The idea that objective evil exists has often been used as an alleged basis for hostility towards theism, although the very notion of morally criticizing a deity can only be entertained on subjective grounds, as opposed to logical grounds. In light of the fact that there is an uncaused cause of some kind [1] (even if it is ultimately amoral), the basic concept of a deity thus being more than a mere hypothetical possibility, there is more of a need than there would otherwise be to clarify the hypocrisy of a certain societal reaction when a human commits what someone considers an immoral behavior [2]. Any heinous immorality on the part of a person tells us far more about the nature of that individual person than it does about the uncaused cause, and yet it is the concept of God that many have a more negative reaction to in such circumstances.
Indeed, many have a cognitively dissonant response to God and other people respectively when the latter is perceived to do something evil. Rather than serving as a basis for hatred of or irritation with the character of any deity that would allow humans to make their own free decisions, even if they voluntarily made destructive choices without any coercion from the deity, the stupidity and irresponsibility of most humans serves as a sound basis for a general misanthropy. Even so, hostile attitudes towards the very people who contribute to today's problems may very likely be seen as part of the problem rather than as a potential motivation to find solutions.
If you hate humans (with the exception of those who have not aligned themselves with the apathy, irrationality, pettiness, and heinous ideologies or acts of the majority) for carrying out the very actions they choose to enact, Western society as a whole would regard you as an evil person. If you hate the uncaused cause for creating a universe in which free beings choose to engage in evil behaviors, the majority of Western society considers you to have a just cause. Misotheism, the hatred of God (whether God is considered real or nonexistent), is tolerated despite being philosophically asinine, and appropriate misanthropy is widely considered to itself be atrocious.
It is only due to common stupidity that hatred of other people is viewed as an inherently negative thing to begin with, but it is even more telling of the unintelligence of a culture when its members are more likely to despise the concept of God because of human actions than they are to despise the people who commit the very atrocities they condemn. This is a backwards approach; if anything, it is people who fail to align themselves with reason and justice that can be legitimately hated, not a deity who does not make their choices for them.
An opposition to the hatred of any human is typically rooted in an overestimation of the significance of each individual. Rather than judge all humans to be good or evil based on the actions of a few, a rationalistic person sees that the moral excellence of the few cannot justify the condemnation of all hatred no matter who it is directed towards. The nature of hatred has been consistently slandered, and perhaps this is why the collective face of the modern world remains horrified by it. However, hatred is not an enemy of moral progress by default. It must only be aimed in the right direction and never be used as the basis for unjust words and behaviors.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. Whether the act is truly immoral or just emotionally distasteful to an individual or group is not the point here.
If you hate humans (with the exception of those who have not aligned themselves with the apathy, irrationality, pettiness, and heinous ideologies or acts of the majority) for carrying out the very actions they choose to enact, Western society as a whole would regard you as an evil person. If you hate the uncaused cause for creating a universe in which free beings choose to engage in evil behaviors, the majority of Western society considers you to have a just cause. Misotheism, the hatred of God (whether God is considered real or nonexistent), is tolerated despite being philosophically asinine, and appropriate misanthropy is widely considered to itself be atrocious.
It is only due to common stupidity that hatred of other people is viewed as an inherently negative thing to begin with, but it is even more telling of the unintelligence of a culture when its members are more likely to despise the concept of God because of human actions than they are to despise the people who commit the very atrocities they condemn. This is a backwards approach; if anything, it is people who fail to align themselves with reason and justice that can be legitimately hated, not a deity who does not make their choices for them.
An opposition to the hatred of any human is typically rooted in an overestimation of the significance of each individual. Rather than judge all humans to be good or evil based on the actions of a few, a rationalistic person sees that the moral excellence of the few cannot justify the condemnation of all hatred no matter who it is directed towards. The nature of hatred has been consistently slandered, and perhaps this is why the collective face of the modern world remains horrified by it. However, hatred is not an enemy of moral progress by default. It must only be aimed in the right direction and never be used as the basis for unjust words and behaviors.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. Whether the act is truly immoral or just emotionally distasteful to an individual or group is not the point here.
No comments:
Post a Comment