tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post3650449809785521244..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Too Hot to Handle: The “No Harm” ArgumentDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-38971006019636034682015-02-21T09:40:21.463-05:002015-02-21T09:40:21.463-05:00We live in a culture that puts "victims"...We live in a culture that puts "victims" on a pedestal perch atop the high moral ground, and then fawningly placates them until they cease whining. The placaters heap on the supposed victims public praise while excoriating those the so-called "victims" have condemned as their alleged oppressors -- meaning anyone who disagrees with them. <br /><br />Then these "victims" begin to claim "rights" no human being ever possessed or should possess, and use them as if they were trumps. They claim a "right" to preferential treatment, to historic redress, to public celebration, to immunity to criticism, to do what they want with their own bodies (or even with the bodies of others), to lavish financial compensation, and so on.<br /><br />Most of this is just posturing. Real cases of truly aggrieved victims are few, far between and very distinct -- such as, say, the victims of slavery and segregation. The rest are merely preening, self-important opportunists. And as such, they ought to be roundly ignored. Unfortunately, our society has also developed a taste for self-righteous posturing as the defender of the oppressed, so this feeds the toxic cycle. And so we get absurd precepts like the idea that when a "victim" merely *perceives* there to have been an offence, then the offence must be deemed to be real, and anyone who doubts it can instantly be branded a bigot and hounded without conscience.<br /><br />All this means that today we have to be exceedingly careful whenever anyone claims to be "hurt," that they will not abuse that falsely privileged status actually to hurt others. They love to do that today.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-19508576437039649062015-02-20T18:02:41.937-05:002015-02-20T18:02:41.937-05:00Agreed. The phrasing of the message they'd lik...Agreed. The phrasing of the message they'd like us to take away from their research seems naive to me at best.<br /><br />I mean, it's nice to be reminded that some folks on the "other side" of some of these issues are principled too. That's not really the problem though. It's that those principles are frequently rotten to the core and based on lies.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-25074768719203848652015-02-20T17:52:33.197-05:002015-02-20T17:52:33.197-05:00“The key message of our research, and an important...“The key message of our research, and an important step in improving moral dialogue, is to realize that perceptions of harm are psychologically real to the perceiver of immorality. They are not merely concocted to antagonize those with opposing views or to further inflame the passions of sympathizers.”<br /> <br />The above conclusion appears to me to be a significant attempt at avoidance of the true quality or nature of "perception of harm" by the study authors. If the authors, either incompetently, or deliberately, conclude or imply that such a perception has only, or primarily, a psychological component to it they are clearly totally wrong or being deliberately misleading.<br /><br />The observer (perceiver) does not have to have a psychological component at all but most likely, definitely in my case, is able to make a factual assessment of the morality of the action involved, and doing it as coolly as an icicle without being psychologically impacted. Dictates of morality, to the rational person, are rationally grounded, especially when grounded in Christianity, and do not require more than that for the moral person. Immoral actions are defined as such by the bible and Christian teaching precisely because of their destructive impact on the material world and its inhabitants. If there was no such impact, immorality would not even get a mention in the bible. It is therefore misleading to make it look that such impact is not primary and can be watered down and filed away as some psychological notion.Qmannoreply@blogger.com