|
Post by juju on Jul 27, 2016 16:15:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 27, 2016 17:04:29 GMT
That's not fair.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 27, 2016 17:07:41 GMT
I haven't actually read the article yet but I saved it for later when you posted it on That Other Site. It looks like an interesting principle but I will be particularly interested in how he distinguishes *people* being fair (or often not) and *the world* being fair (which can only be true to the extent that we are adapted to it).
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 27, 2016 17:23:15 GMT
I think it's more about *life* being fair. Or not. If we believe in fairness, then we need a reason for life being randomly unfair (i.e.bad things happening to good people). So we console ourselves (albeit often unconsciously) by thinking the person must have somehow deserved it.
Anyway read the article, you!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 27, 2016 19:32:51 GMT
It's a very good article.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jul 27, 2016 21:21:14 GMT
If there is a good God, the world should be a better place. Or at least the good people will be rewarded (and the evil ones punished) in the after life.
Otherwise, anything terrible can happen anytime. And it does. But not to me, because Im lucky. At least I try to believe that.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 27, 2016 21:33:34 GMT
If there is a good God, the world should be a better place. Or at least the good people will be rewarded (and the evil ones punished) in the after life. It's a common misconception that that is the basis of the Christian faith but it's not. That good people will be rewarded (and the evil ones punished) in the after life.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 28, 2016 1:40:25 GMT
Yes, the bible teaches that all who repent will be saved, regardless of the evil that they did until their last breath, and that those who did good all their lives but did not worship Christ will go to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Jul 28, 2016 8:35:08 GMT
I don't particularly believe that, but I do believe the judging should be left to someone who knows all the facts and reasons. And that's not me.
Anyhow, I read the article yesterday and thought it fascinating. And probably very true. Though there's also the aspect of prejudices involved I think. If, for example, a man got raped by a woman, how many people will say she was ugly and couldn't get a man any other way rather than saying he deserved it because he dressed in too tight jeans? While vice versa they would.
By the by, is stereotyping the same as being prejudiced?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 28, 2016 9:59:19 GMT
Yes, the bible teaches that all who repent will be saved, regardless of the evil that they did until their last breath, and that those who did good all their lives but did not worship Christ will go to hell. I'm not sure where it says that, but to be fair there are passages which say the opposite - those who don't look after the poor and hungry will not be acknowledged, etc. There's plenty in there about living a good life.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 28, 2016 11:05:33 GMT
I'm not sure where it says that... I'm not sure either. I think it's a distortion of certain passages, admittedly favoured by hellfire preachers who want to instill fear into their flock and keep them under their thumb. You're right, juju, there's plenty in there about living a good life, in fact most of the New Testament is about how to live a pure and holy life, and that naturally leads us to live a good life. Heaven is almost incidental. A Roman Catholics once said "we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved." I'm sure Jesus intended us to put most of the emphasis on "being saved".
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jul 28, 2016 11:51:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jul 28, 2016 12:37:37 GMT
Man, how does anyone read that? The writing is terrible! Whether I read it in my head or outloud it barely makes any sense. How anyone can be bothreed to get through the entire book I can never comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 28, 2016 13:06:32 GMT
But then there are also quotes like this: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ..." "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ..." "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." etc So I guess you could make an argument for both schools of thought. Anyway, back to the OP - I think the 'just world theory' also clearly reflects a particularly right wing political view, too, as they are more likely to have a need for an ordered universe with no such thing as random unfairness or privilege. If we believe the poor or unfortunate somehow deserved it, we don't have to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 29, 2016 0:50:54 GMT
Yes, the bible teaches that all who repent will be saved, regardless of the evil that they did until their last breath, and that those who did good all their lives but did not worship Christ will go to hell. I'm not sure where it says that, but to be fair there are passages which say the opposite - those who don't look after the poor and hungry will not be acknowledged, etc. There's plenty in there about living a good life. There's plenty in there about most things. It's all in the interpretation. People find what buttresses their belief and ignore that which conflicts with their view. And, picking out the good bits and ignoring the uncomfortable parts is called 'cherry picking'....believers do it all the time.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 29, 2016 1:08:29 GMT
I'm not sure where it says that... I'm not sure either. I think it's a distortion of certain passages, admittedly favoured by hellfire preachers who want to instill fear into their flock and keep them under their thumb. You're right, juju, there's plenty in there about living a good life, in fact most of the New Testament is about how to live a pure and holy life, and that naturally leads us to live a good life. Heaven is almost incidental. A Roman Catholics once said "we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved." I'm sure Jesus intended us to put most of the emphasis on "being saved". Jesus didn't 'intend' us to do anything. Jesus didn't exist; he is a literary construct. The writers of the Jesus narrative may have wanted us to focus on 'being saved'; that is a possibility, but that stuff never made much sense to me. Saved from what? Sin? You must be kidding. People who postulate a superhuman entity into being which desires to intervene in our lives and save us from some condition which that same superhuman entity created and forced upon humanity because its progenitors failed to be submissive enough? That's the stupid story. Then that god has to come to earth and suffer and die as a mere human in order to offer the rest of the mere humans 'salvation', but only on the condition of complete and utter belief in the unbelievable? What absolute offal! Piffle in a pissbucket! You should be attempting to attain nirvana, not wasting your time worrying about non-existent sin. A Christ-figure and salvation from sin is not the only way to 'live a good life'. There are others. More coherent and sensible others.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 29, 2016 16:24:34 GMT
OK, I hadn't intended this to be a post about the merits or otherwise of Christianity. I don't think that's what the article is about. If that's what people would prefer to discuss, could an admin rename it and stick it in the theology thread? Thanks. BTW, this is not me being sniffy or evasive - being mostly agnostic (and private about my beliefs) I have nothing to add either way. I just think we have enough discussions along those lines and this was supposed to be about psychology and human behaviour/morals. Hence why it's here and not in Theology.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 29, 2016 16:33:26 GMT
Back to the article. A thought occurred to me.
The article says basically the world isn't fair but we ... some people ... tend to assume unfortunate people must somehow be to blame.
The reverse may be equally true - we tend to assume well-off people deserve it somehow (merit, breeding, whatever) - and for the same reason: to avoid confronting evidence that success, as well as failure, is often down to luck and isn't at all fair.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 29, 2016 16:45:23 GMT
Back to the article. A thought occurred to me. The article says basically the world isn't fair but we ... some people ... tend to assume unfortunate people must somehow be to blame. The reverse may be equally true - we tend to assume well-off people deserve it somehow (merit, breeding, whatever) - and for the same reason: to avoid confronting evidence that success, as well as failure, is often down to luck and isn't at all fair. Exactly! Hence the popularity of Trump. He's rich, so he must be cleverer = more deserving.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Jul 29, 2016 17:59:07 GMT
That's a fascinating article. I've seen a lot of this victim-blaming attitude in discussions of the recent racial violence and turmoil in the US, and it's was very saddening for me because it seemed to either come from malice or extreme ignorance. Thinking a bit more about its possible roots is helpful and makes me less disheartened.
People don't like to be reminded that less of their life is up to them and their awesome skills than they think. One of my uncles likes to point to stories of underprivileged people who have overcome adversity and become very successful and then imply that anyone with a similar beginning who doesn't achieve 'success' is a slacker or whatever. These stories exist, but they are inspiring for a reason - they are not commonplace. To expect everyone to rise to the same level regardless of where they start is unjust.
I wonder if this "life is fair" attitude exists more among more privileged people? Many (most?) people are told growing up that they can do anything and be anything if they work hard enough for it, but if your dreams get squashed over and over you're probably less likely to believe this.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 29, 2016 18:56:06 GMT
Yeah, I do think that this idea of 'anything is possible' or even 'it's never too late' can be a double edged sword. Goals are important but there are some things that simply *aren't* possible (try as I might, I'm never gonna make prima ballerina at the Royal Ballet, for example), so to imply that not to be wildly (or even moderately) successful is because of lack of hard work is very often wrong. Not that I *am* working hard at being prima ballerina, of course.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Aug 4, 2016 23:27:36 GMT
It's just reality. I hate when people say stuff like "your time will come" or "your dreams will come true" etc etc. Reality is, no they won't, not for lots of people. I don't really see anything depressing about the view, it's just how it is. Better to understand that and deal with it then to sit around thinking it's unfair and you deserve better.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 5, 2016 2:49:45 GMT
I'm not sure where it says that... I'm not sure either. I think it's a distortion of certain passages, admittedly favoured by hellfire preachers who want to instill fear into their flock and keep them under their thumb. You're right, juju, there's plenty in there about living a good life, in fact most of the New Testament is about how to live a pure and holy life, and that naturally leads us to live a good life. Heaven is almost incidental. A Roman Catholics once said "we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved." I'm sure Jesus intended us to put most of the emphasis on "being saved". In what way is it a distortion? I do not think that I know the bible better than you do but I do know that there are plenty passages in the NT that suggest a literal hell. Do you ignore them?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 5, 2016 7:36:57 GMT
Jo, I posted thus further up: OK, I hadn't intended this to be a post about the merits or otherwise of Christianity. I don't think that's what the article is about. If that's what people would prefer to discuss, could an admin rename it and stick it in the theology thread? Thanks. BTW, this is not me being sniffy or evasive - being mostly agnostic (and private about my beliefs) I have nothing to add either way. I just think we have enough discussions along those lines and this was supposed to be about psychology and human behaviour/morals. Hence why it's here and not in Theology. As you're an Admin, perhaps you could split or rename and move this part of the discussion to Theology?
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Aug 5, 2016 9:50:12 GMT
When I wrote about God, I was not referring ju just Christianity but religious beliefs in general. Like karma "Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future suffering."
If you believe in reincarnation, then a good person may have done bad deeds in his/her former life, so everything is fair nonetheless.
And even if you are not religious at all, some concepts may live on in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 5, 2016 18:28:55 GMT
Yes, that idea of 'what goes around, comes around' seems to be a very deep seated one, whether you have any religion or not. It's a comforting thought if you are on the receiving end of ill treatment, but surely the idea of 'comeuppance' in some form reinforces the belief in cosmic balance or fairness, which may then lead to lack of sympathy for the unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 7, 2016 0:34:44 GMT
I don't know how to do splitting threads
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 2, 2016 20:15:40 GMT
So, we had an example of the illogicality of 'just world' thinking while we were away on holiday. To *try* and cut a long story short, we went to Dubrovnik for the day and the first thing we did was get lunch at a cafe. The waitress seemed a bit vague and disinterested - she had to take our order twice, and then we had to ask for the bill twice, after a long wait the first time. When it arrived, it seemed very small, so we asked someone else (she had disappeared) but they said it was correct. We paid and left, then realised it could only have been drinks - she had forgotten to include the food. We made sure not to pass by that way again. At the end of the afternoon we had a long walk up the hill to the car park. The lift was broken so we had to then walk three floors down to our car. The ticket machine told us we had 175 Kuna to pay (£21 ) but would not accept 200 Kuna notes or cards. We didn't have anything else so we had to walk up the stairs again to the car park office. The guy told me I could pay there, but when he put my card in his machine it now said 210 Kuna (£25 )- it had flipped over to the next hour while we were walking up the stairs! Anyway, driving out of Dubrovnik we reflected on how we felt much better at being ripped off by the car park because of the 'free' meal we had at the expense of the restaurant. Of course it makes no logical sense to think like that because the two events and places are unrelated, but in our heads it meant some sort of balance had (almost) been restored.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 2, 2016 21:19:46 GMT
25 for parking is a lot There's a sandwich place in town where I used to occasionally buy baguettes. One time I went in and ordered and was brought my baguette by a waitress - it primarily does sit down food but I was buying take out - who then disappeared. I waited a minute or two and no-one appeared to take my money so I went and found someone and told them that I'd not paid. Anyway a week or two later I was in there again and the exact same thing happened. This time I just shrugged and walked out with my free baguette.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Sept 2, 2016 23:17:40 GMT
So, we had an example of the illogicality of 'just world' thinking while we were away on holiday. To *try* and cut a long story short, we went to Dubrovnik for the day and the first thing we did was get lunch at a cafe. The waitress seemed a bit vague and disinterested - she had to take our order twice, and then we had to ask for the bill twice, after a long wait the first time. When it arrived, it seemed very small, so we asked someone else (she had disappeared) but they said it was correct. We paid and left, then realised it could only have been drinks - she had forgotten to include the food. We made sure not to pass by that way again. At the end of the afternoon we had a long walk up the hill to the car park. The lift was broken so we had to then walk three floors down to our car. The ticket machine told us we had 175 Kuna to pay (£21 ) but would not accept 200 Kuna notes or cards. We didn't have anything else so we had to walk up the stairs again to the car park office. The guy told me I could pay there, but when he put my card in his machine it now said 210 Kuna (£25 )- it had flipped over to the next hour while we were walking up the stairs! Anyway, driving out of Dubrovnik we reflected on how we felt much better at being ripped off by the car park because of the 'free' meal we had at the expense of the restaurant. Of course it makes no logical sense to think like that because the two events and places are unrelated, but in our heads it meant some sort of balance had (almost) been restored. Yes, I understand your thinking/feeling. Irrational but "karma". In a café/restaurant in London we had a similar experience. It was very crowded and after we ordered and received our meals we wanted a desert, which we ordered and got from another waiter. Then we wanted to pay, we waived at the first waiter. But the desert was not on the bill, so we told him about that. It was not only about not cheating the owner, maybe the waiter/s would get in trouble?
|
|