Empathy and Morality

@philokalia said
"Hey guy, I want to debate you... Now, write an essay for me on the topic of my choice."

That isn't how this works.

Wasn't asking for an "essay", as you well know. So, anyway, you are choosing to sidestep an opportunity to look at a concrete example where there may well have been "dehumanization" ~ according to your way of thinking ~ on both "left" and "right" and prefer to stick with nebulous disdainful waffle and references to someone called Carl Schmitt.

To quote again from Tracy Strong describing the position of Schmitt:

The other, more dangerous possibility is that one will claim to speak in the name of universal humanity. In such a case, all those by whom one is opposed must perforce be seen as speaking against humanity and hence can only merit to be exterminated. Schmitt writes:

Humanity as such and as a whole has no enemies. Everyone belongs to humanity…“Humanity” thus becomes an asymmetrical counter-concept. If he discriminates within humanity and thereby denies the quality of being human to a disturber or destroyer, then the negatively valued person becomes an unperson, and his life is no longer of the highest value: it becomes worthless and must be destroyed. Concepts such as “human being” thus contain the possibility of the deepest inequality and become thereby “asymmetrical.”40

These words were written in 1976, but they were prepared for in the conclusion to The Concept of the Political: “The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity.”41 Schmitt wants here to remove from politics, especially international politics but also internal politics of an ideological kind, any possibility of justifying one's action on the basis of a claim to universal moral principles. He does so because he fears that in such a framework all claims to good will recognize no limits to their reach. And, thus, this century will see “wars for the domination of the earth” (the phrase is Nietzsche's in Ecce Homo), that is, wars to determine once and for all what is good for all, wars with no outcome except an end to politics and the elimination of all difference.

Thus, invoking humanity is far beyond regular criticism: it is demonizing and dehumanizing your enemies beyond what they deserve.

For, humanity includes everyone.

You even agree with this aspect:

Do you think that if I accuse a white supremacist, for example, of being a bigot or a racist or of being prejudiced, it means I am "dehumanizing" him or her?

Surely bigotry and prejudice are quintessentially human attributes?

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-3#post_4248534

@philokalia said
I guess if I had to draw a line, I would say that you have dehumanized someone when "deprive [them] of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility"

What does to "deprive them of human qualities" mean? Can you give a real-life or real-world example?

@fmf said
Wasn't asking for an "essay", as you well know. So, anyway, you are choosing to sidestep an opportunity to look at a concrete example where there may well have been "dehumanization" ~ according to your way of thinking ~ on both "left" and "right" and prefer to stick with nebulous disdainful waffle and references to someone called Carl Schmitt.

This wasn't enough for you in the way of examples?

The right will say that the Chavezistas of Venezuela or the Iranian Mullahs are enemies of freedom -- and as they believe man has a human right to liberty, this is dehumanizing and consenting to violence towards these people, usually.

The left does the same towards their domestic enemies in particular -- the Proud Boys, the "Alt Right," and other right wing groups. Because they are bigots, and are portrayed as being fundamentally against people of other variety existing, they dehumanize their political opponents.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-9#post_4248813

I think even without typing an essay, you can see how the example you want could have people on both sides who are guilty of dehumanizing their opponents.

@philokalia said
To quote again from Tracy Strong describing the position of Schmitt

Where has she used the term "dehumanization"?

@philokalia said
I think even without typing an essay, you can see how the example you want could have people on both sides who are guilty of dehumanizing their opponents.

No need for an essay. But name-dropping groups doesn't cut it. You need to explain how criticizing or opposing them "dehumanizes" them.

@fmf said
What does to "deprive them of human qualities" mean? Can you give a real-life or real-world example?

Dehumanization was already described on page nine.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-9#post_4248830

Examples of how the left/right does it are listed on page 9, as well as this page now.

Is there a more specific set of examples you have in mind? Is there some way this has to be clarified more?

What's missing?

@philokalia said
This wasn't enough for you in the way of examples?

No, it's not. Just repeating over and over and over again that so and so is "dehumanizing" someone else is not giving "examples". It's just declining to explain what exactly you mean by "dehumanizing".

@fmf said
No need for an essay. But name-dropping groups doesn't cut it. You need to explain how criticizing or opposing them "dehumanizes" them.

But criticizing or opposing them does not dehumanize them.

I corrected that before when you made that mistake.

You need to use words more precisely if you want to have a discussion.

@philokalia said
What's missing?

What's missing are real-life or real-world examples of what "depriving them of human qualities" actually means? Just mentioning controversial groups that oppose each other doesn't work.

@fmf said
No, it's not. Just repeating over and over and over again that so and so is "dehumanizing" someone else is not giving "examples". It's just declining to explain what exactly you mean by "dehumanizing".

Again, the Tracy Strong quotation:

The other, more dangerous possibility is that one will claim to speak in the name of universal humanity. In such a case, all those by whom one is opposed must perforce be seen as speaking against humanity and hence can only merit to be exterminated. Schmitt writes:

Humanity as such and as a whole has no enemies. Everyone belongs to humanity…“Humanity” thus becomes an asymmetrical counter-concept. If he discriminates within humanity and thereby denies the quality of being human to a disturber or destroyer, then the negatively valued person becomes an unperson, and his life is no longer of the highest value: it becomes worthless and must be destroyed. Concepts such as “human being” thus contain the possibility of the deepest inequality and become thereby “asymmetrical.”40

That is the process of dehumanizing someone, basically, as it ends up resulting in

“The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity.”41 Schmitt wants here to remove from politics, especially international politics but also internal politics of an ideological kind, any possibility of justifying one's action on the basis of a claim to universal moral principles. He does so because he fears that in such a framework all claims to good will recognize no limits to their reach.

@philokalia said
But criticizing or opposing them does not dehumanize them.

So if criticizing or opposing them is OK, what is the "dehumanizing them" thing? Violence? Laws restricting their basic human rights?

@philokalia said
Again, the Tracy Strong quotation:

Can you apply, briefly, whatever it is that impresses you about the Tracy Strong text you have copy-pasted, to real-life or real-world contemporary problems as seen through your viewpoint?

Take the multi-facted [in terms of morality and empathy] southern U.S border controversy for example. No need for an essay. Who is "dehumanizing" whom in that situation, according to your way of thinking?

@philokalia said
Thus, invoking humanity is far beyond regular criticism: it is demonizing and dehumanizing your enemies beyond what they deserve.

So you seek to remove - from the justification of one's action - the basis of there being a claim to universal moral principles?

@philokalia said
The left does the same towards their domestic enemies in particular -- the Proud Boys, the "Alt Right," and other right wing groups. Because they are bigots, and are portrayed as being fundamentally against people of other variety existing, they dehumanize their political opponents.

By accusing "the left" of "dehumanizing" their "domestic enemies", are you trying ~ with your rhetoric ~ to modify and/or inhibit the way "the left" tackles those it has disagreements with?

What happens if your rhetoric about "the left" leads to violence against them?

Can your smearing of them as "dehumanizers" be, in and of itself, you "dehumanizing" them?