47 ms·

A sobering thought: when you consider that this is true for people we have come to demonize as well. Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan ect ect they were al

A sobering thought: when you consider that this is true for people we have come to demonize as well. Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan ect ect they were all human with emotions, worries, good days and struggles. The only thing that separates us from them is what we think about what they did. A lot of people can’t process the idea of the worst criminals being people just like them or consider that deep down they are not moral, good or anything special and they themselves are capable of the same evil if placed in the correct circumstances.

ip26 6y ago
I think you are forgetting that sociopathy, in particular the inability to feel empathy, is a real thing.
loopz 6y ago
They are without empathy, remorse and able to manipulate people duplicating their behaviours and choices. This is both normal and extremist. People are still vulnerable to it today.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
7952 6y ago
With BLM I found myself thinking a lot about this question. Should we be understanding of slave owners and put them into hisorical context? Is it fair to hold people in the past to the morals of today? Where should the balance be struck? I think the answer is that both things are true. Killing, abusing and enslaving people was always wrong. But the cognitive basis for those acts can be more mundane than pure evil. I think as a society we experience a larger version of the free will problem. Our future path is tightly bound to our history and culture. We do not have complete free will. Breaking away an asserting agency can be be both an opportunity and a risk. Nelson Mandela broke with history but so did Hitler and Stalin. We shouldn't assume that we are the former.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Is it fair to hold people in the past to the morals of today? It's impossible, so it doesn't matter if it's fair: we’re not transporting reward or punishment back to people in the past. Our decisions about who from the past we hold up as role models, and how, isn't about fairness to people in the past, it's about fairness to people in the present.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Nelson Mandela broke with history but so did Hitler and Stalin. What do you mean by that? What does breaking with history means? All three were subjectively sure they are righteous and in the right.

ip26 6y ago

I think you are forgetting that sociopathy, in particular the inability to feel empathy, is a real thing.

loopz 6y ago

They are without empathy, remorse and able to manipulate people duplicating their behaviours and choices. This is both normal and extremist. People are still vulnerable to it today.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

7952 6y ago

With BLM I found myself thinking a lot about this question. Should we be understanding of slave owners and put them into hisorical context? Is it fair to hold people in the past to the morals of today? Where should the balance be struck? I think the answer is that both things are true. Killing, abusing and enslaving people was always wrong. But the cognitive basis for those acts can be more mundane than pure evil. I think as a society we experience a larger version of the free will problem. Our future path is tightly bound to our history and culture. We do not have complete free will. Breaking away an asserting agency can be be both an opportunity and a risk. Nelson Mandela broke with history but so did Hitler and Stalin. We shouldn't assume that we are the former.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Is it fair to hold people in the past to the morals of today? It's impossible, so it doesn't matter if it's fair: we’re not transporting reward or punishment back to people in the past. Our decisions about who from the past we hold up as role models, and how, isn't about fairness to people in the past, it's about fairness to people in the present.
watwut 6y ago
> Nelson Mandela broke with history but so did Hitler and Stalin. What do you mean by that? What does breaking with history means? All three were subjectively sure they are righteous and in the right.