Good essay, but I would recommend that you listen to Paul Blooms arguments against empathy. Empathy is stronger the closer you are to someone. It is empathy (in the sense of feeling the pain of others) with the ingroup that causes the cruelty against the outgroup. Empathy is not compassion.
Morality can mean two things (theoretical/universal or emotional/ingroup), but most people never consider the difference between them. Morality has evolved to protect the ingroup, the tribe. Consider someone doing something immoral, like stealing from someone in the ingroup. It harms someone else in the group and the behaviour weakens the group so it threatens the survival of it. Norms emerge to prevent it. People are afraid to be ostracized, since it used to be a death sentence in ancient times, so everybody must know what the norm is in order to behave according to it.. So they think about what was wrong with the behaviour (stealing) and identify it. Stealing is wrong, they say. But remember, back then ingroup was all there was, so nobody thought about making the norm even more specific: stealing from someone in the ingroup is wrong.
Now we have a norm that is generalized to include the behaviour in all circumstances. But nobody FEELS wrong when they commit the exact same behaviour towards someone from an outgroup. Their feelings of right and wrong are matched towards behaviour in the ingroup. They feel guilty when killing someone in the ingroup, but are hailed as heroes when killing someone in the outgroup.
So now they start thinking: isn't killing someone wrong, like the norm says? If I killed someone from the outgroup, shouldn't I feel guilty? Killing is wrong. I killed someone. Is the norm wrong or was my behaviour wrong? It seems like something has to give. Cognitive dissonance ensues, and to achieve peace of mind, they must either recognize the correct norm (killing someone in the ingroup is wrong) or rationalize the behaviour somehow (it was self defence/they are not really human etc).
In modern times, recognizing the correct norm also means that you have to recognize that you are a hippocrite by the theoretical, universal norm. Nobody wants to think of themselves that way, so the choose rationalization instead.
This is why people can do monsterous acts while never feeling any guilt about it. What matters is if they have the approval of their peers (ingroup). If they do, they don't risk being ostrazised. When everyone else is doing the same thing, even mass murderers sleep like babys.
"The point is that nothing could justify such attacks."
Nearly every single place on earth is currently in possession of whoever possesses it because at some point their ancestors did something as cruel and evil as what Hamas did. This was simply standard operating procedure until very recently. Many of the anti-colonial independence movements were about as brutal.
This isn't to say I approve of Hamas's actions. The bar for acting in this manner is incredibly high, especially in a modern era where so many other avenues for addressing grievances are available. I don't think Hamas came even close to exhausting those avenues nor that their actions had any realistic chance of resulting in a positive outcome.
People are factually correct to note that, if Hamas's propaganda about the matter were true, it would justify the attacks. I simply believe that propaganda is wildly false and that is easy enough to see. People who side with Hamas because they are brown have been taught such propaganda relentlessly their entire lives. I think they really do believe it, even if its dumb and they are wrong to do so.
Good essay, but I would recommend that you listen to Paul Blooms arguments against empathy. Empathy is stronger the closer you are to someone. It is empathy (in the sense of feeling the pain of others) with the ingroup that causes the cruelty against the outgroup. Empathy is not compassion.
Morality can mean two things (theoretical/universal or emotional/ingroup), but most people never consider the difference between them. Morality has evolved to protect the ingroup, the tribe. Consider someone doing something immoral, like stealing from someone in the ingroup. It harms someone else in the group and the behaviour weakens the group so it threatens the survival of it. Norms emerge to prevent it. People are afraid to be ostracized, since it used to be a death sentence in ancient times, so everybody must know what the norm is in order to behave according to it.. So they think about what was wrong with the behaviour (stealing) and identify it. Stealing is wrong, they say. But remember, back then ingroup was all there was, so nobody thought about making the norm even more specific: stealing from someone in the ingroup is wrong.
Now we have a norm that is generalized to include the behaviour in all circumstances. But nobody FEELS wrong when they commit the exact same behaviour towards someone from an outgroup. Their feelings of right and wrong are matched towards behaviour in the ingroup. They feel guilty when killing someone in the ingroup, but are hailed as heroes when killing someone in the outgroup.
So now they start thinking: isn't killing someone wrong, like the norm says? If I killed someone from the outgroup, shouldn't I feel guilty? Killing is wrong. I killed someone. Is the norm wrong or was my behaviour wrong? It seems like something has to give. Cognitive dissonance ensues, and to achieve peace of mind, they must either recognize the correct norm (killing someone in the ingroup is wrong) or rationalize the behaviour somehow (it was self defence/they are not really human etc).
In modern times, recognizing the correct norm also means that you have to recognize that you are a hippocrite by the theoretical, universal norm. Nobody wants to think of themselves that way, so the choose rationalization instead.
This is why people can do monsterous acts while never feeling any guilt about it. What matters is if they have the approval of their peers (ingroup). If they do, they don't risk being ostrazised. When everyone else is doing the same thing, even mass murderers sleep like babys.
"The point is that nothing could justify such attacks."
Nearly every single place on earth is currently in possession of whoever possesses it because at some point their ancestors did something as cruel and evil as what Hamas did. This was simply standard operating procedure until very recently. Many of the anti-colonial independence movements were about as brutal.
This isn't to say I approve of Hamas's actions. The bar for acting in this manner is incredibly high, especially in a modern era where so many other avenues for addressing grievances are available. I don't think Hamas came even close to exhausting those avenues nor that their actions had any realistic chance of resulting in a positive outcome.
People are factually correct to note that, if Hamas's propaganda about the matter were true, it would justify the attacks. I simply believe that propaganda is wildly false and that is easy enough to see. People who side with Hamas because they are brown have been taught such propaganda relentlessly their entire lives. I think they really do believe it, even if its dumb and they are wrong to do so.