@fmfsaid But, if it turns out that you ALSO believe that people who oppose those who invoke humanitarianism are prone to dehumanizing them, then why didn't you say so alongside the supposed dehumanization that you DID mention?
This is actually quite obvious if you remember your OP:
The OP said:
can empathy, in fact, lead to support for - or even participation in - morally unsound actions in certain situations, despite being virtuous in and of itself?
So I answered with a very obvious example spot on the OP: the irony of people who are self-stylized humanitarians actually creating the circumstances for dehumanizing others by dividing humanity into two groups, those who do or condone A, and those who condemn it.
Since we are specifically talking about the misuse of empathy though it may otherwise be virtuous.
A person who is on the receiving end of dehumanization and thus speaking out in retaliation isn't conceived of as misusing their empathy.
@fmfsaid Philokalia, do you have any concrete examples of people who you claim have been dehumanized by those who invoke humanitarianism or who have "misguided empathy"?
This is actually wrong -- I did not say humanitarianism.
This is what I said in my post on the first page.
People who begin to fight on behalf of "humanity" or any other nebulous value paint their opposition as cruel on a very fundamental level, and therefore worthy of cruelty, as it is actually very rare to meet a true pacifist.
Maybe you can reflect on what was actually written and have a better idea of what I mean, and yuo will not need an example.
@philokaliasaid Oh, I have no issue with talking about how people who say humanity is X, and so people who do not support X are bigots, are dehumanizing others.
Do you think that if I accuse a white supremacist, for example, of being a bigot or a racist or of being prejudiced, it means I am "dehumanizing" him or her?
Surely bigotry and prejudice are quintessentially human attributes?
@philokaliasaid So I answered with a very obvious example spot on the OP: the irony of people who are self-stylized humanitarians actually creating the circumstances for dehumanizing others by dividing humanity into two groups, those who do or condone A, and those who condemn it.
Surely that's just "disagreement". How is it "dehumanization"?
@philokaliasaid People who begin to fight on behalf of "humanity" or any other nebulous value paint their opposition as cruel on a very fundamental level, and therefore worthy of cruelty, as it is actually very rare to meet a true pacifist.
How does this alleged "cruelty" amount to "dehumanization"? Do you have any examples? I'm trying to work out whether all you are wittering on about is people with glass chins playing the victim card ['Oh, oh, I am being dehumanized'] when they get push back from dissenters.
@fmfsaid Do you think that if I accuse a white supremacist, for example, of being a bigot or a racist or of being prejudiced, it means I am "dehumanizing" him or her?
Surely bigotry and prejudice are quintessentially human attributes?
So you brought up an example that does not actually fit what I said, and that is an attack on what I said?
@fmfsaid How does this alleged "cruelty" amount to "dehumanization"? Do you have any examples? I'm trying to work out whether all you are wittering on about is people with glass chins playing the victim card ['Oh, oh, I am being dehumanized'] when they get push back from dissenters.
Because they are claiming to have the monopoly on representing humanity itself, and therefore all that is good, thus implying that the other person is outside of it.
Let me just post something from Tracy B. Strong's introduction to Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political to better explain it:
The other, more dangerous possibility is that one will claim to speak in the name of universal humanity. In such a case, all those by whom one is opposed must perforce be seen as speaking against humanity and hence can only merit to be exterminated. Schmitt writes:
Humanity as such and as a whole has no enemies. Everyone belongs to humanity…“Humanity” thus becomes an asymmetrical counter-concept. If he discriminates within humanity and thereby denies the quality of being human to a disturber or destroyer, then the negatively valued person becomes an unperson, and his life is no longer of the highest value: it becomes worthless and must be destroyed. Concepts such as “human being” thus contain the possibility of the deepest inequality and become thereby “asymmetrical.”40
These words were written in 1976, but they were prepared for in the conclusion to The Concept of the Political: “The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity.”41 Schmitt wants here to remove from politics, especially international politics but also internal politics of an ideological kind, any possibility of justifying one's action on the basis of a claim to universal moral principles. He does so because he fears that in such a framework all claims to good will recognize no limits to their reach. And, thus, this century will see “wars for the domination of the earth” (the phrase is Nietzsche's in Ecce Homo), that is, wars to determine once and for all what is good for all, wars with no outcome except an end to politics and the elimination of all difference.
On a first level, the question that Schmitt poses here is whether liberalism can meet the challenges posed by international politics.42 Rousseau suggested that a country would be better off avoiding international politics; Hobbes made no attempt to extend the notion of sovereignty beyond state borders. Any answer to this question must deal with the fact that this century has seen not only the dramatic extension of countries claiming to adhere to universal values but also unprecedented attempts at local and universal genocide and the development of extremely aggressive regionalisms. For Schmitt these all went together. He thought there was no natural limit to what one might do to make the world safe for liberalism.
It's a pretty big & important idea that ties back into the OP well.
@philokaliasaid Humanity is the concept; humanitarianism is the concept of being devoted to the welfare of humans.
They are related ideas, but invoking humanity is the key concept. Not invoking humanitarianism.
You claimed you hadn't used the word "humanitarianism". And yet here is what you said: "The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else." Why did you invoke and mention the word "humanitarianism" on page 1 if you find it necessary to deny that you did now here on page 3?
@philokaliasaid Because they are claiming to have the monopoly on representing humanity itself, and therefore all that is good, thus implying that the other person is outside of it.
What utter nonsense!
Sounds to me like you are fabricating and projecting something awful and hyperbolic on to people you disagree with [and perhaps don't like being criticized by] and then condemning it as awful and hyperbolic.
@fmfsaid What is an example of something that does "actually fit" what you said? Why are you being so timid?
I have seen you be guilty of "sealioning" in the past, and so I just do not think that all of your questions are irrelevant, especially when examples of what I said are very obvious.
For reference:
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5]
@fmfsaid You claimed you hadn't used the word "humanitarianism". And yet here is what you said: "The first person who invokes humanity & humanitarianism is often the first person to dehumanize someone else." Why did you invoke and mention the word "humanitarianism" on page 1 if you find it necessary to deny that you did now here on page 3?
Because it connects to invoking humanity, but using the word by itself is not properly understanding the idea, sadly.
😢
@philokaliasaid I have seen you be guilty of "sealioning" in the past, and so I just do not think that all of your questions are irrelevant, especially when examples of what I said are very obvious.
This is a dodge.
Still no examples. Just broad-brush propaganda aimed at people with an orientation toward humanitarianism*.
Empathy and Morality
03 Aug '20 04:16
Back to Top