Acts of hate have been with us for a very long time may reach back to the beginning. For one reason or another, people divide themselves based on race, religion, politics, or even sports teams. Rarely, however, does hate become so normalized that the lines between hateful behavior and social acceptance of that behavior blur (Generally people know it is wrong no matter how laws are applied.). At that point, one might wonder which is the greater crime—the hateful act itself, or the willingness to accept and normalize it. Let us move into a philosophical discussion just for exploratory purposes only.
This is where corruption often enters the picture. Hate is an emotional response that can arise for many reasons, but it is frequently a deep psychological projection of a person’s inner turmoil. When such narratives offer others a convenient outlet or justification, the spread of hate increases. It doesn’t matter the religion, race, politics, country, or era—this is a universal human phenomenon (This is why we also create laws against it. While laws are imperfect they should not be seen as a game.).
Developed societies strive to move beyond rudimentary, heuristic thinking and toward higher values that elevate us above our simple beginnings (Laws can be used to create higher or lower expectations to raise or smash each other). One mindset clings to superficial differences; the other aspires to noble principles. Ideally, people would be judged by merit rather than by underdeveloped perceptions of difference. However, history is full of less than ideal based the the decision making of imperfect people (We are all imperfect in some ways but it takes special type of person/group to willingly dump their imperfects on others in an intentionally harmful way.).
But because not everyone seeks to improve themselves or elevate others, societies need checks and balances. Where these are absent, corruption thrives and undermines foundational anchors. We guard against corruption and hate not only because they are destructive, but because they are fundamentally dishonest forces that distort a society’s sense of fairness. There are often many more swept under the carpet victims as hate is only a tool for something much more dark that can be applied against others using various tools (i.e. why corruption is often associated where hate has been normalized. It has to do with social structures and which voices they are listening to within certain circles of influence.Those voices create social expectations that manifest into the unwritten rules. The people within those groups know the behaviors is wrong but have justified it in some way.)
We all have a vested interest in reducing division and fostering cooperation. Societies function through shared cultural principles and collective engagement. Those who harbor hate often care little for cohesion; they tend to be motivated instead by power and domination. Societies often slow down as divisions are created because the microtransations decouple with the division (There is some support in literature that societies that experience the most corruption and hate often decline in most instances. You can look at a corruption index and see how GDP and corruption can be associated. The same concept could be applied to individual places that shrink due to the presence of corruption and the display of emotions related to hate.) When such dynamics are tolerated or normalized, more victims inevitably emerge—these patterns do not appear overnight.
It would be deeply troubling to witness decline of justice—filled with winks, nods, and quiet compromises. Under the influence of hate, and enabled by corruption, people can say and do things that move beyond the grotesque into the morally culpable. With no internal checks or ethical backstop, they rely solely on institutional checks and balances that are themselves imperfect, shaped by both accurate and inaccurate worldviews. In cases where people are quick to harm and slow to correct reveal the presence of troubling unwritten values that have made their way into outcomes. This is why we should always be serious about who we place in what positions (i.e. best and brightest versus most connected" because they have societal obligations toward a wide group of stakeholders. The most connected must reward those who put them in that position. They are inherently different loyalties. A person who is very good at their job, and people know it, owes no loyalty to anything but the principles and their performance. Do you start seeing my argument here?)
The study below is interesting in this context as it discusses thrill, defensive, retaliation, and mission ideology as catalysts (In our hypothethetical philosopical example of 'The Clan' we see all of them at play at one point or another by different members.). It explores the motivations behind hate and its broader impact. Good people know the difference between right and wrong, and research like this helps us reflect on the long-term consequences of hate—especially when corruption rewards it, allowing the entitled few to benefit while society loses some of its best. However, we don't need this research to tell us what values we should have as we can learn from history and experience. Look inward.
No comments:
Post a Comment