People get so caught up and locked into the fact someone intentionally did something bad. Humor me for a moment. On some level: so what? Have you ever done something intentionally and then realized it was a mistake? Did intention make it not a mistake? (We can debate using the word "mistake" and settle on "error," if you like. Did intention make it not an error?) If you realize it was a mistake later, then there's good in that - you learned something. On the other hand, if you don't realize it was a mistake, or you don't or can't grok it enough emotionally to care, then that's a brain difference between you and someone who would.
Isn't it?
If you disagree with me so far, this is probably your fulcrum - your best pressure point for making the opposite case. Maybe it isn't a brain difference, always. Indeed, maybe. But then what is it? Moral soul? I think that's the hypothesis. (And sometimes - I think science has proven - it definitely is a brain difference. So: only sometimes, or always? That's the open question. And if not a brain difference, then what? And what would that mean?)
The average person believes that intentional bad behavior is evil that deserves or demands punishment (kick that bad "moral soul" in the teeth), especially if the wrongdoer lacks the capacity to really feel the error. Yet the more someone lacks the capacity to feel their error, the less relevant or useful punishment is, not the more. What becomes most relevant - and is the most relevant always, anyway - is intercepting/neutralizing/containing threats. You don't need hatred to react to Chernobyl or Fukushima or a hurricane or earthquake or tornado or hungry lion escaped from the zoo. You just do what's necessary like the wise, caring, strong person you are.
This is blindingly obvious to me and I've spent most of my life quietly shaking my head at the average person's moral attitudes.
I genuinely believe those are backwards. Many of y'all might have some spiritual/mental/emotional growing to do.
As do I. As do I. (And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing probably not. Try to disagree. You'll have trouble if you're intellectually honest. I won't have to give you trouble. It'll be there. That's how reason works.)
It's ok. I'm not a judger and not a hater. I like that about myself. I'm at peace with it. I find it works.
And YMMV, I know. I accept that my knowledge and insights are finite and might not apply to everyone. But I do know stuff about psychology and I did grow up in an abusive family situation and I do take an interest in research on this topic. So there's a decent chance that my take is more, not less, informed than the average person's take that I'm disagreeing with here.
My take can, from a casual glance, be mistaken for sociopathy or amorality. But it is neither. I intensely feel the importance of others' subjective experiences and I do have a heart and do value morality, even without any sort of religious creed I believe in to tell me that I must. I do feel. And I do feel for others. And I consider empathy incredibly important and valuable. But I do not turn that around and monolithically, self-righteously detest those who lack it. I can understand that, too. And I think understanding is very important. It helps in the long run, if you're doing it right.
