alignment with Jewish apocalypticism of the time. Being a Jew who thought he was a messiah that a god would help by destroying his enemies is in alignment with the historical period (we have records of other would be messiahs being executed by Rome) and the Jewish prophets. Do I need to quote the violence from them?
Suggesting that Jesus didn’t express any violence or threats of violence based on the writings we have available is irrational—but quite understandable from a perspective that wants to preserve popular figures as projections of a person’s own ideology.
“ But centering the making of judgments wouldn't work for me. I have found that many judgments I made in the past were wrong.”
I do not think “negative” judgements, such as thinking a person should repent are the only forms of judgement. “Positive” judgements, such as judgements of respect are also judgements. Making of “judgements” — that is the various emotional evaluations of people that range from love, to respect, to hate, to reverence, to fear is simply part of the human psyche; and core to it, and interact with each other. What we judge as worthy affects what we judge as unworthy. What we judge as dangerous affects what we judge as peaceful. Some of the judgements in my past that were among my worst mistakes were judgements in which I trusted or respected someone or something that I should not have.
“ approaching people and situations with "beginner's mind" rather than pre-judgment yields better outcomes.”
We cannot do this. We are not beginners in life. We all accumulate experience throughout the years and those make a mark on our minds, whether we like it or not. To think we can (or more delusional—do—)always have a “beginners mind” is futile, and often just spiritual conceit— as it is sometimes part of some sort of ethic that exults it. Even viewing the “beginners mind” with respect is itself a judgement that is based on experience.
“ A final word: building bridges requires monitoring the language we use, and the tone in which we use it.”
I don’t think you are worthy of policing my tone or language. It is quite disrespectful to suggest you are.
“ I'm assuming you don't know (or care) whether or not I'm a Christian; thus using the word "lunatic" (twice!) to describe Jesus is disrespectful and potentially hurtful.”
Jesus was a lunatic, lunatic, lunatic. There is three more instances for you.
It is quite disrespectful to admonish a person for using the word “lunatic” to describe a person who according to a reasonable reading of a text allegedly believed those who didn’t obey him were going to be thrown in a fire. The word lunatic is actually the word CS Lewis used, a Christian, in his book Mere Christianity to describe what Jesus would be if he is not in fact the son of a god. You turn Jesus into just a “sage” that reflects your own ideology—you degrade him; according to Lewis that would be disrespectful.
Do you think all people should be protected from “disrespectful” language or just the people you respect? For example — you think it is “disrespectful” for a person to call Hitler a lunatic? Jim Jones? Stalin? Charles Manson? Ted Bundy? are you concerned about hurting the feelings of Ted Bundy’s groupies, such that you would admonish the parents of one his victims for their language or tone for calling him a psychopath? There is dialogue; but it sounds like you only want to hear it if it comes with the words and tone that you approve.
Perhaps you should be more welcoming of the full range of human emotions and the full range of reality. Some people are in fact psychopathic lunatics. Believing a god commands you to commit genocide on a group of people to acquire land is a blaring sign. I’m talking about Moses. To respect psychopathic lunatics is disrespectful to their victims. Or do you have no problem with Charles Manson apologists? Do you keep a “beginners mind” with that? Perhaps if the former king of Tibet had not tried to keep a “beginners mind” and “build bridges”(and receive donations) he would not have endorsed the psychopath Shoko Asahara, who financially profited from that endorsement, and eventually led his followers to create biological weapons and carry out terrorist attacks.
The fact that calling Moses (or Jesus or anyone else) a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans should be as relevant as the fact that calling Jim Jones a lunatic might be “potentially hurtful” to his fans. Not calling out lunatics out of concern for hurting the feelings of their often loony following has caused much more distress and pain to *innocent* people than the act of calling lunatics, lunatics.
If you were to present your view as a Machiavellian real-politik political strategy rather than sincere ethical philosophy I could maybe be persuaded that at times it’s better to be perceived as a friend(like Daryl Davis’ schtick) than it is to be open with one’s actual feelings and beliefs which are not at all friend-like, but that doesn’t appear to me what you are advocating.
Shalom.
To avoid confusion it may also be helpful to emphasize that this is an ethical individualism theory, not a group theory. When "group judgmentalism" is mentioned, it is not about judging the group entity itself, but the individuals in the group. Groups should be thought of as collections of unique individuals and therefore the individuals in the group should be judged only by their individual character.
The group should be judged by the purpose of the group. If the group is composed of Nazi party members - then it is a bad group. This still does not mean that every individual in the group is bad since Oskar Schindler was a Nazi party member and yet saved thousands of Jewish lives during the Holocaust.
Maybe another article called "Ethical Groupism Theory" would be about how we should judge groups of human beings. Again, the judgment would only be based on the group entity, not all of the individual human beings in the group. The individuals in the group should only be judged by Ethical Individualism Theory or EIT.
EIT embodies the moral clarity required to develop and sustain a culture of liberty, where liberty is freedom to excel and to prevail consistent with reverence for life.
Moral clarity is critical in the world today. Thank you.
An ethnically outlook so important yet so obvious, it’s sad that we have to keep relearning it over and over: “not recognizing the uniqueness of every human being is the first step in dehumanizing them. Seeing them only as a member of a group will deny their individuality, and too often leads to denigration and/or demonization.”
While I agree that we should not see individuals as only members of a group, it is also true that individuals often choose to be members of some groups and not others. And the choice to be part of a group is something individuals should be judged on. People choose to be neo Nazis, and even if a person doesn’t actively participate in everything other neo Nazis do, they should be judged for choosing to be part of that tribe. They shouldn’t be punished or judged at the same level as the individuals who do horrible things if all they are doing is writing “I’m a neo nazi” on Reddit, but they should nonetheless be judged for being part of that group. Some groups we don’t choose to be a part of and are not reflective of anything about our character, like our racial ancestry or our gender, and we shouldn’t be judged at all based on that. But not all groups people are part of are like race and gender.
Agreed
I really enjoyed your article. Your outlook would be extremely beneficial, not only in the business world, but for dealing with people in general life.
Yes, I agree it may be used for every unique human being as to how they try to relate to others. It is a positive approach for human relations. Thank you.
I agree with this approach in individual encounters with people. From my experience, people are different when they are alone and should be treated as such until they prove themselves otherwise. I also think that when people are in groups, they behave differently and should be approached carefully based on said group. However, they must choose to identify with said group in a real way. I'm not going to say all liberal leftists are Marxists just because the loudest members are and refuse to speak to any of them because of those members. The reason for this is that maybe they aren't all Marxists but are unaware of some ideas being pushed or maybe they are young and idealistic and will change when something happens in their life. I refuse to throw away everyone in a group just because the media tells me these are bad people. Some are, some aren't. And, until I speak to them individually, how will I know? There's a fine line is my meaning.
Groups are only collectives of unique individuals and any judgment made that applies to everyone in the group will be wrong. Individual human beings need to be judged only by their individual character rather than what group they may or may not be able to be put into. People are not groups, they are unique individuals. Thank you.
Wow. RRM, you are an insightful person. I was about to same the same thing regarding judging neo-nazis (I deleted it because I don't want anyone to mistakenly think I have sympathy for that group).
We need to recall Sen. Joe McCarthy and his anti-communist witch hunt. He went after people who attended a few communist meetings decades prior out of curiosity or because they were invited by a pretty girl.
Also, think about all of the folks who accused Goth kids of being Satanists and committing blood sacrifice.
So many members of so many groups join just to belong somewhere ...
I was raised in a fairly religious household, but have been agnostic for 40 years. Your approach seems like a somewhat humanist version of “we are all equal in the eyes of God”, “We are all God’s children”, etc, that I was taught (and still believe, sans the God part). It seems philosophically and morally obvious to me. Things like the Golden Rule naturally flow from this.
As greater numbers of people have not been raised in a religion, it seems they have not been exposed to these precepts and their follow-ons like the GR. They substitute equality of outcomes for equal human worth.
I also believe that many of the stereotypical religious scolds of old are now the Woke etc scolds of today. Only worse with the ability of social media for the to organize and amp each other up. They set themselves up as judge and jury, and social executioner.
My mom used to say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner”. There’s a natural restraint in that. After all, how can you love someone and seek to destroy them too.
Also forgotten is the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”. Woke etc solve this by demanding utter conformity and participation in punishing apostates. It shows you are without sin, so are free to cast virtual stones. It’s all the worst aspects of religions dressed up as compassion and “protecting the most vulnerable”.
It’s extremely enticing and intoxicating for many people.
Good luck with your project. We need it.
Good post. It is unfortunate that "woke" ideology lacks compassion, forgiveness and humility - some of the best parts of any religion. This is also why its approach to human relations is so negative. In the long run, I don't believe that woke will survive because most people in America are not this negative or cynical. That is why a positive alternative approach to human relations is so critical to have at this juncture. Thank you.
Great post!
An excellent understanding of how we need to relate to each other. Thank you.
Rabbi, excellent sentiments, well-argued, badly needed. I apologize in advance if this seems trivial, but my aim is only to strengthen your ideas. Usually a theory is intended to explain a phenomenon, and to be a good one it must be well-grounded in a given discipline. I think what you're saying would be better presented as a philosophy, particularly since it is prescriptive. Also, it is a philosophy that has a strong defense in existent social science theory, particularly in the concept of cultural relativity as espoused and demonstrated by Franz Boas and his students. I also see echoes of it in the prescient and insightful social analysis presented by Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents. Freud may have gotten plenty wrong when it came to universal human nature and sex, but he was a keen observer of his own cultural milieu. He understood that the more love we have with our in-group, the more we vilify the "other." He demonstrated the negative power of strongly identifying with our labels. Cultural relativity helps us understand the mutual exclusivity of moral systems and cultural norms. It also teaches that ethnocentrism, prejudice, and xenophobia are universal human traits--not simply the destiny of one "bad" group or another. Recognizing we all have the same capacities for "good" or "evil" is a force for humility, solidarity, and compassion. It's also how we can debunk claims of "historical trauma," a fallacy that is rooted in the same thinking (Social Darwinism) that presaged eugenics. Sadly, even though these ideas were discredited in the 19th century, they are making a come back--this time as a way to extend and cement group victimhood identity to the point where it is the chief defining feature of the group. This also extends the potential platform for grievance. This kind of thinking will lead to war between groups who are sure of their moral superiority based on their victimhood credentials in what basically amounts to a modern expression of ethnocentrism. Your philosophy helps us see and disengage from these highly corrosive thoughts and behaviors.
Thank you for your kind words and advice. My book referred to Ethical Individualism as a "Human Relational Philosophy" and it was interesting to find out that this phrase could not be found on a Google search.
I believe you can find other authors that have stressed individual identities as being a better approach for all human relations than groups. Nonetheless, tribalism and group judgmentalism seems to be part of human nature as you suggested. We are adaptable, however, to learning how to overcome some of the worst aspects of our nature and creating civilizations that thrive.
Ethical Individualism, in my opinion, is the learning that children and adults should have in order to put into proper context what it means for two human beings to meet each other for the first time. Thank you again for your positive and constructive thoughts.
EIT could use more development to address difficult trade-offs. How would it answer these questions: 1. Does equal value mean equal pay? 2. Do you give equal consideration to the rights of people who live very far away? 3. Relatives vs friends vs acquaintances vs strangers? And so on.
I agree that EIT is not fully described here, but I have written a short book about it that is on Amazon. For #1 the answer would be that equal value does not mean equal pay. Equal value is related only to the worth of every human being - not their worth as an employee or worker.
#2 the answer is that this applies to every human being on the planet.
#3 the answer is the same as #2. We should view every human being with equality of respect simply for being human. This is a baseline of respect that accepts our common humanity as the value for that respect. Since we are all human - we are all equal. It is when we deny that human equality to other people what we have problems with human relations. Thank you.
So you would invite a stranger into your home as you would your son? You would pay for a stranger’s college education as you would your daughter?
Our maybe by treating people as equals you simply mean being courteous to everyone? Being nice?
Yes, that is closer. Respecting someone's humanity equally is not the same as loving or trusting someone equally. It simply means you don't ever consider them to be either sub-human or super-human. Too often human beings want to either elevate themselves above others or think of others as sub-human. The Nazis thought of themselves as super-humans - a race superior to others. That is not possible if you respect the equality of all human beings - human qua human.
Thank you for your article! Perhaps you know that Rudolf Steiner coined the term Ethical Individualist in the early 1900's in his book, "The Philosophy of Freedom." He imagined a time when people would be motivated to be ethical as a part of their inner development, not coerced through outer societal or religious motivations. There is a website: philosophyoffreedom.com where you can see videos and articles on his work.
Yes, I am familiar with Rudolf Steiner and his approach is slightly different in focus. He was more concerned with internal development where Ethical Individualism is concerned with relations between other human beings. I refer to it as a "human relational philosophy." Thank you.
That will never happen. Humans are motivated by needs of social belonging and respect, and that is what also largely underlies ethics. He imagined the impossible, and given it is impossible for humans, anti-human. Inhumane.
Another branch of philosophy is epistemology. I have an epistemological idea that may complement EIT. My Maxim is, “Everyone is mostly wrong about everything, always.”
This is not meant to be negative but to only recognize how limited we are as individuals in knowing. Our perceptions are faulty. Our reasoning is faulty. We all develop explanations for how and why things are. But, our explanations are likely wrong especially if developed in isolation.
It also recognizes that we know the world through unique perspectives and unique ways of examining things. By recognizing my own limitations I can be more open and even eager to listen to others because they can help me see beyond my limitations. Of course they may be wrong too, but through the interchange of ideas and challenges of positions, the little bit that may be true will remain.
We need each other to better see the world.
“EIT considers all people to be equal in status as humans. In other words, no one has more value than another, and everyone deserves equality of respect simply by their existing as a multi-faceted individual. This is not a moral judgment, but a consideration of the value of every human life.”
This is rubbish. And it’s a moral judgement. And a bad one. It makes sense though that you are presenting your theory to businesses, because so much business is about marketing bullshit. Bud Light might really appreciate the bullshit.
Respect (and “value”), in some sense,
is a scarce commodity. Part of the reason we cannot in fact apply equal respect to everyone is because we do not have unlimited time or resources. Or if a person were to actually dole out equal respect to everyone, it would be so diluted as to be itself unworthy of respect.
I wonder if Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism would show some respect to me by publishing something I could write in response to your post explaining why your theory is unworthy of respect. Or whether it would be intolerant of my disrespect of bullshit ethical theories that appear like they could be tailor made for corporate pr campaigns.
“ Judaism is founded on two pillars, one of which is to “Love Your Neighbor.” My interpretation of the word “love” in this instruction is “respect.” Becoming a rabbi helped me to understand this as a universal approach to human relations.”
What “pillars” were Moses striding when he was allegedly commanded by the god of Judaism to have his marauding army murder all the Canaanite men, boys, and women who had children or were pregnant, and enslave the women who were virgins? If we read the Torah honestly, Judaism was founded on genocide, military subjugation, spiritual terrorism, and racial tribalism. “Love” in the Torah (and the Christian New Testament) is just gaslighting. Did you learn that while becoming a rabbi?
EIT is a positive approach for human relations, yours is obviously a negative one. A discussion is not possible with someone who only sees the negative of everything. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thank you.
“EIT is a positive approach for human relations, yours is obviously a negative one. A discussion not possible with someone who only sees the negative of everything. “
Lol. I see everything “negatively” because I don’t respect your particular philosophy and my approach must be “negative” because I dislike your philosophy? That is quite the prejudice you expressed there. I certainly think it is “positive” to discern pernicious bullshit. It’s honorable and virtuous. And I absolutely love watermelon. I see a lot of “positive” in watermelon. So juicy and sweet and delicious.
And it’s certainly not “positive” to suggest a discussion isn’t possible with a person. So “negative!” Oh no, its “negative!”. I find your views about “the equality of all human life” to be rubbish but I still think it is possible to discuss it with you. What sort of “positive approach to human relations” shuns dialogue with people who disagree? What a travesty of ethics you present. Being willing to discuss a topic with an honest critic, barring some exceptions I’ll grant(there is none here), is a virtue. You are heralding yourself as a moral leader and you won’t have discussions with people you deem “negative?” If that is considered honorable by lots of people, no wonder shit is such a mess.
Thank you for your response. You simply validated my opinion. “Oh we should respect everyone equally but I’m not going to have discussions with people who dislike an opinion of mine and I will try to demean them by suggesting they *only* see the “negative” in *everything*.” Lol, and yuck--the stench of bullshit.
Let’s have a zoom conversation about the “equal value of all human life”. We can have FAIR publish it.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is negative and disrespectful. One can disagree with any article or concept without being disrespectful. I am not "demeaning" you - it is your comments that are doing that. I respect your humanity equally with all other human beings. I don't respect your comments or negativity.
I've been here with this person. Disengage. No logic whatsoever and rarely responds to the point. Sucks one into a spiral of silliness and thrives on the fallacies of Avoiding the Issue (Sidestepping), Ad Hominem & Appeal to Self Interest. (This of course is why our politics is so vicious today, from MAGA on the right to the Woke people on the Left. Its vapid self interest instead of a communal goal, which you are aiming for).
I doubt you've heard of this by the filmmaker John Sayles, but to any cynic I ever teach or meet, I share this:
What about the Guys in the Lincoln Brigade." – John Sayles, 1987
One of the major obstacles in the way of human progress and understanding is cynicism: the belief that people only act in their own self-interest or what they perceive as their self-interest. It suggests that beneath every seemingly selfless act lies a dark core of greed, hatred, or fear. According to the cynics, to make people behave and society function, one must know how to exploit and manipulate this dark core. They argue that it's just the way people are. While you may listen to this perspective and even agree to some extent, there comes a moment when you ask, ".What about the guys in the Lincoln Brigade?"
At this point, the cynics will attempt to undermine the significance of those individuals who volunteered for the Lincoln Brigade and shipped out to Spain to fight for the freedom of others. They may talk about youthful naivety and misplaced idealism, as well as the conflicts and divisions that arose among different factions. However, these individuals do not fade away; they remain in history like a lone tree on a battlefield untouched by bombings, prompting you to question, ".How did that happen?"
They persist. When you speak to them or read their accounts, what you repeatedly hear is that they went to Spain driven by a belief in the potential of people, in how people can coexist harmoniously. They put their lives on the line for this belief, and many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.
"But they lost," the cynics remark, unaware that what matters more is that they fought—fought when they didn't have to, fought without receiving public acclaim in their hometowns, fought to refute the cynicism that keeps people in darkness.
They won't fade away. In a world governed by cynics, in an era when caring for someone you've never met is seen as weakness or betrayal, how much strength do we derive from the thought of them? How much pride and solace do we find in being able to say, ".But what about the guys in the Lincoln Brigade?
“I've been here with this person. Disengage. No logic whatsoever and rarely responds to the point. Sucks one into a spiral of silliness and thrives on the fallacies of Avoiding the Issue (Sidestepping), Ad Hominem & Appeal to Self Interest.”
Wow so negative! Be positive! Engage!
Hey there anonymous Salim who claims they are a college professor but doesn’t seem to have a elementary understanding of actual informal logical fallacies and uses accusations of informal logical fallacies in a way that should probably have its own classification as an informal logical fallacy.
“I doubt you've heard of this by the filmmaker John Sayles, but to any cynic I ever teach or meet, I share this:”
You think I am a cynic? How ridiculous. What did I write for you to think that beneath every “selfless” act is greed, hatred or fear? I certainly don’t believe that, I think there are acts that people describe as selfless that are motivated largely by love as well. But indeed I personally wouldn’t call them selfless. I think my love is part of my self. And so is my hate. My acts of love are a form of self-expression, not “selflessness”. Having a self interested in both giving and receiving love seems like a pretty common human trait, and I don’t understand why people denigrate it or are afraid of it.
People who do insist on their acts as being conceived as selflessness are driven mostly by pride or guilt though because it’s so commonly praised or because it’s perceived evil twin, selfishness, is so commonly condemned. Nothing upsets tyrants like peasants who are “selfish” or whose self interests aren’t subsumed by the the interests of the tyrants, and who have a tendency to project their own interests as abstract platonic spooks like “god”, “nation”, “humanity”, and even, most perversely blasphemous, “love.”
I’d have a zoom conversation with you too if you were up to it. But you are afraid, legitimately, that because you are white your career could be affected by the woke brigade if your views became public--yet you still think racism is a bigger problem in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Perhaps one day the Democratic Party will shun enough of its racists from positions of influence and power and you will feel free to talk openly in public with me about things.
White racial tribalism is shit. When the Democratic Party isn’t driven so much by racists you will be able to say “black racial tribalism is shit” in public and have no fear of losing your job. I can say both. Its a splendid freedom. You won’t even have to capitalize “black” anymore. You probably won’t even have to watch your pronouns anymore because those racists are mostly the same people trying to dictate to everyone a new religion of biology.
You just proved all my points. Good luck now.
Some folks get their daily hit of dopamine by being a contrarian. I actually have a lot of respect for contrarians and playing devil's advocate; it can shed light and strengthen theories by testing them...but not when it descends into trolling and becomes a pissing contest to see who gets the last word. I say let this person have the last word, because that's all they want--that and the ability to say that drained your energy, time, and good will.
“You are entitled to your opinion, but it is negative and disrespectful. “
Yes, I am. And so is yours. And we are all entitled to have opinions that are “negative” or “disrespectful.” There are some opinions in fact that we all should have that are “negative” and disrespectful. For example--Nazism : we should disrespect that philosophy right? We should be negative toward it right? Or do you think my contempt for Nazism is demeaning to me?
“One can disagree with any article or concept without being disrespectful.”
Yes, a person can. That doesn’t mean they always should. I think that *sometimes* it’s good to be disrespectful.
“I am not "demeaning" you - it is your comments that are doing that.”
You are in fact trying to demean me. You may not be aware of it. But you are. For example, there is no way my comments, which are soulless words on a screen, could “demean” me. Only conscious beings can feel something demeans something. And *you* feel that what I am saying demeans me --which means *you* are demeaning me: in your mind. That doesn’t mean I feel demeaned. I don’t necessarily feel demeaned because someone feels I ought to. You think my words should demean me--that is, you think I should feel some painful social emotion; something like guilt or shame because of my words. Alas, that is not what I feel.
“I respect your humanity equally with all other human beings. I don't respect your comments or negativity.”
I don’t know what your “respect” for my “humanity” means or entails. It just sounds like pious bullshit. Did Moses respect the humanity of Canaanites when he ordered his followers to murder them so that they could possess their land? Personally I think respect for others humanity should at minimum include not worshipping gods who supposedly expect absolute obedience and command their followers to commit genocide to acquire land. What are your thoughts on that? Your respect for my humanity, whatever it is, doesn’t seem to be sufficient to have a dialogue with me, nor does it prevent you from feeling that my words demean me. Perhaps you could begin respecting my “humanity” by having a zoom dialogue with me and publishing it on FAIR? It doesn’t seem like you are willing to give me that respect. Id give it to you though. I suspect I actually respect you more than you respect me, ironically -- even if you don’t really deserve it. I guess I’m gracious.
Don’t be so negative Russell. Let’s have a zoom conversation. Let’s go have a walk on a beach before if you want. I mean, you said that everyone has equal value. You would walk on the beach with some people right?
Everyone does have equal value and deserves respect for being a human being. Some people don't deserve moral respect if they are bad people. As Dr Viktor Frankl wrote, "There are only two kinds of people in the world - those who are decent and those who are indecent."
This doesn't mean that indecent people are not human - they only have a bad character. Character is a moral judgment based on a moral code - not based on whether or not they are a human being or not.
I would be happy to walk on the beach with you and talk about this further. I do believe we have some common ground - after all you seem to be opposed to Nazis. We do have beaches in Oregon and you are welcome anytime.
“I do believe we have some common ground - after all you seem to be opposed to Nazis. “
Heck, I didn’t even refer to Nazis, only to Nazism. You are one step ahead of me. Glad to see you havent lost all your negativity.
Dunno how you can be opposed to Nazis though and claim “everyone does have equal value.” If a ship was sinking, and there were 200 people on board, and only 100 could fit on life rafts and there were 100 zealous Nazis and 100 children of Kpop singers and you had the power and 5 minutes to decide which were going to get the rafts and which were not, I hope your love of equal value doesn’t get in the way of you letting the Nazis drown, as any honorable, not just decent, person would. It would be disgraceful, not indecent, to randomly assign the life rafts “cuz equality”. I shudder. And tragic, ick. And horrifying--the banality of that evil. Imagine, a person directing the Nazis to the life rafts, muttering:
“But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven.
For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?”
A Valkyrie would come down from the heavens and smite that fool.
Oregon beaches, well if I am ever in Oregon, I’ll take you up on the offer. And of course if you are in Southern California, the beaches are very nice here. Until then though— I’d be down for a Zoom, even if it wasn’t recorded for posterity! I am a curious soul.