hate

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hate. It goes away rather quickly, replaced with frustration, confusion, compromise, rationalizing, and a number of other hate resolvers. But the generalized hate remains, repressed.

What gives us the position to condemn persons who commit hate crimes? Is the condemnation against the act and not the impulse? We all have the impulse, no? In condemnation I hear things like - this is an evil person. Evil people feel hate as well as do hate. Again, we all feel hate. So is evil only concerned with the action? If not, then are all those people who condemn murderers really free of feeling hatred? Shouldn’t we condemn hate feelers as well as hate doers?

I don’t think so. Actually, I believe that condementation itself is a form of hatred. We condemn ourselves and the evil that is within all of us. Condemnation is a way of saying Don’t show me how evil I am.

(Don’t know if this has any responses, just wondered if my reasoning makes any sense.)

2

In The Plague, one of Camus’ character’s (Tarrou, i think), states that we all ahve an impulse inside of us for cruelty, murder, and hate, and that the most we can hope to become are “innocent murderers”. This may be a bit extreme, but it can be tempered in the following way: we all have the potential for cruelty.

As you can probably tell, i think there is a very close connection, if not an identity between, cruelty and hate. I dont think violence itself necessarily implies hatred or cruelty. Warrior cultures testify to this. As do drunken friends who, for the heck of it, beat the sh*t out of each other and are the same friends afterwards. Another way to put it is that aggression itself does not imply cruelty (hatred), though of course acts of hatred and cruelty often involve violence and aggression.

We can look at this from another angle also: animals are aggressive, and we might say violent. Yet we do not say that animals hate one another, or that they are intentionally cruel. As Dostoeyvki points out, this element of intentional cruelty seems to be a unique feature of human beings (and all along we thought it was rationality).

Really, though, although we all may, as human beings, have a distinct potential for cruelty, i dont think this means that we all hate or are in one way or another cruel.

How to do deal with people who are cruel and hateful does raise a problem; on one hand, to condemn them (say, put them in prison, or, worse still, sentence them to death), does imply evil and hatred on the part of the accusor. Yet at the same time, it is awfully difficult to accept their behavior. Do we let such people roam the streets?

Prison systems (i.e. manifestations of “condemnation”) seem terrible, and it seems that nobody should have to spend a moment in such a place, let alone a lifetime. But at the same time, when we consider the sorts of things that some of these people do, there doesnt seem to be many other options. Putting people in prison (condemning them) certainly doesnt get to the source of the problem, but when we consider the extreme cruelty excerized by some prisoners, it is unclear what sort of action might otherwise be taken once they have developed into the sort of people that they are.

It would be really nice if everybody practiced principles of love, forgiveness, and compassion–and some people do. But countless other people do not, and this is not limited to convicts. As far as i can tell, by the time they graduate high school, most Americans have either witnessed, heard of, or been invovled in the beating of a peer, and i dont mean a classic fist fight. i mean the sort of fights where the loser ends up the hospital; i.e. an act of deep cruelty and hatred.

Does this say something more about human nature or about the culture that has developed?

3

km - I like your breakdown of hate and cruelty. We agree that all of us feel these things. And the kind of cruelty that we imagine in our brains can be found matched either in actualized cases of cruelty (serial killers, etc) or reading novelists like Stephen King. Since the possibility of cruelty exists in all individuals the only difference between criminals and non-criminals is behavioural.

Are there any posters who disagree with this?

Here’s a possible consequence of the above. I am wondering if you agree with it. I think Dostroevsky would make the same argument.

If the same impulses and hatred/cruelty foundation exist in criminal and non-criminal alike, then criminals should be treated with respect. The criminal justice system, as the face of society at the level of handling criminals, should treat criminals with respect. They are merely ‘us’ who have done the deed of our own hearts. They are the voice of our own evil. As a result, instead of perpetuating the repression of our evils by putting criminals away, condemning them in the sentencing phase of a criminal case, or in the press and the movies, or in the political arenas, we ought to be psychoanalysing our repressed evils when they are exposed through criminal behaviour.

To go to the extreme: the criminal is the hero of the possibility of overcoming our repressed evils. We lose this opportunity in our condemnation of the criminal, when we distance ourselves from a crime.

This of course doesn’t argue against the need for prisons in terms of deterrance.

What does this analysis (its less extreme elements) do with the concept like retribution - which can mean repayment of a debt as well as something like revenge?

4

Not to paraphrase Star Wars, but fear leads to hate. Then what is fear? I suppose it is feeling powerless. Not knowing if you will live or die. Basically, not being in control. Hate stems from feelings of helplessness. If someone constantly takes your lunch money, and threatens to beat you up if you do not relinquish it, you may grow to hate that person.

I agree with EnMarchant with his assertion that condemnation is a form of hate. Law abiding citizens hate when a criminal makes them worry,or fear for their lives; they condemn the criminal in an effort to qualm their fear and restore their “peaceful” lifestyles. It appears that the only way to get rid of hate is to implement a system that will abolish any humans from ever causing each other fear.

But that will never happen.

We have all done something in our lives that probably made another hate us. Therefore we are all part of the problem, just in varying degrees. Where the worst thing I have done was maybe tease my brother incessantly (causing him to hate me, at least briefly) is not quite as severe as the actions of the September 11th terrorists.

So where do we draw the line as to what is acceptable behavior? If our society were extremely strict, I would have been killed at six for teasing my little brother, because I was creating evil or hatred. Thankfully I wasn’t and my behavior/mindset was corrected by my parents. But how do we go about correcting the behavior/mindset of someone so hateful as a murderer or terrorist? Shouldn’t they be given the same chance to reform as I was given at the age of six? Theoretically yes. But once again, that will never happen.

When I think about topics like this, I can’t help but remember John Lennon’s song Imagine. Lennon basically asks you to imagine a world where nothing exists that would develop hatred (bit of a stretch, I know). I wish his song could become reality. Too bad it won’t while any of us are alive.

Sorry for ending on such a sour note :wink:

5

We are both agreeing that condemnation is a form of hatred, but I am not at all interested (in this thread) in removing hate but only acknowledging it. In this way I think I avoid the issue of Lennon idealism and utopian civilization.

I am positing the universal existence of hate and asking the question If we all have it, what differentiates the criminal?

Furthemore, I am not asking this question. I am not questioning the need for a criminal justice system. We need police officers, lawyers, judges, prisons, laws, et al.

My question is to talk about the way we understand the criminal.

I think we are simply using condemnation to mask our own hatreds. It is a cover up. A form of denial. We are angry and spiteful people. I also don’t accept that fear is the sole cause of this. Or better yet, it is true that all of us fear including the criminal. But perhaps the most accurate explanation of cause of hate is that all of us hate and we get there in many different ways - some of us are simply bad, others are fearful, or selfish, or ignorant, etc…

The point I am making here is that to create a psychological separation between the criminal and the public is to create a line which is wholly fictional. We have bars on prisons to separate the criminal to keep society safe. Ought not the line be limited to that? and that in all other manners of treatment of the criminal there should be no such dividing line? This would imply discussing rehabilitation, prison conditions, and the nature of the punishment.

6

EnMarchant-
I never intended to digress from your your original thread, so I apologize for doing so. I’ll try to explain myself with regards to your latest questions.

What I was alluding to in my previous post, was that everything that society is doing to “control” bad behavior is simply a waste of time. We could discuss the prison system and how to implement a better method of rehabilitating criminals, but that would not be addressing the root of the problem. Aside from criminals that are the result of mental instabilities, the rest are a product of their environment. I know if I grew up in a horrible area with an abusive family, I would most likely be a criminal as well.

The real solution deals with society taking an active role in the upbringing of its children. The world needs to function in a manner where child abuse is abolished. Poverty and wealth should not exist (wealth in the sense of having more than another). All of these reasons (and more) are the causes of crime.

Instead of dealing with the results of criminal behavior, we need to deal with the causes.

Some may take offense to the following: some people do not have the right to raise a child. Society needs to stop people from raising criminals. But I doubt the day will ever pass that anyone will allow the government to intervene with the upbringing of children to the degree it will make a difference. We should really need to discuss how this could be implemented.

We need to begin by throwing a lot more money into the Social Work system. This is what the conversation needs to be about. How to reform Social Work (so that it is effective), not the prison system. Throw in some socialism and we may just get rid of the majority of crime.

I promise I’m not trying to change the topic :slight_smile:

I know I have not made an all-inclusive argument, so please feel free to point out the flaws and I’ll do my best to clear up my argument.

7

Criminal gene?

8

sedm1000-

This was one of the points I knew was going to be brought to attention. This would basically fall under the mentally insane bracket of criminal offenders as well.

But to answer your question-
People who are “predisposed” to be uncontrollably evil would have to be dealt with accordingly. If society were structured as I previously had stated, it would not be too hard to identify these people at an early age. Until a cure for the “evil gene” was found, these types of people would need to be institutionalized. However, the amount of people to be imprisoned would pale in comparison to the number of inmates in jail today.

Eventually, (you may think I am crazy for saying this) but the science of cloning/gene mapping would be the solution for those that might contain the “evil gene”. I know this sounds incredibly “Brave New Worldish”. But who’s to say it won’t happen. The Pandora’s Box has been opened. No amount of legislation will stop the eventual modification of future humans. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just that it will most likely happen.

I think the point I am trying to make is that the solution to crime does not lie in our justice system. The only way to eradicate crime entirely is through changing human nature, which appears to be a possibility of the future through use of science. Concerning the here and now, our only hope is to eliminate the “environmental” causes through restructuring society and to regretably institutionalize those that could not be helped.

As a sidenote, I understand the moral and ethical problems involved with modifying a human. It also may lead to someone, or a group of people to completely enslaving an entire population (like the Alpha’s did over the Deltas in Brave New World)

Let me know what you think.

9

EnMarchant stated:

What reasoning do you have to believe this? As far as I know this isn’t true. Hate can, but doesn’t have to become repressed. It usually depends on the duration of the emotion as well as the psychological impact of that which you hate upon your psyche. Furthermore, I don’t think hate becomes replaced by the aforementioned emotions or states of mind. Again, it can be replaced, but it doesn’t have to be replaced by a hate resolver, nor does the hate have to remain. There are those who are not vengeful and there are those who are quite good at foregiving. More importantly, there are those who don’t allow themselves to hate others and make an effort to resolve a problem before it leads to hate - I count myself as one of them. I can’t say, this very moment, that there is any one person in the world that I hate - and believe me there are many who would love to do me harm.

EnMarchant stated:

Hate is something considered after the crime, the level of the hate on the person conscience and how it might have impaired or clouded their judgement and control of themselves. We have a position to punish those who commit crimes because it doesn’t advocate the way of life the system is promoting.

EnMarchant stated:

The punishment is against the crime, the impulse does get considered as a factor. I’m sure you are well aware of the purpose of punishment within our society, having a law degree and all. Deterence and rehabiliation. Deterence has many levels to it, but the prominent one in this situation is that criminals are punished so the rest of society sees what will happen to them if they do the same thing.

EnMarchant stated:

Evil is a relative term to a society’s beliefs. An evil person is just someone who doesn’t do as the rest of society does. No we shouldn’t condemn hate feelers, especially if you were right, right in that we all feel hate. We would all be condemned. Hence it makes much more sense to punish criminal acts while considering the impact of the feeling of hate on the person in context.

What’s your take?

10

EnMarchant- thanks for initiating this post with your thoughts on such an interesting topic for discussion. I think the problem with your question though is the distinction or line you are trying to draw between thoughts/emotions and actions/behaviors. You ask, is the only difference between the criminal and non-criminal merely behavior?; but there seems to be much more involved. When a person does something, whether directed towards another or not, and regardless of what is intended, others are left with making some kind of interpretation on that person’s actions. This is what I think Magius is alluding to when he says, “More importantly, there are those who don’t allow themselves to hate others and make an effort to resolve a problem before it leads to hate - I count myself as one of them. I can’t say, this very moment, that there is any one person in the world that I hate - and believe me there are many who would love to do me harm.”

Feeling hate or acting out of… seems to require interpretation. Therefore, I would ask, does society only punish/”condemn” criminals out of hatred? I don’t think that the justice system functions solely from this limited perspective. Instead I would argue that it can account for many possible interpretations. Some people might even argue that as a society we punish out of love.

I agree with you in that sometimes by punishing, certain people who implement this punishment, may disrespect these people (or even the people punished may believe that they are being disrespected, perception may factor into things) just because they have done “bad” things as deemed by society, maybe in an attempt to distinguish themselves from them. But I think these are separate issues.

When I first started reading this post, I thought maybe you were going to question the potential problems in a “free” society with increasing punishment for people who commit, what has been labeled “hate crimes.” An example would be a person who physically assaults someone just because that person is black…and the perpetrator “hates black people.” Why should this be considered any different than another person who assaults someone for another or any other reason? Aren’t we trying to deter the conduct? Apparently, there are certain ways in which this society seems comfortable with trying to control someone’s potential for hate or thoughts we consider reprehensible. I hope this doesn’t diverge too much from your thread and where you may have wanted it to go, but I’m curious if anyone has any thoughts on this idea.

Matthew E. stated: “I know if I grew up in a horrible area with an abusive family, I would most likely be a criminal as well.”

How do you understand people that come out of horrible environments and totally change their lives? I think many would, in theory, agree with your controversial statements that some people really shouldn’t have the right to raise a child (at least based upon their current level of demonstrating this ability or lack), but who or what system can be put in place to make that determination and set the criteria for it? Certainly, you don’t believe that there is only one “correct” way to raise children? What are the acceptable parenting behaviors and when should the State be able to step into the family and remove children? In my line of work I see things in this area that really scare me…when people who make what many might consider small mistakes and quite possibly could learn something from those mistakes, lose the opportunity to parent their children (the one’s they made the mistake with) forever. And do we really know the difference of impact between when a child is removed from their home regardless of the conditions that they are experiencing there and the alternatives? I guess I agree with you in that this would require LOTS of discussion.

11

wasn’t there a philosopher that studied rehabilitation within the prison systems?

maybe some people just can’t be rehabilitated or don’t want to be; they “choose” to act as they do?

12

MJ, maybe people aren’t changed by prison because dumping them into a violent place full of more experienced criminals is perhaps not the beststrategy for rehabilitation. How are you going to help society by nurturing hatred and the desire for revenge against it?

13

GD-My point about challenging the idea of rehabilitation is just that isn’t it possible that some people like to do bad things and freely choose to act this way? Rehabilitation suggests that they are merely broken and need to be fixed, but what if some want to be what they are?

I wasn’t trying to suggest that putting people in prison is what’s best for all of them, but I don’t quite follow why you think that by putting people in prison we as a society are nuturing hatred. Clearly, it hasn’t turned out to be the most practical idea in that consequently by putting together all these people, who have done bad things, gives them more opportunities to learn more ideas about how to do bad things more creatively and effectively (this is questionable though because the info they receive is from someone else who was in fact caught).

Long ago I took a class in Criminology and learned that in the past, societies just shipped their criminals to another place; I think that’s how some people ended up in Australia; apparently this was effective but isn’t prison just a different approach to removing them from society?

14

I think cruelty is far from being a word that is neutral. I wouldn’t say anybody is cruel. I think hatred ultimately has to do with the suppression of what’s within. I can hate the fact that someone appears to be in a certain way. But I don’t hate him. I just hate the way he suppresses what’s within, possibly because he fears to break what he believes to be society’s conventions. But as we know, society’s conventions are what one makes them - pure imagination. Lack of contact with what’s within and hiding oneself behind conventions - I hate the circumstances that lead to such things. What’s unnatural has the ability to create pure hatred. One may say cruelty is something unnatural, in the way it is a word that’s unavoidably connected to defending conventions or thoughts not very much to do with reality and that it wouldn’t be much cruelty in a world without such lack of contact with reality (both because things would be seen in other ways and not as ‘cruel’ and because there would’t be so much need for “cruelty”).

15

My view on this is that you won’t feel angry or hate toward a killer, unless he/she kills someone in your family and it brings it all home to you, and suddenly you feel irrate. Some feelings are justifiable. Walking around with a heart full of hate is perhaps not, but hating a murderer for killing your family member, well, its hard to condemn you for feeling that way.

16

Hatred lets you know you have a extreme problem with something or someone. Whether or not this hatred is justified/rational or right in any way depends on the thinking you have or have not done in the past.

Cruelty is a by product of misplaced & poorly dealt with hatred often stemming from unresolved hatred (resentment) as well as many other psychological maladies.

One need not behave in a hateful or cruel manner to manifest evil. By ignoring reality in favor of your own wishful superstitions one could easily cause a psychological malady in themselves leading to such acts as would be considered evil. Consider the man who ignores his wife’s poor behavior for such a period that he “Snaps” & hits her (or worse). By avoiding or rationalizing the build up of hatred & frustration he is as guilty of evil as those who drive drunk although do not intend to run anyone over.

Although it is a dead end to consider “mind police” & the like those who’s actions lead to depriving others of their rights must be reprimanded for their irresponsibility in the realm of controlling there human characteristics as well as the inevitable consequences.

Regards,

17

Hatred in and of itself is not necessarily evil. Hatred itself is simply a rational reaction to that which opposes your values. The question, then, is whether or not what you value is evil.

18

Maybe so, but hate is can be very destructive to one who hates. It can cause complete and utter deterioration of the individual and their ability to interact with others. Not only this but hate can lead to terrible acts of violence. Hate is probably the most self-destructive of all human emotions.

19

True.
Hate is my only drive, its the drive that does good and suppressing hate gives me happiness. Unless you learn to love hate, cause without it where simply robot’s.

20

But violent acts themselves are not inherently evil–the question is whether or not those violent acts are directed at evil themselves. If so, then the acts are not evil. But if the violence is directed at good, then the violence is evil.

If someone attacks me with no cause, but just comes at me for the hell of it, he is acting evilly. For me to respond with hatred for him (and violence) is a rational response to protect myself from an evil that seeks to damage my non-evil values (namely, my physical intactness) and is good.