Ship of Fools: Understanding cruelty

Thread: Understanding cruelty Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025277

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I understand the motivation behind a mugging or a rape, or a murder where the killer will gain financially if he gets away with it.

I know the pleasure it gives us when we do something which benefits other people.

I don't understand what benefit anyone gains from such cruel actions as cyber attacks, hurting vulnerable people, or blowing up complete strangers when they're enjoying themselves or serving other people. I'd prefer to imagine that they're sick and twisted than to think that they are intelligent human beings, but in either case - what does anyone gain from cruelty?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Payback?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Payback?

Why pick on the innocent? Payback surely must be levied on the guilty, if the concept of forgiveness can't be grasped, but how does cruelty to the innocent satisfy anyone?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Payback?
Why pick on the innocent? Payback surely must be levied on the guilty, if the concept of forgiveness can't be grasped, but how does cruelty to the innocent satisfy anyone?

You seem rather naive about this. Have you never set out to hurt someone, either to get revenge on them, or to displace your own sense of hurt, etc? I think it's a very common human reaction.

But as to major type revenge, such as bomb attacks, I don't really get that, since I have never felt that angry or hurt.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't understand what benefit anyone gains from such cruel actions as cyber attacks, hurting vulnerable people, or blowing up complete strangers when they're enjoying themselves or serving other people. I'd prefer to imagine that they're sick and twisted than to think that they are intelligent human beings, but in either case - what does anyone gain from cruelty?

You're missing the point. A terrorist, or someone involved in "ethnic cleansing", can justify it to himself as seeing the "enemy" as dehumanized - inferior, sub-human, flawed, irredeemable, Not Like Us, a lesser species. They may see it as regrettable, but ultimately necessary - like Anders Breivik. They're not that likely to see it as cruelty.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That dehumanization is probably involved in many types of conflict and war. For example, the drone killings in Pakistan of 'unknown militants' permits a kind of detachment from the actual deaths of people. The drone is perfect, robotic, controlled from a distance, watched on a screen. But it's not unusual really.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I just posted over in All Saints that I can't get into the twisted mind of someone who can conceptualize, justify, and then perform an attack like this. I suppose if and when the perpetrators are found, it will involve either a terror group or a mentally ill person (or both...).

With any cruel act, the perpetrator has to get past the humanity of those they intend to harm. From Timothy McViegh's infamous "collateral damage" statement in reference to the children he killed, to Al Qaida's justifications that now America experiences what they (or the Palestinians, or whoever) have experienced (i.e. revenge), the perpetrator has to put out of their minds what they are going to do to people who have no fair warning, no reason to be alarmed, and certainly no reason to be killed.

I recall reading a book by the wife of the husband and wife missionary team in the Philippines who were captured by Muslim extemists hoping for a ransom. She pointed out that when one of terrorist group was killed, there was a cry for revenge, and immediately the group went into planning an attack. But if, in said attack (or any other action they committed), innocents were killed, it was shrugged off with something to the effect of "It was their destiny."

eta : cp'd with Ariel, making the same point, and quetzalcoatl

[ 16. April 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But this happens in all wars, doesn't it? You have to dehumanize the enemy to make it possible.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Very true. Which is why, in the Great War (WWI), the generals weren't all that pleased with the spotty, spontaneous Christmas Eve truce that broke out in the trenches.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Cruelty is just evidence that St Augustine's anthropology is spot on.

We all have a capacity for cruelty. Some people seem to have more of a propensity for exercising it, for whatever reason. Sometimes all it takes is the right situation for it to come out--people have done some awful and shocking things in wartime, for example, and then once the war was over gone back to their old sedate lives. You'd never know they'd tortured prisoners from the other side to get them to reveal troop movements, or raped and murdered women in the enemy's villages.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I do understand the sense of anger, chagrin and injustice which arises from being hurt by others. I 'get it' when I hear the Israelites cry out in Psalm 137 'Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us!' when they have seen their own babies killed. An eye for an eye seems fair. It is indeed a human reaction, and the reason why some people like the idea of the death penalty. Paying back cruelty with kindness as Jesus suggested was radical, it goes against the grain.

I get what some of you are saying about dehumanising 'the enemy', and targeting 'them', where 'they' are the bad guys who have caused suffering or who are threatening 'us'. I even get the mentality of people with a political motive like the old-style IRA who think that the only way to be heard is to blow something up. At least they used to try to warn people and seemed not to want to hurt anyone, although there is never ever an excuse for blowing other human beings up imv.

What I'm asking is the broader question, which is why I included cruelty to vulnerable people and cyber attacks in the list of atrocities. How may anyone derive satisfaction from hurting someone else? Is it an indicator of madness? Isn't there a limit to revenge?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There are supposedly quite a lot of sadistic people around, and I think they do obtain actual pleasure from cruelty. As to the psychological roots and mechanics of that, generally it is referred back to the sadist's childhood, where cruel things were done to him/her. But there are probably other causes, for example, humiliation might be a factor.

I know it used to be said in Ireland that some IRA types were sadists, but I don't really know, but you would imagine that some sadists would be attracted to actual wars and so on.

It used to be said in psychoanalysis that most sadists were insecure/inadequate and so on, and therefore were compensating, but this is probably a bit simplistic today.

There are also probably plenty of 'mild sadists' around.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Dehumanization is often a factor, IMO. Cyber bullying would appear to be an easy illustration of this. One that shows the potential, in some, even without the external stresses which often accompany acts of cruelty.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I can't wrap my head around this at the end of the day and I hope that's something good about me. The line between mental illness and merely criminal in the head that could justify this could be mighty slim.

But fringe groups attract fringe people, and being part of "something big", the gnostic sense of having inside or special knowledge, and the bald sense of power are sure to be attractions for people who feel powerless or disenfranchised. As well, latent anger, blame, always looking outside yourself for the cause of your problems, who knows?

But how do you make that step that says, "I'll strike here, even though I know that people who have jack-all to do with this will be maimed and killed and the lives of them and their loved ones devastated." That goes back to the dehumanizing thing again, and that's where I bonk my head against the wall.

Psychos such as the Aurora, CO shooter and the Newtown shooter simply didn't care, their empathy for others being a flat zero. But when you're in some kind of a fringe group, you're not usually that far gone. But yeah, these groups often seem to share both a self-righteous and a sadistic streak - and then, they blame the victim for being part of a group that deserves the wrath visited on them - and visited on them in a most cowardly, sneaky, underhanded way.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Aside from armies and terrorists who have strategic goals, people are cruel sometime because it is fun and enjoyable. Every 10 year old has pulled the wings off of houseflies haven't they. Been mean to a pet. Punched a kid for fun. Hasn't every adult enjoyed some news story about someone in power getting their comeuppance? Who cheered why bin Laden got shot? Did 'ding dong the witch is dead" about Thatcher?

Inside each of us may be an "inner child", but we all also possess and "inner asshole" that likes being mean, cruel and enjoys suffering of others. Even more, some of us get orgasmic about it, enjoying the pain of others and perhaps even our own. Freud told us all about it, with prior specific information from the Marquis de Sade.

Freud would suggest not enough sex leads to cruelty. Probably partly right.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, there you go. Calvin, Augustine, Paul - the lineage of the doctrine of total depravity (not utter, but "total" as in affecting all facets of our personality). "Who are you to judge - for you do the same thing" says Paul in Romans (Rom 2:1 lite). Maybe not in degree, but it's on the same vector.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

In war people bomb cities knowing there are innocent women and children and elderly and war protesters who will be hurt. War is said to justify killing "them."

If some believe themselves at war with USA or with the West, they would feel similarly justified killing "them" - the enemy, which this time means us. Any of us, including women and children and etc.

Or put another way - in war we revert to tribal rather than individual awareness. Not "that's a harmless old man, that's a girl who wants to be an artist" but "that's a member of the enemy tribe."

And I guess it works that way whether the tribes are seen as ethic/national/religious groups, or "me against the world" unabomber types.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

You know, that is true, and probably why this old softie wouldn't make a very good soldier, I suppose. I've mentioned before here that I "fly" WWI and WWII combat flight simulators, and after I'd shot up my first plane, was just stunned that some poor bloke's life could be hanging in the balance, or gone, just that quick. I found myself following him down thinking "Get out! Get out!" but he never did... and he was simply some pixels!

But yes, we did this with the Iraq invasion, etc. Still, when compared to the slaughter of the World Wars, it seems to me we are trying to be much more careful. YMMV! With Afghanistan post 9/11, I don't know what other measures might have "worked" (as though these have), but I for one have always prayed for minimum violence, recognizing the pain and sadness that war brings.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

At the risk of waking Godwin up, one could point out that there seemed to be plenty of cruel people running the death camps and/or causing mayhem in subjugated populations - and not just the Germans, since many Poles (for instance) took part in the ethnic cleansings of their country. Similarly, the pogroms in Russia under the Tsars.

And it would be difficult to avoid the comparison with the British and American cleansing of native tribes in North America or in Tasmania (total removal!) or the cruelty implicit in the Residential Schools issue in Canada, US or Oz. The natives were not regarded as real people, with the possible exception of the Maori, who fought back more effectively.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
You know, that is true, and probably why this old softie wouldn't make a very good soldier, I suppose.

You might be unpleasantly surprised. One cannot accurately predict response under pressure until that pressure is applied. Pray that it never is.
We are heroes or villains only in extremity most will not experience.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Belle Ringer - absolutely.

I ignore the news as a rule. I watched the blasts in silence. No soundtrack. No commentary. I can't stand 'talk'. I was appalled at my own reactions. I felt detached, analytical, sceptical. If it was Islamist, it's fully understandable. Utterly evil. And fully understandable. The weak attacking the strong where they're weak. But from the word go I doubted it's foreign. America has always been its own worst enemy, doesn't need enemies.

Crap security. I mean really. Apparently in recent weeks, noted on BBC Radio 4, the US is relaxing on terror.

As I drove to work the Radio 4 Today program 8 o'clock news came on. Just sound. I was moved to angry tears. All my old arm chair warrior reflexes kicked in. Track these murdering sons of bitches down and kill them all where they stand. Shoot them in the face on TV.

God forgive me and grant me repentance of that.

Of my cruelty to theirs.

The time has come when we must track them down and embrace their feet and wash them with our tears.

For as you said Belle Ringer, they are us.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
You know, that is true, and probably why this old softie wouldn't make a very good soldier, I suppose.
You might be unpleasantly surprised. One cannot accurately predict response under pressure until that pressure is applied. Pray that it never is.
We are heroes or villains only in extremity most will not experience.

Very true.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Would I be right in thinking that sadism has something to do with this topic? Maybe someone (ahem) could weigh in from that perspective.

This week's Voices in the Family with Dr. Dan Gottlieb might be of interest in several respects. Both Dr. Dan and John Sexton, President of New York University, are avid baseball fans. Sexton has written a book, apparently more than half serious, discussing baseball in religious terms, Baseball as a Road to God. It might be of interest to those across the pond, especially religious people across the pond, who have been mystified by the appeal of "the American pastime." I can't speak as a devotee (although today is Episcopalian Day at the Phillies game and I regret not being able to attend) but clearly a baseball game offers a few mystical windows. Furthermore, late in this interview (and I'm afraid I can't remember the context) Dr. Dan suddenly mentioned sadism and a sadist's desire to be understood, which is a desire we all share.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I'm trying to grasp this as I'm going along, as might be obvious. I do remember when I was younger doing nasty things to insects which I had been told were pests and should be destroyed. It was a game I played, but I don't remember gaining pleasure from their suffering. In fact, I killed them rather than leaving them to suffer.

I remember too seething with rage and trying to exact vengeance on siblings, but somehow it never worked and didn't satisfy me. I wonder whether that's one of the reasons why those seeking vengeance often don't seem to limit it to 'an eye for an eye'.

If sadism is more about an inadequacy on the part of the sadist than any pleasure gained from harming others, then perhaps cruelty is an indicator of mental illness or personality disorder?

There is a difference between failing to care for other people (for which I suggest that we all draw the line somewhere) and deriving pleasure from making them suffer.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I would suggest that the pleasure from cruelty ultimately derives from the exercise of raw power, which like all natural impulses is better in the anticipation than in the experience.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would suggest that the pleasure from cruelty ultimately derives from the exercise of raw power, which like all natural impulses is better in the anticipation than in the experience.

This makes sense to me, thank you.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I kill bugs that invade my house. I don't disturb them outdoors but my house is MINE and I did not give them permission to enter.

I do not enjoy killing them. I actually tend to apologize and explain they have invaded and I can't allow them to take over, which uncontrolled they will.

But isn't war often like that, a belief "they" are in "my" territory (or what should be my territory)? And if it's ideological world view, planet earth is the territory "they don't belong in."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm trying to grasp this as I'm going along, as might be obvious. I do remember when I was younger doing nasty things to insects which I had been told were pests and should be destroyed. It was a game I played, but I don't remember gaining pleasure from their suffering. In fact, I killed them rather than leaving them to suffer.

I remember too seething with rage and trying to exact vengeance on siblings, but somehow it never worked and didn't satisfy me. I wonder whether that's one of the reasons why those seeking vengeance often don't seem to limit it to 'an eye for an eye'.

If sadism is more about an inadequacy on the part of the sadist than any pleasure gained from harming others, then perhaps cruelty is an indicator of mental illness or personality disorder?

There is a difference between failing to care for other people (for which I suggest that we all draw the line somewhere) and deriving pleasure from making them suffer.

I think you are onto something. I have always thought that sadism is unsatisfying, and has to be gone over again and again. But Sartre said sex was like that!

But in psychoanalytic terms, you would argue that the sadistic fantasy cannot actually achieve what it sets out to, since it is fantasy. There is a literature on perversions in similar vein, that the perversion is a kind of acted out psychodrama.

I think there used to be a sadistic personality disorder listed in DSM, but I have a feeling they deleted it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think you are onto something. I have always thought that sadism is unsatisfying, and has to be gone over again and again. But Sartre said sex was like that!

But in psychoanalytic terms, you would argue that the sadistic fantasy cannot actually achieve what it sets out to, since it is fantasy. There is a literature on perversions in similar vein, that the perversion is a kind of acted out psychodrama.

I think there used to be a sadistic personality disorder listed in DSM, but I have a feeling they deleted it.

Where sex is connected with fantasy, I can understand Sartre's point. How many people imagine a situation, or a substitute partner, during sex? Don't answer that! Let's not go there.

This does bring us into the realm of the imagination, however, and reminds us how dangerous it is to allow it to translate into real life without the filtering of reason.

It also highlights how vital compassionate, empathic, self-giving love is to our own health as well as to the health of the human race.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Sartre meant that sexual desire is always fantasy-based, and does not connect with a real person. But he was a gloomy old sod.

But it is arguable that sadism is also based on fantasy, and is therefore unsatisfying.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, there you go. Calvin, Augustine, Paul - the lineage of the doctrine of total depravity (not utter, but "total" as in affecting all facets of our personality). "Who are you to judge - for you do the same thing" says Paul in Romans (Rom 2:1 lite). Maybe not in degree, but it's on the same vector.

I can't go along with the 'total depravity' doctrine. We all have tendencies to overcome, as Paul indicated, but I think that's all part of being alive in the world as it is. When we serve God, we're able to grow through the roughage of sin, and I believe that our free will choice has a lot to do with it. We freely determine to follow Christ and to overcome what gets in the way. We're helped by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The more I explore and think about tendencies such as cruelty, as in this thread, the more I wonder how much the mental state of some people reduces their responsibility for sin. Where our mental state has often been distorted by the behaviour of others, whether directly or indirectly, how much responsibility do they bear?

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would suggest that the pleasure from cruelty ultimately derives from the exercise of raw power, which like all natural impulses is better in the anticipation than in the experience.

Spot on.

This reminds me of what we would be told during various rape-awareness-and-prevention talks in college-Rape is not about sex so much as it's about power. It's an act of violence, of dominance. Abusers don't abuse their partners because they hate them so much as that they get off on being able to control someone.

They usually feel powerless and invisible in other areas of life and feel the need to 'prove themselves' to the world. Rape/abuse/random cruelty is what they see as a means to do that. I'd like to think that all such people are mentally ill, but I can't really be sure of that because of how some societies encourage (or ignore) this sort of behavior.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
Why pick on the innocent? Payback surely must be levied on the guilty, if the concept of forgiveness can't be grasped, but how does cruelty to the innocent satisfy anyone?

It satisfies the morally degenerate person, because the innocent, the vulnerable, the humble and the helpless bear witness to the innocence, purity and eternal compassion of God. And God is the real enemy of the depraved. He represents everything that the arrogant, smug, self-centred, conceited person hates: He is the supreme authority, and in His presence no one can boast. There is no place for pride in His presence. Therefore His eternal love and presence is hell to those who are unrepentantly evil.

I would like to suggest that this perhaps also explains paedophilia. To target the most helpless is an attack on all the goodness of God.

Let us not delude ourselves in thinking that everyone is "at heart" good and rational, and that evil is really nothing more than psychological or emotional 'damage'. No. There are people in this world who are deeply and wilfully evil.

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

quote:
Every 10 year old has pulled the wings off of houseflies haven't they. Been mean to a pet. Punched a kid for fun.

Er.. no. And, nope... and that's no as well.

Sorry - I've never, ever taken pleasure, or satisfaction in the pain of another.

quote:
Hasn't every adult enjoyed some news story about someone in power getting their comeuppance?

That isn't cruelty, though. That's, at worst, schadenfreude, and therefore passive.

quote:
Who cheered why bin Laden got shot?

I didn't. I was glad that his threat had been permanently neutralised, but... "any man's death diminishes me..."

quote:
Did 'ding dong the witch is dead" about Thatcher?

Ah... got me there, I have to say. It was the very, very first thing I did when I heard it on the radio that she'd died. Couldn't stand the miserable, sanctimonious, uncaring, bullying ideologue.

I may have been a little ashamed of myself for my reaction (and it was only the once) but I did sing it.

[ 21. April 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Ondergard ]

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

... which, of course, makes me - along with everyone else - a giant inconsistent mix of striver for perfection and arrant failure to achieve.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It satisfies the morally degenerate person, because the innocent, the vulnerable, the humble and the helpless bear witness to the innocence, purity and eternal compassion of God. And God is the real enemy of the depraved. He represents everything that the arrogant, smug, self-centred, conceited person hates: He is the supreme authority, and in His presence no one can boast. There is no place for pride in His presence. Therefore His eternal love and presence is hell to those who are unrepentantly evil.

I would like to suggest that this perhaps also explains paedophilia. To target the most helpless is an attack on all the goodness of God.

Let us not delude ourselves in thinking that everyone is "at heart" good and rational, and that evil is really nothing more than psychological or emotional 'damage'. No. There are people in this world who are deeply and wilfully evil.

It would be good if it was easy, but it isn't. We all must recognise that someone who is mentally ill or deficient bears reduced responsibility for their behaviour, to the point of nil. If they do something considered to be evil, does that make them evil?

I have met and spoken to people who are not diagnosed as having any mental deficiency, and yet they have tendencies which cause them to do evil things. Are they evil? I'd argue that they're no more evil than anyone else, as we all have tendencies to overcome. The act may be more evil, but does that make the perpetrator more evil? The difference may lie in whether we want to overcome our tendencies, and make the effort and seek help so that we can.

If a child is brought up with no nurture, with no love given or received from him, responded to harshly, is he responsible for any lack of love he has for others as an adult?

I can't see cruelty as a reaction to innocence by evil people as much as I can see an opportunistic action resulting from a tendency caused by inadequacy, a desire to overpower and control someone.

The goodness of God when it shines through someone can be irritating, as it highlights our imperfections as does every exposure to the Holy Spirit. I'm not convinced that it causes us to try to destroy it. We're more likely to try to avoid it or hide from it, if we're not ready to face up to it before God.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Some people hide from it; other people actively attack it. I think it comes down to personality. Some people naturally respond with action, even violent action, to anything that irritates them; basically the very dominant, act-first-think-later types can be this way. A lot of these are in leadership. And while that kind of personality can be redeemed (and hopefully taught to think first), if it is NOT redeemed yet, it's going to result in a hell of a lot of unplanned cruelty to people in his/her path.

Which is not to say that there aren't other kinds of cruel people. The ones who plan it, study it out, and gloat over every morsel of suffering are even worse.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Some people hide from it; other people actively attack it. I think it comes down to personality. Some people naturally respond with action, even violent action, to anything that irritates them; basically the very dominant, act-first-think-later types can be this way. A lot of these are in leadership. And while that kind of personality can be redeemed (and hopefully taught to think first), if it is NOT redeemed yet, it's going to result in a hell of a lot of unplanned cruelty to people in his/her path.

Which is not to say that there aren't other kinds of cruel people. The ones who plan it, study it out, and gloat over every morsel of suffering are even worse.

Hmm, I still can't help wondering as to their sanity and how much of the responsibility is shared by those who have shaped them by their attitudes and actions. Perhaps I am naive. Are some people evil to the core?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I really don't know. When I meet someone who seems to be pure evil, I do as much as I can to put distance between me and that person. So I'm never going to be in a position to find out... Still, surely they must all have been babies at some point?

And for what it's worth, I have heard third hand that Hitler pulled a child out of the way of traffic once upon a time. If true, there's a tiny thing to stand in his credit, against all the rest...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0