Degrees of Difference Increases Hate (Dehumanization Thought Experiment)

What if justice was based on degrees of difference between the victims, the perpetrators and the decision makers?  It has been argued that the closer in similarity in terms of lifestyle, race, religion, and social networks to decision makers, the more likely those with such similarities will be the positive beneficiaries of choice.  The greater the degrees of difference, the more likely we are to choose against certain poeple (i.e. we feel less of moral angst harming out-group members).

Let us explore a hypothetical and philosophical discussion on targeting an out-group member in an effort to scapegoat and financially reward members of an in-group clan through manipulation of local justice systems. The problem being is that they harmed multiple people in their extremely aggressive behaviors and there has been no justice for it despite it being well known. Perpetrators access and to information and social networks through employment made it possible to commit such crimes.

In this example the target had superficial differences (race, religion, politics, lifestyle, etc) when compared to the perpetrators. The perpetrators used a hate narrative to excite their social network to focus coordinated efforts on harm so a type of gas lighting and deflection could occur (..the victims were actually correct about a lot of stuff and had a history of doing the right thing at other places and times. All discarded when extremism became the new "in thing".)

Whistleblowers and victims that came forward were retaliated against in a frantic effort to protect the knowledge of other crimes (It is one of the signs of corruption and misuse of power. The more helpful change is avoided the more it highlights a logic used to protect those crimes. The mirror.). Much of the behavior was ongoing for years with many victims so keeping the lid closed was important. In-group members, including some decision making officials, were aware of the behaviors and failed to stop it. No one listened to the victims, nor those who reported and raised objections. A complete default.

Rumors help to create a narrative that paves the way for dehumanization that allows for coordinated harm (i.e. flying monkeys.). Money, embarrassment, dark triad traits, and cultic social group management as underlining some of the goal directed behaviors. A high functioning system would have had a few backstops to protect against the influence of distorted perspectives.  Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges 

Dehumanization occurs when we know the law has been misapplied intentionally against individuals or collectively against groups. We have found examples of this across the globe at various times in history. The victims are stripped of their most basic value and systems reward misbehaviors against such people (the blind eye). Those who stand for greater integrity and moral alignment are often retargeted. In places where people have been dehumanized there is often no recourse and that is intentional based on the social circles and degrees of similarity/difference to decision makers (i.e. clan based system). A system gets warped and its trust level begins to decline (This is why the best and brightest versus the most connected should be in the highest places to protect the whole).

Why are there different outcomes based on these supericial differences? In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups

Without commitment to the higher purpose and management for all of the community members we are likely to experience this problem again, again and again (that should be criminal negligence if intentional). When choices, behaviors and outcomes are intentionally undermined to reward in-group members such decisions run against our social contracts. They are immoral and illegal even if it is not enforced that way at this time in history. One's ability to correct is called moral conscious; or lack thereof. In this hypothetical example others have been targeted for encouraging a higher moral code. Bigotry is bad news for everyone and our forefathers/mothers knew it....

"bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. education & free discussion are the antidotes of both." Thomas Jefferson

Who still believes in our purpose and who doesn't? Proof is in the pudding outcomes. Trust is continuing to plummet and it was avoidable. People have value and these systems should be managed for everyone. Choices lead to outcomes and those who encourage a high functioning system are worth more than those who judge some of us as unworthy of rights. Uncorrected injustices are a sign of a bigger problem if the rest of the system can't correct. ie collective punishment. Let us keep our eyes on a brighter future and make decisions everyday that strengthen our republic. Its a duty! My best advice is to put in place checks and balances, correct injustices, and remove those least qualified to stay faithful to our essential values.

*This is a hypothetical thought experiment to explore concepts like hate and corruption. It is meant for learning purposes on freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the Constitution so take with a grain of salt. Good things can come from moral challenge.