6 ms·

Remember that we stuff toddlers full of stories from books and telly and games where, to simplify, we present antagonists whose sole motivation is that they are

Remember that we stuff toddlers full of stories from books and telly and games where, to simplify, we present antagonists whose sole motivation is that they are 'baddies'. Culturally we push ideas of absolute moral character quite hard, and only add nuance later.

leokennis 5y ago
This is a reason I love watching Peppa Pig and so do kids. They present characters with obvious flaws, but those characters are not judged for it and also make up for it with good traits. Just like real people. Great example: https://youtu.be/zNzC_cNZVjY?t=88 https://youtu.be/zNzC_cNZVjY?t=88
zpeti 5y ago
1. This isn't just the adults deciding. Children are attracted to certain types of stories too. 2. It doesn't stop. And it's why CNN and Fox are successful. But it is how we as humans want to see the world. Suprisingly to some, neither democrats or republicans are actually evil, they just have different perspectives on the world, and probably have more in common than in disagreement.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  Comprehension is different than approbation though. Maybe it becomes too philosophical but for me we can grow to appreciate the different perspective of others, what we have in common as human beings, and not judge them harshly because we are not sure we would do better in their shoes, but still actions can be evil.
- ike77 5y ago
  Maybe for a lot of people the media they consume actually shape their preferences? But I would steer clear of generalizing, I think a lot of people have a strong preference for stories where the lines between what's moral and not are much more blurry and where you have reversal of preferences for various characters and where the main character is somehow sketchy. I think at the acclaimed Parasite for instance. It's relatively easy to elicit a strong emotion, but that doesn't make a story, just a news.
- sporkland 5y ago
  Your #1 reminds me of this post: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressive-authoritarian-soul-of-thomas-the-tank-engine-and-friends https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressiv...
- bscphil 5y ago
  > neither democrats or republicans are actually evil Surely this claim requires moral relativism, right? If women have a right to an abortion, then attempting to outlaw it outright in virtually every case is surely evil, and thus (most) Republicans are evil. If it's wrong to give people welfare or health care that they can't afford to pay for, then (most) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to mandate vaccines, then (a handful of) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to prohibit refugees or economic immigrants from crossing your border in search of a better life, then both Democrats and Republicans are evil to the extent that they do that. Same for drone strikes on purported terrorists. Moral relativism is not as promising a position as most ordinary (non-religious) people believe. The majority of trained ethicists (in the field of Philosophy) are moral realists: they believe that certain things are actually right and wrong. "Evil" sometimes connotes a special level of immorality than no one can ever reach - they'd have to be demon possessed, or act against the will of God (provided one exists), etc. But I think ordinary evil is quite banal. It's just a matter of large-scale injustices being perpetrated by ordinary people who think they're in the right, when they are not. I think it's almost certain that quite a few Republicans and Democrats are evil in this sense. I have opinions about which group is more systematically evil, but those aren't relevant to this comment.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > Moral relativism is not as promising a position as most ordinary (non-religious) people believe. The majority of trained ethicists (in the field of Philosophy) are moral realists: they believe that certain things are actually right and wrong. This is a poor argument because response to it is just that that is selection bias. Those who settle on moral relativism don't become ethicists (since there's nothing much to say on that, they specialize in something else) and those who do become ethicists can't settle on moral relativism (since again, there would be nothing much to say and they'd have no job.) Or take it the other way: in order to be an ethicists, you'd have to be a moral realist. Something along these lines anyway waves hands.
    - bscphil 5y ago
      > since there's nothing much to say on that, they specialize in something else This is not really true. There are plenty of different forms of relativism and plenty of philosophers who have taken a stance in ethics that is consistently anti-realist and published countless papers defending various aspects of that. It's more or less the same argument as "all climate scientists believe in climate change because they have to or they wouldn't be able to publish anything, therefore we should discount what they say about climate change". Except in this case it's even weaker, because a significant proportion (though a minority) of ethicists take this position.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Mostly agree, though it's probably fairer to say that both republicans and democrats are corrupt, they just get payed by different interest groups. And this mostly applies to the vast majority of political parties in most democracies on Earth, unfortunately.
  - vibrato2 5y ago
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    And it's still fairer to say not that party X and party Y are both corrupt but that both are corruptible. Rather than say everyone is bad, say everyone has the potential to be bad. Then you can react to individual instances of badness and hope to improve things. If you say goodness is impossible you are optimizing for badness.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  Re: 2, I see your point, but I think you've taken just an extreme view as those that would categorise firmly into goodies and baddies. It's still possible to recognise that different people's intentions may be more or less selfish, without either going for "good"/"evil" dichotomy or lumping everything into an "only human" bucket.
- yebyen 5y ago
  > It doesn't stop. And it's why CNN and Fox are successful Oof. You are right about this, and it's certainly a blind spot for a lot of "adults"
bottled_poe 5y ago
Judgement is hard. It’s a hell of a lot easier to write and understand a narrative which has already done the hard work of discernment for you.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  Thanks, that insight that never occurred to me before.
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  Stories with nuance also take longer to tell and are inherently less engaging, even if ultimately more rewarding or enlightening.
_pmf_ 5y ago
> and only add nuance later When would that be?
Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
I tend to agree, since shotty kids TV/film far outnumber anything decent. However, it's not all bad. I just watched The Grinch with my three year old. Despite some of the subtle adult oriented jokes aging poorly, the characters are surprisingly nuanced. Initially my daughter was scared of the Grinch, then she decided he was naughty (like her, she added). Soon she was asking why children were mean to him when he was little etc. There was admittedly a bit of explaining (shaving cuts etc.), but by the end of it she seemed to have a pretty solid grasp that children being mean upset him, and so he did naughty things because he was upset.
trentnix 5y ago
Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. - CS Lewis
watwut 5y ago
Frustratingly, we do the same in adult entertainment. The shows with nuanced characters are fairly rare - although quite popular.

leokennis 5y ago

This is a reason I love watching Peppa Pig and so do kids. They present characters with obvious flaws, but those characters are not judged for it and also make up for it with good traits. Just like real people. Great example: https://youtu.be/zNzC_cNZVjY?t=88 https://youtu.be/zNzC_cNZVjY?t=88

zpeti 5y ago

1. This isn't just the adults deciding. Children are attracted to certain types of stories too. 2. It doesn't stop. And it's why CNN and Fox are successful. But it is how we as humans want to see the world. Suprisingly to some, neither democrats or republicans are actually evil, they just have different perspectives on the world, and probably have more in common than in disagreement.

tarsinge 5y ago
Comprehension is different than approbation though. Maybe it becomes too philosophical but for me we can grow to appreciate the different perspective of others, what we have in common as human beings, and not judge them harshly because we are not sure we would do better in their shoes, but still actions can be evil.
ike77 5y ago
Maybe for a lot of people the media they consume actually shape their preferences? But I would steer clear of generalizing, I think a lot of people have a strong preference for stories where the lines between what's moral and not are much more blurry and where you have reversal of preferences for various characters and where the main character is somehow sketchy. I think at the acclaimed Parasite for instance. It's relatively easy to elicit a strong emotion, but that doesn't make a story, just a news.
sporkland 5y ago
Your #1 reminds me of this post: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressive-authoritarian-soul-of-thomas-the-tank-engine-and-friends https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressiv...
bscphil 5y ago
> neither democrats or republicans are actually evil Surely this claim requires moral relativism, right? If women have a right to an abortion, then attempting to outlaw it outright in virtually every case is surely evil, and thus (most) Republicans are evil. If it's wrong to give people welfare or health care that they can't afford to pay for, then (most) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to mandate vaccines, then (a handful of) Democrats are evil. If it's wrong to prohibit refugees or economic immigrants from crossing your border in search of a better life, then both Democrats and Republicans are evil to the extent that they do that. Same for drone strikes on purported terrorists. Moral relativism is not as promising a position as most ordinary (non-religious) people believe. The majority of trained ethicists (in the field of Philosophy) are moral realists: they believe that certain things are actually right and wrong. "Evil" sometimes connotes a special level of immorality than no one can ever reach - they'd have to be demon possessed, or act against the will of God (provided one exists), etc. But I think ordinary evil is quite banal. It's just a matter of large-scale injustices being perpetrated by ordinary people who think they're in the right, when they are not. I think it's almost certain that quite a few Republicans and Democrats are evil in this sense. I have opinions about which group is more systematically evil, but those aren't relevant to this comment.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > Moral relativism is not as promising a position as most ordinary (non-religious) people believe. The majority of trained ethicists (in the field of Philosophy) are moral realists: they believe that certain things are actually right and wrong. This is a poor argument because response to it is just that that is selection bias. Those who settle on moral relativism don't become ethicists (since there's nothing much to say on that, they specialize in something else) and those who do become ethicists can't settle on moral relativism (since again, there would be nothing much to say and they'd have no job.) Or take it the other way: in order to be an ethicists, you'd have to be a moral realist. Something along these lines anyway waves hands.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    > since there's nothing much to say on that, they specialize in something else This is not really true. There are plenty of different forms of relativism and plenty of philosophers who have taken a stance in ethics that is consistently anti-realist and published countless papers defending various aspects of that. It's more or less the same argument as "all climate scientists believe in climate change because they have to or they wouldn't be able to publish anything, therefore we should discount what they say about climate change". Except in this case it's even weaker, because a significant proportion (though a minority) of ethicists take this position.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Mostly agree, though it's probably fairer to say that both republicans and democrats are corrupt, they just get payed by different interest groups. And this mostly applies to the vast majority of political parties in most democracies on Earth, unfortunately.
- vibrato2 5y ago
- DFHippie 5y ago
  And it's still fairer to say not that party X and party Y are both corrupt but that both are corruptible. Rather than say everyone is bad, say everyone has the potential to be bad. Then you can react to individual instances of badness and hope to improve things. If you say goodness is impossible you are optimizing for badness.
quietbritishjim 5y ago
Re: 2, I see your point, but I think you've taken just an extreme view as those that would categorise firmly into goodies and baddies. It's still possible to recognise that different people's intentions may be more or less selfish, without either going for "good"/"evil" dichotomy or lumping everything into an "only human" bucket.
yebyen 5y ago
> It doesn't stop. And it's why CNN and Fox are successful Oof. You are right about this, and it's certainly a blind spot for a lot of "adults"

bottled_poe 5y ago

Judgement is hard. It’s a hell of a lot easier to write and understand a narrative which has already done the hard work of discernment for you.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
Thanks, that insight that never occurred to me before.
jonny_eh 5y ago
Stories with nuance also take longer to tell and are inherently less engaging, even if ultimately more rewarding or enlightening.

_pmf_ 5y ago

> and only add nuance later When would that be?

Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago

I tend to agree, since shotty kids TV/film far outnumber anything decent. However, it's not all bad. I just watched The Grinch with my three year old. Despite some of the subtle adult oriented jokes aging poorly, the characters are surprisingly nuanced. Initially my daughter was scared of the Grinch, then she decided he was naughty (like her, she added). Soon she was asking why children were mean to him when he was little etc. There was admittedly a bit of explaining (shaving cuts etc.), but by the end of it she seemed to have a pretty solid grasp that children being mean upset him, and so he did naughty things because he was upset.

trentnix 5y ago

Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. - CS Lewis

watwut 5y ago

Frustratingly, we do the same in adult entertainment. The shows with nuanced characters are fairly rare - although quite popular.