471
What is one moral you have that most people don't agree with? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
1148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • The illusion that we are "rational" has done more damage than good, and if we were to just embrace that emotions are not just real, but a stronger influence on people's behaviour (and therefore reality) than any facts, we might start getting somewhere as a species.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    But understanding, predicting, and reacting differently on emotions are all learnable, and very rational.

    For example: don't punch the TV when you are angry about loosing a game. Instead realise where the anger is coming from. Probably frustration, but why are you so frustrated when you loose? Some frustration is understandable, but what causes so much frustration that it turned into violent anger? And can you predict what actions or circumsfamces may result in that frustration or and anger (e.g. alcohol consumption)?

    The most rational fictional species I know, Vulcans, do not lack emotion. Quite the opposite. But they have learned to control their emotions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Rationale is just as often, if not more so, as emotions to commit atrocities. It takes a great deal of rationale and emotional disregard to dehumanize people, and the "high horse of rationality" and "predicting models" is often required to cause things like the holocaust or to rationalize the genocide in Gaza ("Killing children is wrong, BUT....") No emotion required, in fact, rationalizing against emotion is the requirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The "rationale" behind such atrocities is always based on emotion, not actual reason. Usually fear. Analyzing why you feel that fear, and whether it is justified, will help to avoid falling into such logical fallacies.

    Ignoring the fear, and dismissing it as illogical will not help anyone. You have to acknowledge the emotion, and analyse it. Allow it to exist, but avoid acting on it before analyzing it.

    In fact, acting on emotions, especially on fear, will often result in such atrocities. Since it is fear, not reason, that eliminates compassion.

    Ps. I like the discourse. Please don't see my comments as a personal attack. Even if neither of us changes their oppinion, understanding the other is valuable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I have two mantras that come to mind when this conversation comes up.

    1. "Let your front door and back door open to your thoughts and feelings, just don't serve them tea."

    2. "What a liberation it is to realize that my thoughts and feelings aren't who I am. Who am I then? The one that realizes it."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    No no, you're right

    But often the people that most vehemently stamp their feet about how rational they are, are the most emotionally-driven (and spiteful) motherfuckers in the planet. Cranking about how they are rational beings while being entirely driven by negative emotions from high school times that they never addressed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent