• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Personal Obligation within an immoral group

assclass

assclass

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,243
What should an individual do when a group acts/thinks in a poor manner?

If you are with a few friends and they start to attack someone...

is there a difference between small groups (above) and large ones (bellow)

If you live in a country that is act fundamentally harming (many) of its citizens and those abroad?

Speak up, fight back, run?
 
If you are with your brothers and they attack someone jump in and lay the smack down, loyalty before royalty
 
Think for yourself. The human ability for group-think is terrifying if you really consider it. I think a positive thing that one can do in general is try very hard to avoiding getting sucked into arbitrary groups and "clubs".. We evolved a very powerful capacity to identify with others and form loosely structured groups around shared notions and values. They form so swiftly and effectively that I would argue that mob-like amoral behaviour is something we participate in instinctively, like chimps. This makes it difficult for us to abstain from. But it can be seen that individuals who are bound together and begin acting in tandem can do things that the individuals would not do alone. Its the seceding of control up the hierarchy that we evolved within and the desire for conformity that bind groups and convince its members that otherwise repugnant behaviour is okay.

The moral thing to do would be to either actively resist the immoral action or, in a more passive manner, avoid participating.
 
I guess for me the most right thing to do would be to either stop (or better yet prevent) it from happening, or if those are not possible, avoid participating. Being able to think for yourself and stand by your beliefs when called into question is an important human quality.
 
Obviously there are exceptions, for example what I'm about to say wouldn't apply if someone were going to be hurt or killed.

But in general, outside those kinds of extremes, I value loyalty. Publicly you agree with and defend your friends and family over a stranger even if you agree with the stranger. Privately you might express your doubts or disagreements with said friends and family, but publicly I believe in loyalty. Again, except in extremes where to side with those you are loyal to could result in injury or death.

This is something me and my boyfriend used to argue about. He always believed in neutrality and wound up in conflict with me or his friends because of not taking their side in arguments where he disagreed with them. The problem was me and his friends, we all expected him to show loyalty even if he disagreed with us. I told him I could understand why his friends were upset. He said it was stupid and someone shouldn't be expected to side with friends and family over a stranger if they agree with the stranger out of loyalty.

I can appreciate his sentiments, but I disagree. And I think that's the case for most people. That most people value loyalty.

As someone above said, this can go way too far. So I'm only speaking in terms of nonviolent disagreements.

Also I'm talking about interpersonal relationships, for something like, loyalty to country. Well, I consider myself loyal and patriotic to my country, but that loyalty can be fairly abstract. Sometimes the most loyal patriotic thing you can do is oppose a government you feel is leading your country down the wrong path.

So for example, I hate the US federal government and want things to change, but I'd never seek that change by aiding our countries enemies.

It can get complicated. But it's fair to say I strongly value loyalty.
 
JessFR said:
This is something me and my boyfriend used to argue about. He always believed in neutrality and wound up in conflict with me or his friends because of not taking their side in arguments where he disagreed with them. The problem was me and his friends, we all expected him to show loyalty even if he disagreed with us. I told him I could understand why his friends were upset. He said it was stupid and someone shouldn't be expected to side with friends and family over a stranger if they agree with the stranger out of loyalty.

I can appreciate his sentiments, but I disagree. And I think that's the case for most people. That most people value loyalty.
Click to expand...

I'm actually more like your boyfriend is, and honestly for some reason I imagined you'd be too, judging by how solid your opinions are and the fact that you're not afraid to express them.

For me the choice comes down to a simple question: which position to my best knowledge is more correct/right? That is the one I'm going to defend even if it goes against everything else that a typical person would try to preserve. Can't help myself I guess :\
 
Well, like I said it depends a bit on the context, and it's not so much that I wouldn't express my opinion, more that I'd do it privately. Depends a bit on what it is of course. If it's something I really don't agree with but still doesn't fall into the risk of someone getting actually hurt category, if probably be inclined to avoid taking a side at all.

I guess it comes down to my feelings of loyalty. I feel inclined to support the people I feel loyal to even if I don't agree with them.

So if two people are arguing for example, and I feel a sense of loyalty to the one that I think is probably wrong, publicly I still feel compelled to support them even if privately id try to get them to see that they're wrong.

A lot of this depends so much on context. There are times I'd do it and times I wouldn't.

For example, you wouldn't do that if you're in say, an employer or leadership position where you have a responsibility to the whole that goes beyond that personal loyalty.

The situations where I'd likely let loyalty cause me to sit on a side I don't agree with will tend to be situations where little or nothing is actually at stake. Like a personal argument between individuals or something. Interpersonal social issues more so than political ones.
 
I understand loyalty, but I don't understand how one should be expected to be "loyal" in opinions. Why is it viewed as a sign of disloyalty etc if you side with a stranger's point of view if that point of view is also your own or close to it. Going by this loyalty logic, your close one should then take your point of view, but they don't, do they?

I mean, if it's really such a big deal to someone that I support them no matter what... don't think we'd be in too much contact... but if we were, I would most likely just stay out of it.

Luckily for me, I don't have any issues with this sort of thing nowadays, but back when I lived with my parents, it used to be an issue in the parent vs "stranger" context.

Perhaps we're also thinking of different scenarios. You wouldn't suddenly start arguing that, for example, astrology has something going for it just because your friend believes so.
 
We are more naturally prone to side with our friends and family because we have greater empathy for them. It's a matter of familiarity. We wouldn't be friends with them unless there was some utility, some shared value. I care a lot about my family and really close friends, I care less about my more distant friends and acquaintances, and I care very little about strangers. It's not that I don't have general compassion for humanity, but I don't have enough fucks to give about every person I see, otherwise I'd be totally sucked dry of energy. Priorities. If i see a stranger getting murdered I may not get involved but if it were a family member I'd probably risk my life for them.

To me loyalty means preserving utility. People may not realize it but that's what they're doing. If you side with a friend no matter what they say or do out of loyalty then it's because you are selfish. You're getting something from your friend and you're afraid to lose it by disagreeing with them.

The people who choose things based on principle and not group-think are usually less swayed by these animal instincts.
 
belligerent drunk said:
I understand loyalty, but I don't understand how one should be expected to be "loyal" in opinions. Why is it viewed as a sign of disloyalty etc if you side with a stranger's point of view if that point of view is also your own or close to it. Going by this loyalty logic, your close one should then take your point of view, but they don't, do they?

I mean, if it's really such a big deal to someone that I support them no matter what... don't think we'd be in too much contact... but if we were, I would most likely just stay out of it.

Luckily for me, I don't have any issues with this sort of thing nowadays, but back when I lived with my parents, it used to be an issue in the parent vs "stranger" context.

Perhaps we're also thinking of different scenarios. You wouldn't suddenly start arguing that, for example, astrology has something going for it just because your friend believes so.
Click to expand...

I think we are thinking of different scenarios. I'm more thinking or social conflicts more than matters of opinion. It all depends on context and I'm having trouble verbalizing exactly where I'd think what I'm saying would and wouldn't apply.

The simplest way I can think to describe it is to say I feel a bias towards people I feel loyalty towards. And so there are circumstances where I might side with someone I'm loyal too but disagree with, or not side against them, where if I were being completely neutral too all sides I wouldn't.

For the astrology example, well I'm particularly unimpressed for lack of a more polite word with astrology, so I probably wouldn't side with a friend I felt loyalty towards over their belief in astrology over someone who agrees with me that it seems kinda BS. But, I might well stay out of it all together out of loyalty. Whereas if I didn't feel loyalty to one but not the other I'd decide it purely based on my opinion on the subject.

I suppose what it comes down to is I'm saying I can appreciate and relate to the thinking that you should stick up for your friends and family sometimes even when you know they're wrong. But of course there are limits, so it's not so much that I'm saying that loyalty wins every time, just that it does have importance to me. I wouldn't just base every situation and how I handle it on my opinion by itself with no consideration to the social side of the discussion.

In terms of the example I gave with my BF, in those situations it was questions like, if your friend and a someone you don't know very well get into an argument, would you go purely on the merits of the argument or would you be biased by the friendship and which is the correct choice?

Another one would be if it were a friend of mine and him in an argument or a friend of his and me. In which case I would almost always back him up in public even if I agreed with the friend in private. And I'd have similar expectations of him.

I'm not sure exactly where the line is, when I'd let loyalty influence the stand I take and when I wouldn't.

But regardless of where the line is, I'm only talking about how you act publicly. Even if for example a friend of mine and my bf got into an argument about something for example, while I'd always side with him, I'd still tell him in private what I really think and appeal to him to make things right.

Hopefully that makes what I'm talking about a little clearer.

Another important difference is what kind of group we are talking about. While there are times I value group loyalty, I wouldn't consider what it sounds like the OP is talking about to be one of those times.

So say the culture of your country is hostile towards say, immigrants. I think you should speak up for what you believe in. I'm talking about individual loyalties not collective loyalties such as loyalty to country or something.

All I'm getting at is that while I'd normally be inclined to say you should speak up for what you really believe in, I do think there are exceptions where a greater good is served by being more socially supportive than coldly honest.

One reason I'm probably having trouble getting across what I'm talking about is because I find this discussion itself a bit ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
Jess I'm so happy your are ok. I was so worried about you. Cheers.
 
jammin83 said:
Jess I'm so happy your are ok. I was so worried about you. Cheers.
Click to expand...

I'm ok I suppose. Been having trouble with depression as you tend to when getting off a serious heroin habit. And since I decided CE&P was destructive to my mental health I guess I haven't been on bluelight as much.

Still, I appreciate the concern. I'm ok, as ok as you'd expect trying to find a new lifestyle after years of living like a junkie anyway.
 
I've found in looking at social ills you see in others, what may turn out to be a dialectic about yourself. So for instance a kid picking on another kid at a playground and you're a kid yourself. Well when you grow up you might wish you stood up for said kid, but it most likely wouldn't have been the tell-all of his/her existence. You'd likely feel worse than this Other person does. For reasons which can be known. Ultimately though if you think you can talk a kid out of picking on someone without using violence as a means to an end (making you the same) then you should probably try.
 
I believe you should always stand up for anyone being picked on. In terms of countries and imperialism, you need to help spread awareness if nothing else.
 
herbavore said:
I believe you should always stand up for anyone being picked on. In terms of countries and imperialism, you need to help spread awareness if nothing else.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. When I was a kid I was always new in every school I went to because we moved a lot, back when it wasn't common. Often I'd be the only new kid in a school of 1500. Couple that with being fat and bad at team sports, more than a bit "unladylike," the euphemism of the day when they were afraid to say "dyk-ish" and the deck was completely stacked against me. I was always being picked on and bullied, and I would have killed to have had one kid or even adult who would have either taken my side or just made them stop. But nobody ever did, and when I took care of the problem myself, while I made it stop, the consequences all rolled over on me. By that time I'd made a name for myself, and not in a good way. Oh well, I got expelled back before it was cool.
 
I would base things on power dynamics. If there's virtually no hope of me making a meaningful impact, then I won't do anything. I spent a large part of my life being a martyr and it got me nowhere. You can't change people if there isn't already part of them that wants to. Sometimes people are behaving subconsciously or there are silent dissenters, but nobody has the courage to speak up or nobody is aware until someone says something. Once one person speaks up, the rest snap out of it. There are subtle ways to tell the difference. If you are dealing with sub-human trash that have abandoned their moral core, then you best protect yourself. No point in standing in front of an oncoming train. I stand up against injustice that I have the power to potentially change otherwise I don't bother. Anyone here watch Star Trek? I have my own Prime Directive of non-interference that I apply to other people's problems.

On a political level, I don't feel that anything ever really changes. Humans are stuck in a never ending cycle of creation and destruction because we can't reconcile our own confused egos. You just have to be lucky enough to be born in a benevolent period where the ego-politic is focused on humanitarianism, otherwise you will suffer. The cycles repeat over and over again with only small evolutionary changes every thousand years or so. People think humanity has advanced because of our technology when really our behavioral nature remains virtually unchanged. I don't feel that fighting with the politic du jour really does anything to advance humanity in the grand scheme. We're all stuck.
 
I absolutely concur. I'm at the point in my life ( old decaying hippie from the 60s) where I find no hope of making a meaningful (my standards) impact anywhere within such a flawed species. I often seem like I'm trying in little ways but it's really not the case. I'm just relieving an inner pressure based in frustration, anger and sadness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top