3 ms·

We're all just people, yeah? Out there, somewhere is a rational reason for why people do the things they do. I'm not defending these actions, but if we could tr

We're all just people, yeah? Out there, somewhere is a rational reason for why people do the things they do. I'm not defending these actions, but if we could truly and completely empathize - we would understand.

trendia 9y ago
If you believe they are being rational, then we must change that calculus. That's why we send them to prison--doing so discourages other people from doing the same.
charlesism 9y ago
I'm not at all sure what your point is. There's no shortage in history of episodes where people have been irrational, selfish, bigoted. Stalin and Pol Pot were just people, slave-owners were just people, inquisitors were just people, witch-burning villagers were people... It doesn't take that much imagination to put oneself in their shoes... and see that it's largely greed, small-mindedness, or stupidity that explain what they did. Greed, small-mindedness, and stupidity are as much a part of human nature, as generosity, open-mindedness, and cleverness. Regardless, any society in which I'd want to live promotes the latter.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
Yeah I think we always at least ought to try to understand. There may be things that are not understandable, but, when we give it our best shot we can say we tried. In many cases, I imagine the SS officer may have had a gun pointed to his head himself. That certainly was the case in Cambodia. If a soldier didn't kill someone who he was ordered to kill, he would be shot himself. If we can keep tensions low and communicate better I believe we can at least forestall further world wars.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- petra 9y ago
  SS officers didn't really have a gun pointed to their heads. They could refuse. But it was the combination of the difficulty of saying no to authority and probably peer pressure , together with the reasonable possibility they'll be sent to the front lines (not even as a punishment , but because that's what men did back than).
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    Assume strangers. If it's a choice between him and me, I choose me. If it's a choice between those ten people and me, I probably choose me. If it's a choice between a n+1 people and me, I guess I've already done n, what's another one? Acknowledging that there is a difference between being sent away to war and certain death. That there's a difference between 1 more person and a hundred. I believe that far more people than we'd like to admit would just follow orders.
    - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
      A poet (Polish?) once said that "one million and one is still one million" (IIRC he was talking about Stalin rulings and the number of victims, and that a single life does not weight much in such times, but I am not sure)
      - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
        It was actually Mrs Wislawa Szymborska, Nobel Prize winner (although a reluctant one). The quote was "one thousand and one is still only one thousand" from a poem about a concentration camp (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szebnie_concentration_camp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szebnie_concentration_camp)

trendia 9y ago

If you believe they are being rational, then we must change that calculus. That's why we send them to prison--doing so discourages other people from doing the same.

charlesism 9y ago

I'm not at all sure what your point is. There's no shortage in history of episodes where people have been irrational, selfish, bigoted. Stalin and Pol Pot were just people, slave-owners were just people, inquisitors were just people, witch-burning villagers were people... It doesn't take that much imagination to put oneself in their shoes... and see that it's largely greed, small-mindedness, or stupidity that explain what they did. Greed, small-mindedness, and stupidity are as much a part of human nature, as generosity, open-mindedness, and cleverness. Regardless, any society in which I'd want to live promotes the latter.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

Yeah I think we always at least ought to try to understand. There may be things that are not understandable, but, when we give it our best shot we can say we tried. In many cases, I imagine the SS officer may have had a gun pointed to his head himself. That certainly was the case in Cambodia. If a soldier didn't kill someone who he was ordered to kill, he would be shot himself. If we can keep tensions low and communicate better I believe we can at least forestall further world wars.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
petra 9y ago
SS officers didn't really have a gun pointed to their heads. They could refuse. But it was the combination of the difficulty of saying no to authority and probably peer pressure , together with the reasonable possibility they'll be sent to the front lines (not even as a punishment , but because that's what men did back than).
- Ntrails 9y ago
  Assume strangers. If it's a choice between him and me, I choose me. If it's a choice between those ten people and me, I probably choose me. If it's a choice between a n+1 people and me, I guess I've already done n, what's another one? Acknowledging that there is a difference between being sent away to war and certain death. That there's a difference between 1 more person and a hundred. I believe that far more people than we'd like to admit would just follow orders.
  - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
    A poet (Polish?) once said that "one million and one is still one million" (IIRC he was talking about Stalin rulings and the number of victims, and that a single life does not weight much in such times, but I am not sure)
    - BrandoElFollito 9y ago
      It was actually Mrs Wislawa Szymborska, Nobel Prize winner (although a reluctant one). The quote was "one thousand and one is still only one thousand" from a poem about a concentration camp (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szebnie_concentration_camp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szebnie_concentration_camp)