Betrayal is one of the few things almost everyone seems to despise--when it is not them who is being betrayed, at least! However, betraying evil and stupidity by exposing or opposing them, even if abruptly, cannot itself be evil or irrational. That it is so hated even by the extremely cruel is usually only the case because betrayal is simply inconvenient to people who have not even given others any philosophical or personal basis for true, deep loyalty, only for the illusion of loyalty out of shallow gratification or out of a desire to not "make" an abuser hurt them again. Only the rational and righteous would even be eligible for having the right to never be betrayed.
If nothing is immoral, then betrayal is inherently not evil and thus not worth objecting to. If anything at all is immoral, then betraying those who are irrational or evil (for nothing could be evil unless it is logically possible and thus any moral obligations, though still depending on the moral nature of the uncaused cause, are on an even deeper level impossible apart from reason) cannot be problematic unless it is a betrayal that involves genuine mistreatment. E.g., if rape or slander is morally wrong, then turning on someone who is evil and inflicting such a thing on them or handing them over to face it from others would still be evil, not merely shocking someone by turning against them, lashing out at them, emotionally hurting them in the process, and so on.
Of course someone who is betrayed because they are irrational or unjust might still feel like they have been wronged, but feelings only mean that someone has feelings, not that whatever their emotions and preferences would push them towards is actually true. They have been inconvenienced and possibly upset by the idea that someone has allegiances to things more foundational, more important, and more weighty than the betrayed person's desire to have the ultimate allegiance of those around them. This is outright egoism, which reduces down to irrationalism. Their preferences do not dictate anything more than their own petty preferences.
Adultery can be a very deeply wounding form of betrayal, but someone who leaves or aggressively confronts their adulterous spouse has not committed the same type of betrayal. Lying is a form of betrayal (of both truth and the person being lied to), but someone who makes the liar feel or look stupid by just calling attention to their assumptions, hypocrisies, or verbal twisting of the truth is not betraying them in the same way even if the latter person intentionally "ambushes" the former person like this. Merely turning against someone or revealing an anger rooted in a legitimate basis can be betrayal, but it is not the kind of betrayal that would automatically be wrong on at least the Christian worldview.
Because they neglect this kind of distinction, people who have someone turn on them might truly believe they have been wronged when someone has only recognized them or treated them as what they are instead of betrayed them in some abusive, selfish way. The selfish and abusers will typically dislike how this distinction means betraying them is not itself a genuine offense. When it comes to those betraying others without mistreating them by betraying them unjustly, they can rest in the fact that they have not necessarily done anything wrong by even turning against people who once considered them loyal as long as there is a valid reason for doing so and it is handled without irrationality or injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment