To what degree should we regard "hate" as an emotion with strong significance?
I often hear people say that "hate" is wrong or bad. But to what extent should we consider this with a concern or with significance, and should we give energy to this on the basis of degree?
For example,
Should we make a distinction between hatred and hate? These are how I define the distinction:
1. Hatred: "Hate" institutionalized (with power). Prejudices + intent + actions taken to "exterminate" or "eliminate" that which causes hate.
While 2 seems to be present within hatred itself, it does not seem to be the same thing. On this basis, it can very well be that "hatred" is irrational because it is motived or informed by "hate" (or some form of reactive emotion) and devoid of reasons. But hate itself is not necessarily a problem.
2. Hate: Fleeting reaction or prolonged aversion to something that causes disgust, repulsion, or discomfort.
Lacks harmful intent and action.
In what degree should we say it is "wrong for someone to hate" or "bad for someone to hate" based off the above definitions, if you agree these should be distinguished. Would this extent to plants, water, the sun, crayons indiscriminately?
Can we say:
"I hate group A of people" and disregard this as something with insignificance, if it does not align with "hatred"? Or do we address both equally, and have some form of duty to reduce 2, hate.
If 2 is absent of what constitutes "hatred" in 1, should 'hating of X group of people', lets say women for example, be regarded as "hatred of women" (misogynist)?
For example,
Should we make a distinction between hatred and hate? These are how I define the distinction:
1. Hatred: "Hate" institutionalized (with power). Prejudices + intent + actions taken to "exterminate" or "eliminate" that which causes hate.
While 2 seems to be present within hatred itself, it does not seem to be the same thing. On this basis, it can very well be that "hatred" is irrational because it is motived or informed by "hate" (or some form of reactive emotion) and devoid of reasons. But hate itself is not necessarily a problem.
2. Hate: Fleeting reaction or prolonged aversion to something that causes disgust, repulsion, or discomfort.
Lacks harmful intent and action.
In what degree should we say it is "wrong for someone to hate" or "bad for someone to hate" based off the above definitions, if you agree these should be distinguished. Would this extent to plants, water, the sun, crayons indiscriminately?
Can we say:
"I hate group A of people" and disregard this as something with insignificance, if it does not align with "hatred"? Or do we address both equally, and have some form of duty to reduce 2, hate.
If 2 is absent of what constitutes "hatred" in 1, should 'hating of X group of people', lets say women for example, be regarded as "hatred of women" (misogynist)?
Comments (38)
It’s the basis of hatred that is significant or not, most of the time.
Like many words it is used imprecisely. I am sure most of us have known people who are so resentful and loathing of one thing or person that their whole life is distorted or overtaken by it. I say that I hate lots of things (in music, politics, culture) but the hatred is not visceral - it is more a case of dislike dressed up as a world view.
Hatred leads to violence and discord, so, I guess it's reasonable to say it's not good. What I think is definitely true is that it is not useful. Hate leads to actions that are ineffective in addressing the underlying conflict. For example, the war in Iraq started because anger and outrage lead the US to take actions that have killed tens of thousands of people, cost trillions of dollars, and seriously undermined our national security. That's how hate works.
Was that hate or fear?
Quoting DingoJones
Would you say those that "lack hatred" for Hitler are "bad"? What is the purpose of "hating" Hitler?
So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy?
Or, say, if Mike says, "I hate women" as a result to trauma, should this be cause of concern? And should he be labelled a "misogynist".
What I mean is, hate seems to lose significance often, but it's not exactly clear what is determining the degree of significance, even following analysis.
Ex;
"Mike says he hates women, because his mother abused him."
But it seems to be devoid of anything requiring immediate moral action, yet, if Mike was placed in a government position of power, and said, "I hate women," suddenly there is some significance to this, and he will be labelled a misogynist, but not in the former example.
Hmmm, not sure. Having an active hatred isn’t the same as recognising evil so maybe not. You could just be a good person (recognising Hitler as evil) who doesn’t spend enough energy thinking about Hitler that they could be said to “hate” Hitler.
Why, would you say, it's definitely true hatred is not useful?
Either. Or both. Or they're the same. I do think a lot of hatred has fear mixed in.
I always thought that (the war) was more fear based. I agree hatred and fear often show up together or lead to each other...maybe those are two ends of a spectrum.
Maybe better examples would have been Northern Ireland and Palestine/Israel.
Right, or any number of other examples. Good point.
Ok so say in Ireland then. You don’t think the hate was useful? I think it helped motivate, helped justify and helped the general fight. You could probably say the same of both sides, that hate had it’s uses.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Could you answer this:
So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy?
Surely this isn't just a matter of circumstance, and whether hate is good or bad isn't determined by the circumstance, but the degree in which hate has significance.
Being fat is almost always detrimental in the long run. Would you say "hate" is good, therefore ethical because it serves a significant role in discouraging fatness?
Why do we then, not support the extreme hatred of fat people, but support the extreme hatred of "Hitler" for example?
Is it because all the fat people claim, "It's wrong to hate fat people,". Is this the case?
Are you hating obesity or people who are obese? There’s a difference, and I would say reducing a person’s value due solely to their weight is wrong, but hating obesity is like hating pain; there’s nothing wrong with it (I’d actually claim it’s amoral), but that’s because things like obesity and pain are more abstract, so there’s really nothing concrete to direct your anger towards. Hating obesity or pain entails nothing that could affect someone else, at least not that I’m seeing.
Quoting Cobra
This is digging into issues regarding moral responsibility. The implication in your statement is that Mike cannot do otherwise, correct? I think ignorance is also a factor here. Is he ignorant of the cause of his hate? Is he ignorant of methods to address and overcome his trauma, or does he choose to not pursue those methods?
But without getting too far off topic, I don’t see how you can find Mike morally responsible in this example. Now, were he to just be using his past traumatic experiences as justification or an excuse for his hate, then that’s a different story.
Quoting Cobra
My guess would be the degree of potential harm caused by harboring hate. Hating flying spaghetti monsters is completely benign, for example, because doing so doesn’t cause harm.
Also, I’d like to say that hate, just like every other emotion, evolved with us, so must have been evolutionarily beneficial. So, the idea that hate is somehow inherently bad, or useless, is probably false. It’s more likely that hate is very useful for our survival/wellbeing in certain circumstances. I’ve also always viewed the cause of hate to be love. It’s our love of our selves/country/family/race/etc. that causes us to hate whatever harms or threatens our selves/country/family/race/etc.
I would suggest that hate/hatred is simply an emotion or emotional state. As with most emotional states, the state itself is not a problem. Actions which are a result of said state can be positive or negative. For example: I hate being poor. This hatred in turn motivates me to work hard, save what little money I make, use said money to increase my education and training, resulting in a higher earned wage. I repeat this process until I find I am no longer anywhere near poor. My children do not have to be nearly as concerned as I was about where my dinner is coming from, or where they will sleep. etc. Hatred has motivated me to self improvement.
However, same example: I hate being poor. I look about me and see many others with more than I. This fills me with hatred and envious rage. I proceed to stalk those with more than I have and take it by force. Eventually I am caught, convicted, and spend a lengthy time incarcerated, which further fuels my hate. My children grow up without me, I have not bettered myself, nor those around me (except maybe the guards, they are employed because of people like me). Hatred has led me to self destruction.
Like most emotions, what you feel is far less important than what you do about it.
You have raised an interesting discussion. I am not sure that the feeling of strong dislike and feeling hatred and that of wishing harm is absolute. Perhaps the latter is the exaggeration form of it and most people don't go that far. It could be that the more a person becomes accustomed to the mental state of feeling and thinking thoughts of aversion or hatred, that it becomes a possible starting point is hatred, in its meaning of wishing harm.
I think that hatred, in strong aversion or wishing harm to those with specific attributes is connected to psychological projective processes. Take your example of hatred of the fat person, it may be that specific undesirability of fatness as an aesthetic quality is projected onto the individuals who are perceived as fat. The example of hatred of fat people also raises the connection between hatred of others and hatred of self. I have worked with people who have eating disorders and it does seem that they often have internalised self hatred.
The whole area of self hatred is also of importance in thinking about individuals who self harm. I have heard people who harm themselves in ways such as cutting saying how the cutting is a way of purging themselves of the anger and hatred they have towards themselves. The whole area of self harm was expressed strongly in the culture surrounding 'emo' music culture. I think that emo culture is less strong now, but it is often during adolescence that people experience strong feelings of self hatred, and this is probably related to the sense of identity development. However, many people in adulthood do self harm and experience suicidal ideas in adult life.
Why do you think Cobra is trolling? I can't see anything wrong with her discussion, but perhaps I am missing seeing something.
There are different concepts and situations. You cannot compare fatness with a dictator who was responsible for a World War and millions of deaths. Also, nobody teaches you to hate Hitler... their ideas are still there, someone doesn’t like it others support them.
If we want to remove obesity we have to promote healthy programs to avoid it not hating obese people because it is not healthy.
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred.[/quote]
To hate hatred is to hate oneself. I am full of hate, for cruelty, for lies, for ignorance, for unnecessary suffering, and so on. Sometimes it is so powerful, it even gets me out of my comfy chair to do something about something, or at least to remonstrate with someone. If everything is lovely, nothing need be done; let us therefore praise hatred as the motive to improve things.
Quoting Cobra
Resentment is a sentiment, in consequence of having observed a detestable motive or act; in and of itself, it doesn't accord any degree of moral virtue. Resentment does, however, constitute a directive to wherein one's moralistic edifices stem from (since they engender the specifics of what one finds reprehensible, and what one doesn't) - and what they imply in practical terms.
For instance, if individual Z doesn't particularly 'hate' Hitler, a spectator (namely Y) would likely have to posit 3 additive questions, before forging a stance on Z's moral constitution:
a) How Z rationalizes a non-contempt, of an individual canonically regarded as a genocidal dictator;
b) Whether Z's presuppositions (in relation to Hitler) are commensurate with Y's (and whether both their preconceptions are corroborated with historical documentations of his life);
c) Whether not resenting an individual is tantamount to either venerating him/her, or remaining passive to his/her transgressions.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Exactly. What often happens (perhaps), is that individuals conflate the aesthetic qualities that they're disinclined to, with the total identity of the individual they're berating (preceding a projection) - which shouldn't be surprising, since it's both inductive, and quintessential of being a cognitive miser (an inadequacy most of us are characterized by, to an appreciable extent).
When people say “hate is bad” I don’t think it is intended as moral condemnation but rather practical life advice.
Would you then it is "bad" to hate a baby killer on the basis of their actions then? Do you feel similar about the body positivity movement, that it is also "reducing people down to their weight"? Is it good if it doesn't contain hate/hatred?
Ex; 1
1. It is determined that "fat people" are gluttonous (or weight gained/obesity) is mostly "self-inflicted" aside from medical conditions/exceptions, from disregard from self-care.
2. It is determined that being obese is always harmful or increases harm by substantial amounts, leading to medical and health issues and eventually death.
3. It is then reasonable to harbor "hatred" or "hate" for obese people (for inflicting harm on themselves and others [habits being normalized in children]) that have to deal with them.
Based on this,
From my definitions above, hatred seems to serve the purpose of:
2. Hate: Fleeting reaction or prolonged aversion to something that causes disgust, repulsion, or discomfort.
1. Hatred: "Hate" institutionalized (with power). Prejudices + intent + actions taken to "exterminate" or "eliminate" that which causes hate.
Ex; 2
It seems the "Hatred" of Trump, for example, was only of any utility or in this case, "good" because it was able to be institutionalized through widespread societal stigmas, disapprove, prejudices, with an intent to remove him office.
In this scenario, like fat people, this is not "Hating Trump," (fleeting reaction of disgust, etc..) - but something much more, and even so, "hate" doesn't seem strong enough to remove him from office.
"Hate" must have power, meaning institutionalized with intent in order for it to be effective, "good", or "reasonable".
--
Considering that we know "obesity" is harmful, is it the good then to harbor or influence hatred against obese people to eradicate obesity? If no, what is the difference here? What "action" is best appropriate?
How Hatred against obese people on large scale, society wise, less good than Hatred against Trump (not in terms of eradication).
With all this said, if hate or "hatred" is just an emotional/feeling, is it reasonable to remove a leader from office, if they say, "I hate America" ... on the basis of feeling/emotions, with no actions to follow?
In the same case:
Is someone with extreme hate for women, and communicates this openly electable, even if they have demonstrated no harmful actions toward women?
Why would hate be "OK" in this case, but bad/wrong in another situation? Or is it just completely arbitrary?
But is it just psychologically projective processes or is there really no external or objective basis that we can determine the strong aversion, wishing harm towards, etc.. is reasonable and good?
See, this is where I get lost. Is it not a fact and known that being fat (obese and overweight) is harmful? Are you saying that obesity and it's effects are just matters of perception?
How is this merely an aesthetic problem just because Susan encourages hatred of fat people that go around eating McDonalds for "fun", but not for say, a man that goes around slapping babies for fun?
Would you say it is wrong to hate the man that goes around slapping babies for fun, and just a matter of some kind of self-hatred..? Doesn't seem the case:
Ex;
[i]1. John hates practicing/active pedophiles.
2. John starts a "movement" fueled by hatred to eradicate practicing/active pedophiles from practicing.
3. This is "good".
--
1. Susan hates practicing/active people practicing gluttony.
2. Susan starts a "movement" fueled by hatred to eradicate practicing/active people from practicing.
3. This is "bad".[/i]
What would you say is the difference or factor here that caused hatred to lose it's significance?
This is a philosophy website, with general freedom of styles. I hardly ever answer questions, unless it's information-seeking. If you want me to provide you with my opinion, please make a case in the affirmative. Replying to questions is, I am very sorry, not my style.
This is not to disrespect your questions, or to dismiss the validity of your enquiry. I am not here to tell you what to do. Ask questions, but I am here to tell myself what to do, and I don't answer questions, I only give opinions on nominative statements.
The questions are information-seeking; I am seeking your opinion on how you evaluate, think through and address the dilemmas through a series of questions. That's all philosophy is. There are no right/wrong answers.
And I don't personally care about fat people or Hitler. I am just talking and making convo on this topic; since there seems to be some arbitrariness to the whole "hate" thing.
It seems meaningful to make a distinction.
Morality seems almost akin to "practical life". Is it not just a series of practiced 'practical/normative' habits to alleviate stress, discomfort, etc.. best to your abilities?
This is somewhat why I attempted to make the distinction. It seems "hatred" (hate in practice e.g. terrorists, premeditated serial killers with specifically targeted victims, etc..) is different from "hate" (fleeting emotions/reactions). The former does seem to contain an element of choice on the conscious level, meaning we can add some moral culpability. It is directed at people causing harm. But it seems this 'wrongness' or 'bad' dissolves very relatively. For some reason, for example, drug addicts, people "practicing obesity", etc.. are excluded from this group, although we can observe long-term bad habits. Why is this?
To my OPs point, it seems "hate" just has no interesting significance unless it is either institutionalized or has intent of some kind behind it.
So,
If I say, "I hate fat people," it seems unreasonable to call this hate toward fat people 'bad, wrong' ... what say ye?
Thanks.
Welcome back @Scott the Woz
What? You're the third person that has picked on me in this thread for nothing. All I did was ask a question like everyone else here. Leave me alone or I'll report you.
So, I don’t consider feelings to be good/bad. They’re just feelings. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the “body positivity movement,” but if it is reducing one’s worth to one’s appearance, then yes I disagree. I don’t think we should only find value in how we look. Attractive people are no more valuable than unattractive people, at least not solely based on their attractiveness.
Quoting Cobra
Since hate is an emotion, isn’t it irrational by definition? I mean, you can’t rationally decide to hate something; it’s an uncontrollable reaction. But the point is that our actions are controllable (at least if you believe in free will, which I don’t, but that’s an aside), and are the only thing that have an actual affect on others. Feelings are incapable of causing harm to others, whereas actions are not. This is why separating the emotion from the action is necessary to determine any moral judgment.
Now, I think it is appropriate to judge whatever actions one might do to others, like allowing/encouraging their children to eat unhealthily. But you can’t just lump those actions in with obesity. They’re separate. Being obese does not harm others, so what makes it worthy of hate or disapproval?
Quoting Cobra
I think I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between hate and hatred, but my objection would be the inclusion of “actions” in your definition. Hatred can’t be both an emotion and an action. At best, I would just consider hatred to be more intense than hate. I hate asparagus, for example, but I wouldn’t say I have a hatred of it.
Quoting Cobra
No, for several reasons. First, hating obese people isn’t going to eradicate obesity. If anything it will make those who are obese feel even worse about themselves. Secondly, hating a person for being obese is like hating someone because they’ve autistic. It simply makes no sense. One’s “being” (dis/abilities, physical features, etc.) doesn’t determine one’s value or worth. What does determine it is their character.
The most appropriate action for someone who hates obesity would be to do everything they could to not become obese. Also, educating others about the dangers of being obese, encouraging others to exercise or eat healthy, advocating for better/cheaper food options, etc.
But I don’t see any way to justify treating someone without respect. Intentionally trying to harm someone, be it physically, emotionally, or psychologically, is wrong. Self-defense may be an exception to this, but I don’t think there are any others.
Quoting Cobra
Well, for starters the majority of people who hate Trump do so because of his character or political opinions and actions, not because of his physical characteristics or appearance. Also, there is a legal aspect to this as well. There is a lot of debate about whether or not some of his actions were legal, and those that feel they weren’t feel like his lack of punishment is unjust.
If your local politician stated openly "I hate women, they are a constant headache in my life." and then proceeded to ensure that acceptance to higher learning, government entrepreneur funding, and all social programs were open and accessible to women as well as men, would you have that politician stripped of office? And what of the politician that states openly "I am open and accepting of all peoples." and then proceeds to close borders, limit government programs to only select groups, and actively promotes the closing of higher education to people based on gender orientation? Would that person be allowed to remain in office, based entirely on the use of a politically correct line?