5 ms·

Just because someone has a consistent set of guiding principles doesn't mean that "bad" behavior is somehow more justifiable.

by mp05 2y ago

petsfed 2y ago
I'd actually argue its worse if their guiding principles guide them to bad behavior, because they have a ready made defense and social insulation around their bad behavior. That's really at the heart of the evil of the Holocaust. It did not happen because good people were possessed by an evil spirit or tricked by propaganda or whatever, these aren't people acting out of character or at odds with their moral senses. It happened because people allowed themselves to be convinced that an evil was a good, because the propaganda they encountered reinforced their preexisting biases and inclinations. To the point above, its not the case that fascists lack any set of guiding principles, its that their priorities are perverted from the normal. It's not they don't perceive e.g. murdering members of the designated out-group as evil, its just that their principles either recast those people as less human (making the murder ethically neutral at worse), or that allowing said people to survive will result in far worse outcomes for society at large (making the murder ethically commendable).
- thrance 2y ago
  That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race". There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point. I do believe fascists lack a proper set of guiding principle. They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group. And you are right that there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
  - mp05 2y ago
    > That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race". > There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point. I think you're conflating fringe myths with the actual core ideology. The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. > They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group. That's pretty reductive don't you think? Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. > [...] there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that. I get the point, but I don’t buy the 'anyone' angle. Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
    - thrance 2y ago
      > The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies. > Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim. > It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. You are very right on that. > Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment. You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.

Just because someone has a consistent set of guiding principles doesn't mean that "bad" behavior is somehow more justifiable.

by mp05 2y ago

Just because someone has a consistent set of guiding principles doesn't mean that "bad" behavior is somehow more justifiable.

petsfed 2y ago

I'd actually argue its worse if their guiding principles guide them to bad behavior, because they have a ready made defense and social insulation around their bad behavior. That's really at the heart of the evil of the Holocaust. It did not happen because good people were possessed by an evil spirit or tricked by propaganda or whatever, these aren't people acting out of character or at odds with their moral senses. It happened because people allowed themselves to be convinced that an evil was a good, because the propaganda they encountered reinforced their preexisting biases and inclinations. To the point above, its not the case that fascists lack any set of guiding principles, its that their priorities are perverted from the normal. It's not they don't perceive e.g. murdering members of the designated out-group as evil, its just that their principles either recast those people as less human (making the murder ethically neutral at worse), or that allowing said people to survive will result in far worse outcomes for society at large (making the murder ethically commendable).

thrance 2y ago
That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race". There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point. I do believe fascists lack a proper set of guiding principle. They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group. And you are right that there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
- mp05 2y ago
  > That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race". > There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point. I think you're conflating fringe myths with the actual core ideology. The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. > They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group. That's pretty reductive don't you think? Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. > [...] there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that. I get the point, but I don’t buy the 'anyone' angle. Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
  - thrance 2y ago
    > The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies. > Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim. > It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. You are very right on that. > Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment. You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.