Why on earth do so many people interfere with other people's lives?

[Coriolis]

In short, is there ever a legitimate circumstance where you can condone the exercising of power over another, and how ironic and hypocritical is it to do it to stop others from exercising power over those are unable to defend themselves?

I suspect most people would agree with the list below. Acting in this manner is hypocritical only if you would expect to be treated differently were the situations reversed.

1. Preventing harm to yourself.
2. Preventing a third party from harming someone else who is unable to defend themselves.
3. Preventing someone from harming themselves (your suicide example).
4. Controlling the actions of someone unable to make their own decisions/choices, in their best interests, as with a small child.

I would also excercise power over another in these cases:

5. To compel someone to act in their own best interests; it must be someone I care about, whose life I am closely involved in. It carries the risk that I actually know what is in their best interests, at least better than they do. It also carries the risk of harming our relationship, but if the situation is dire enough, I will take these risks.

6. To prevent someone from interfering with something I am trying to accomplish, or more rarely, to compel their cooperation; again, to be done sparingly, with full knowledge of the possible consequences.

I am excluding cases where we voluntarily give power over ourselves to another, as in employment, schooling, and voluntary military service.

 

[Beorn]

I knew someone would say this

The thing is I'm getting sick and tired of people telling others what to do with their lives for no reason and giving them a bad feeling about themselves. FOR NO REASON. It's not about people trying to get others to stop smoking, but about people trying to make others feel like they're worthless pieces of shit if they don't have dinner at exactly six o'clock every day (just to give an example). I'm not telling them in the face that they should stop it, I'm just ranting a bit. And I don't get it. And I'm tired, so I can't think clearly right now.

I get that. I don't approve of guilt-tripping. I just don't understand why you framed it the way you did when your issue is with guilt-tripping.

 

[Amargith]

I suspect most people would agree with the list below. Acting in this manner is hypocritical only if you would expect to be treated differently were the situations reversed.

1. Preventing harm to yourself.
2. Preventing a third party from harming someone else who is unable to defend themselves.
3. Preventing someone from harming themselves (your suicide example).
4. Controlling the actions of someone unable to make their own decisions/choices, in their best interests, as with a small child.

I would also excercise power over another in these cases:

5. To compel someone to act in their own best interests; it must be someone I care about, whose life I am closely involved in. It carries the risk that I actually know what is in their best interests, at least better than they do. It also carries the risk of harming our relationship, but if the situation is dire enough, I will take these risks.

6. To prevent someone from interfering with something I am trying to accomplish, or more rarely, to compel their cooperation; again, to be done sparingly, with full knowledge of the possible consequences.

I am excluding cases where we voluntarily give power over ourselves to another, as in employment, schooling, and voluntary military service.

Good list.

Now here is an additional question:

What about if it is culturally acceptable to exercise power,control , and often harm out of ignorance upon the subject. Do you still get to intervene at the other's behalf? And would it be at all productive?

 

[Coriolis]

What about if it is culturally acceptable to exercise power,control , and often harm out of ignorance upon the subject. Do you still get to intervene at the other's behalf? And would it be at all productive?

I don't understand the question. What is the subject, and in what way would we be ignorant? Acting in ignorance is ill-advised as a rule.

 

[Amargith]

I don't understand the question. What is the subject, and in what way would we be ignorant? Acting in ignorance is ill-advised as a rule.

I'm thinking for instance of horses. The way horses are traditionally broken and kept is actually...well, detrimental to their well-being. Not to mention often abusive and controlling. But because they are considered 'property' and are not able to raise their voices, the way people look at them is different; less so empathy and understanding as to how that species works and more so objectifying and forcing it to do your bidding, the way you would a bike.

Slavery is an example of back when. As are for that matter the roots of racism and sexism. The ignorance and xenophobia wrt the differences between the person and the [insert living being being objectified/exploited] causes a distance which in turn hinders empathy and enables prejudice, false assumptions, ignorance and from there culturally acceptable exploitation - even if empathy is not fully hindered, the false information and cultural acceptance will make people often blind to how they are in fact inflicting harm - and highly resistant, ime, to being educated on that as they'll consider it offensive to be 'accused of inflicting harm' since it is culturally acceptable.

 

[Comeback Girl]

I get that. I don't approve of guilt-tripping. I just don't understand why you framed it the way you did when your issue is with guilt-tripping.

Yeah, fucking Google Translate, I knew there was something wrong with that translation.

 

[FemMecha]

Yeah, I hear ya on that. It is incredible that in that situation, yo uwere still able to have enough energy to keep in mind their hurt feelings and understand where they were coming from, and thank god that you did, coz it would only have made it worse if you hadn't, I'm sure.

I too prefer to just feel out if someone is open to help or not. Free choice and free will are my top priority in that, as I know myself what that is like. But I occasionally have broken my own rule - and I do struggle with those decisions. I recently on purpose guilt tripped a man who was suicidal to keep him from harming himself. Several times. He knew what I was doing, and why I was doing it, and I even told him straight out that that was why I was doing it. Ultimately, after the facts, he appreciated it, but at that time, he was livid with me for daring to go there. Did I make the right call? I dunno. It went against everything i believe in but...as I told him: You don't need me to be likeable right now, you need me to be your friend, so yes, I am going to go there. It still feels wrong though. Similarly, I can get incredibly rigid and intolerant when someone harms someone else with their actions - especially wrt animals as they are often treated as objects and property, without an ounce of regard for their comfort or level of suffering, and that to the point where it definitely overrides my normal caution to tell people what to do or condemn their behaviour. And part of me wonders...are those legitimate circumstances? Or is that just...well, my very typical NF agenda that gets pushed through? And is that in and of itself hypocritical?

In short, is there ever a legitimate circumstance where you can condone the exercising of power over another, and how ironic and hypocritical is it to do it to stop others from exercising power over those are unable to defend themselves?

Ha. We are actually pretty similar then. When there is something vulnerable like and animal or child involved, then it is a different scenario than when someone is making choices for just their own life. I don't think any one person completely owns an animal or child, but those most vulnerable are a part of the world. I could get really intrusive if someone is harming an animal and would be past just stealing their pet even if I thought it was bad enough. I would also physically attack and harm someone abusing an animal or a child.

I struggle with the issue of suicide in those I love because one family member was suicidal all through our college years. I did once say to him that if he had to promise me that if he ever made that choice that he would first think through how it would destroy our mother, sister, and me. I told him I needed to know that would think through those consequences. I actually do go a bit ballistic when suicide talk is on the table with someone I am intimately involved with because it is also a primary source of emotional blackmail. I have also had internet friends who were suicidal, and I tried to give support, but eventually had to just cut off the relationship because of it. I cannot ever entertain that dynamic again. I have also told people who didn't want to live that life isn't about the way we feel, but we live to rescue puppies, kitties, to use the power of our existence to ease some of the pain in the world.

I've struggled with depression most of my life and have felt plenty enough physical and emotional pain to have those thoughts cross my mind, but I push them away in anger. I hate the selfishness and arrogance of it. I'm personally determined to live to take out as much of the world's pain as possible. I have personal anger towards those ideas on a number of levels and so can get intense when that is introduced.

You happened to name the two things that can actually get me really angry.

 

[Lark]

I dont think there's the enough of the right sort of telling people what to do, if there where we'd not need police, social services, schools and other institutions to do so. As it happens they arent up to the task and are barely able to put a dent in what they are faced with.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm thinking for instance of horses. The way horses are traditionally broken and kept is actually...well, detrimental to their well-being. Not to mention often abusive and controlling. But because they are considered 'property' and are not able to raise their voices, the way people look at them is different; less so empathy and understanding as to how that species works and more so objectifying and forcing it to do your bidding, the way you would a bike.

Slavery is an example of back when. As are for that matter the roots of racism and sexism. The ignorance and xenophobia wrt the differences between the person and the [insert living being being objectified/exploited] causes a distance which in turn hinders empathy and enables prejudice, false assumptions, ignorance and from there culturally acceptable exploitation - even if empathy is not fully hindered, the false information and cultural acceptance will make people often blind to how they are in fact inflicting harm - and highly resistant, ime, to being educated on that as they'll consider it offensive to be 'accused of inflicting harm' since it is culturally acceptable.

Are you asking, then, whether it is OK to exercise control in a harmful way if it is considered culturally acceptable, or whether it is OK to intervene on behalf of someone being harmed through such control? To use your example, are you asking whether it is OK to be a slave master in a culture that condones slavery, or OK to help slaves try to escape, or even to be an abolitionist?

What about if it is culturally acceptable to exercise power,control , and often harm out of ignorance upon the subject. Do you still get to intervene at the other's behalf? And would it be at all productive?

Your original question convolves three factors: cultural norms, harm, and ignorance. They can be mutually reinforcing, but none is required by either of the others. One can exercise control in a culturally acceptable way, without harm and while understanding what one is doing. One can be ignorant, but do no harm, perhaps just by chance; or one can use one's knowledge to do even more harm.

Consider the example of children. It is culturally acceptable for parents to exercise some degree of control over their children. This parental control can be either beneficial or harmful. If parents are ignorant of how to raise children, they can harm them unintentionally. If they are not ignorant, they can still do their children intentional harm, or they can combine knowledge and good intentions to exercise beneficial control. "Society" can tip the balance by making the harmful forms of control less culturally acceptable, while not releasing children entirely from parental control.

 

[gromit]

I know, I'm studying psychology out here, but I really want to know why some people always have to get into other people's business. Complaining about certain life choices other people make (while they don't harm anyone with it), making people feel bad about the choices they make. Why the fuck do people think this is necessary? For example, I have a thirty year old cousin who doesn't have a husband, boyfriend or children. She spent years of her life being serious, having little fun, and now she's trying to make up for the years that she 'missed out' by traveling a lot and having tons of fun. Meanwhile, my dad (who's not related to her) keeps complaining that she's getting old and that it's a scandal that she isn't married and having babies yet. Or let's talk about all those fellow students of mine who don't seem to like doing anything else than telling other people they should live their lives exactly the way they do. Or my grandmother, who bluntly tells strangers in public they should wear a more 'decent' outfit. I'm sick and tired of other people who are trying to tell others what to do with their lives, while they weren't hurting anyone else with the way they were living at that point.

So I was wondering:
What the fuck is wrong with people?!


EDIT: Turns out Google Translate set me up with the wrong fucking translation again. I was talking about guilt-tripping and making people feel bad, not actually taking action. Just thought you guys should know.

I have noticed that people who are content with their own life choices rarely try to make others feel bad about their own.

 

[Avocado]

Ha. We are actually pretty similar then. When there is something vulnerable like and animal or child involved, then it is a different scenario than when someone is making choices for just their own life. I don't think any one person completely owns an animal or child, but those most vulnerable are a part of the world. I could get really intrusive if someone is harming an animal and would be past just stealing their pet even if I thought it was bad enough. I would also physically attack and harm someone abusing an animal or a child.

I struggle with the issue of suicide in those I love because one family member was suicidal all through our college years. I did once say to him that if he had to promise me that if he ever made that choice that he would first think through how it would destroy our mother, sister, and me. I told him I needed to know that would think through those consequences. I actually do go a bit ballistic when suicide talk is on the table with someone I am intimately involved with because it is also a primary source of emotional blackmail. I have also had internet friends who were suicidal, and I tried to give support, but eventually had to just cut off the relationship because of it. I cannot ever entertain that dynamic again. I have also told people who didn't want to live that life isn't about the way we feel, but we live to rescue puppies, kitties, to use the power of our existence to ease some of the pain in the world.

I've struggled with depression most of my life and have felt plenty enough physical and emotional pain to have those thoughts cross my mind, but I push them away in anger. I hate the selfishness and arrogance of it. I'm personally determined to live to take out as much of the world's pain as possible. I have personal anger towards those ideas on a number of levels and so can get intense when that is introduced.

You happened to name the two things that can actually get me really angry.

There is ultimately no meaning other than that which has been conceptualized in the minds and hearts of man.

 

[Lark]

There is ultimately no meaning other than that which has been conceptualized in the minds and hearts of man.

You are forgetting God.

If there is no meaning other that "invented" by mankind then how on earth do you explain simple cause and effect, natural laws like gravitation or the ordered cosmos? It cant all be an illusion, supposing that it is would be highly unscientific.

 

[Avocado]

You are forgetting God.

If there is no meaning other that "invented" by mankind then how on earth do you explain simple cause and effect, natural laws like gravitation or the ordered cosmos? It cant all be an illusion, supposing that it is would be highly unscientific.

If there is God, which creed is correct? Many, though certainly not all, religions claim to be the only true religion. Only one can be true, since many have contradictory doctrines.

I am in a cold, lonely place—but it is a rational one.

 

[Lark]

If there is God, which creed is correct? Many, though certainly not all, religions claim to be the only true religion. Only one can be true, since many have contradictory doctrines.

I am in a cold, lonely place—but it is a rational one.

Religions arent irrational, some of the greatest rationalists in history have been religious, including Aquinas and Aristotale. Religions itself during its great systematising phase saw itself as assailing and opposing superstition and a variety of fears and loathing which had preceeded it.

Because there are bad, false or poor examples of religion per se or of religions specificially I dont believe invalidates religion generally or specifically, that sort of thinking is pretty dumb and something opponents of religion acutally like to ascribe to a religious mindset. Ironically. Its a little like saying because you've eaten a bad steak that you cant trust steak anymore, infact you cant trust any meat product, in fact perhaps you're going to be a vegan and not any vegan but the sort which will not eat root vegetables or anything growing in the earth, casting a shadow or uprooted at night (Jainism, check it out). No one would think that way, not really, yet those sorts of crazy extremes are common place when people "think" about religion for some reason. Which is a shame.

I actually believe that God transcends religion, there are even varieties of "Godliness" in some athiest currents, like Mark Vernon and Erich Fromm, and I believe is rooted in the human imagination and experience, seeking to expunge it like a cancer sort of shows you dont understand or appreciate that side of human experience and neither do you want to, it seems a little like wanting to be divested of emotional responses, or some aspect of reasoning or something.

 

[Avocado]

Religions arent irrational, some of the greatest rationalists in history have been religious, including Aquinas and Aristotale. Religions itself during its great systematising phase saw itself as assailing and opposing superstition and a variety of fears and loathing which had preceeded it.

Because there are bad, false or poor examples of religion per se or of religions specificially I dont believe invalidates religion generally or specifically, that sort of thinking is pretty dumb and something opponents of religion acutally like to ascribe to a religious mindset. Ironically. Its a little like saying because you've eaten a bad steak that you cant trust steak anymore, infact you cant trust any meat product, in fact perhaps you're going to be a vegan and not any vegan but the sort which will not eat root vegetables or anything growing in the earth, casting a shadow or uprooted at night (Jainism, check it out). No one would think that way, not really, yet those sorts of crazy extremes are common place when people "think" about religion for some reason. Which is a shame.

I actually believe that God transcends religion, there are even varieties of "Godliness" in some athiest currents, like Mark Vernon and Erich Fromm, and I believe is rooted in the human imagination and experience, seeking to expunge it like a cancer sort of shows you dont understand or appreciate that side of human experience and neither do you want to, it seems a little like wanting to be divested of emotional responses, or some aspect of reasoning or something.

I do not wish to eradicate it, I am simply uncertain of what is true. I generally subscribe to a form f utilitarianism. If people are happy, an action must have been right.

 

[Lark]

I do not wish to eradicate it, I am simply uncertain of what is true. I generally subscribe to a form f utilitarianism. If people are happy, an action must have been right.

You should read Happiness is over rated by a philosopher called bennet or something like that, its a good book.

 

[Coriolis]

If there is God, which creed is correct? Many, though certainly not all, religions claim to be the only true religion. Only one can be true, since many have contradictory doctrines.

They are contradictory like the accounts of the blind men examining an elephant. An elephant has a trunk, but the trunk is not the whole of the elephant. They contain truth up to the point that they assert other perspectives are false.

I do not wish to eradicate it, I am simply uncertain of what is true. I generally subscribe to a form f utilitarianism. If people are happy, an action must have been right.

Happiness is not the best yardstick. I would think even utilitarianism would require a more objective output than that.

 

[prplchknz]

because puppies love everyone, but because we're not puppies and have a frontal lobe we're judgemental. therefore you can't escape judgement, it's best to ignore it, unless it's warranted

 

[Ene]

I always kind of thought people were critical and judgemental because 1.) it makes them "feel" superior or "look" superior [at least in their own eyes] when they point out preceived flaws in others. 2.) they really wish they had the guts and freedom of will to do a thing themselves, but since they don't, they feel inclined, out of bitterness, resentment, jealousy, whatever to pick the flaws in others. 3.) Jealousy could have a category all on its own. I know of one musician who put a guy down miserably and tried to dissaude him from a musical career and it was done out of pure jealousy. He didn't want this guy receiving more acclaim and praise than he was getting. Petty? You betcha and totally based in insecurity and fear. Most criticism is, or at least I think it is.

 

[Avocado]

They are contradictory like the accounts of the blind men examining an elephant. An elephant has a trunk, but the trunk is not the whole of the elephant. They contain truth up to the point that they assert other perspectives are false.


Happiness is not the best yardstick. I would think even utilitarianism would require a more objective output than that.

I was raised in a cult that asserted itself as the sole truth and used logic to shoot everyone else down. Now that I have seen flaws in the cult's logic, I'm left kind of just floating in a void without meaning or a sense of right or wrong. Until I can find absolute truth, I will be in an awkward position…