NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting notion just struck me today. Here, I have compiled a list of 7 concepts that compose our view of the good aspects of society. Take a look and see what you think.

Community, Authority, Wealth, Justice, Knowledge, Pleasure and Life.

If we had a form of society that preserved all of these things in its members, we would consider ourselves to have attained perfection. Thus we seek to encourage the pursuit of these goals in the hope that perhaps we may all be able to benefit from them.

These are precisely the very things that will make a man drop all ethical conviction when the prospect of attaining them is laid before him. It is these things for which you can make someone kill on command. You can break down each one individually and you will find countless instances of them being used to oppress, subdue, pillage, abuse and murder without regard for repercussion. It's for this precise reason that I now wish to give them the title of the 7 Deadly Motivations.

Why is this the case? Are these things which we are being actively prevented from attaining or actively preventing others from attaining? Have we been lured into idolising the very means by which we are controlled? Or is this all just a cruel joke, with the true attainment of any of them being completely impossible?

Once again, this is a discussion forum, not your blog.

i think you are over estimating their uniqueness as motivators for killing others.

i think you are over estimating their uniqueness as motivators for killing others.
Can you think of others?

i think you are over estimating their uniqueness as motivators for killing others.

Arguably, Chinese Food is one of the more lethal motivators.

Mmm...dumplings...

Can you think of others?

revenge. hatred.

as i was sitting here waiting for jolt to bring up the reply box it seemed to me that none of your motivators were good enough.

we have to not just want what the other guy has or want the other guy to have to act the way we want him to act, we have to demonize him.

he's not just another man trying to make his way in the world the same way we are, he is a raghead, a gook, a jap, a kraut. (to use a few terms used in my lifetime) his life isnt worth considering. or he is so evil that he must be stopped at any cost. the craven consideration of wealth and power isnt enough. we have to be convinced that there are greater goods involved than just our own material benefit.

revenge. hatred.

as i was sitting here waiting for jolt to bring up the reply box it seemed to me that none of your motivators were good enough.

we have to not just want what the other guy has or want the other guy to have to act the way we want him to act, we have to demonize him.

he's not just another man trying to make his way in the world the same way we are, he is a raghead, a gook, a jap, a kraut. (to use a few terms used in my lifetime) his life isnt worth considering. or he is so evil that he must be stopped at any cost. the craven consideration of wealth and power isnt enough. we have to be convinced that there are greater goods involved than just our own material benefit.

People still used Jap as a pejorative label after WWII?

Can you think of others?

Money.

Or, by extension, any form of significant personal gain, "significant" being highly subjective and "gain" being defined broadly.

Everything else is mere justification, including your 7 Deadly Motivators.

In truth, there is only one reason to kill, oppress, or harm anybody and that is because one perceives that one will gain something by such action. It might be the territory of another country or someone else's money or wealth from someone else's work; or the removal of a perceived or imagined obstacle to your plans or threat to your person; or the sick thrill of having others fear you or submit to you; or the equally sick pleasure of submitting to someone you fear (i.e. committing a bad act to please an authority figure of some kind); or the craven notion that sacrificing someone else will save you from a bad fate. In all such scenarios the motive is to benefit oneself, selfishly.

People still used Jap as a pejorative label after WWII?

let me start by saying that i grew up in rural coastal maine. there were no japanese people, no germans, no moslems, no vietnamese. our biggest minority was people of french descent.

but movies and tv shows about world war 2 were big when i was in grade school. so jap and kraut were used, just not to real people.

revenge. hatred.

as i was sitting here waiting for jolt to bring up the reply box it seemed to me that none of your motivators were good enough.

we have to not just want what the other guy has or want the other guy to have to act the way we want him to act, we have to demonize him.

he's not just another man trying to make his way in the world the same way we are, he is a raghead, a gook, a jap, a kraut. (to use a few terms used in my lifetime) his life isnt worth considering. or he is so evil that he must be stopped at any cost. the craven consideration of wealth and power isnt enough. we have to be convinced that there are greater goods involved than just our own material benefit.
Hatred is never a cause; hatred is itself just a veil used to avoid having to confront your reasons.

Why does one hate the "raghead"? Is it because they want to fit in with their community? Is it because they feel that they have been wronged by him? Is it because they do not understand him? Is it because he is a threat to their life or status? Is it because he seeks to take their pleasure or their prosperity from them?

Even Revenge is, to the perpetrator, Justice; a wrong to be righted.

let me start by saying that i grew up in rural coastal maine. there were no japanese people, no germans, no moslems, no vietnamese. our biggest minority was people of french descent.

but movies and tv shows about world war 2 were big when i was in grade school. so jap and kraut were used, just not to real people.
They were used by real people to real people where I grew up - New York City.

let me start by saying that i grew up in rural coastal maine. there were no japanese people, no germans, no moslems, no vietnamese. our biggest minority was people of french descent.

but movies and tv shows about world war 2 were big when i was in grade school. so jap and kraut were used, just not to real people.

Oh, ok. So they were used in context by fictional characters. Ok.

*phew* I was wondering if my math was wrong. Hadn't thought you were that old. ;)

They were used by real people to real people where I grew up - New York City.

Really? How long ago was this.

I also wonder why no one has a pejorative for Indians. I mean other than dot-heads, which is a feeble attempt at best.

Hatred is never a cause; hatred is itself just a veil used to avoid having to confront your reasons.

Why does one hate the "raghead"? Is it because they want to fit in with their community? Is it because they feel that they have been wronged by him? Is it because they do not understand him? Is it because he is a threat to their life or status? Is it because he seeks to take their pleasure or their prosperity from them?

Even Revenge is, to the perpetrator, Justice; a wrong to be righted.
I grew up around people who threw around racial epithets and other stereotype insults as if they were common pleasantries. They did it for all the reasons you list above except the one about having been wronged. And all those motivations are selfish. Even the one that comes from ignorance is selfish because it assumes that any person whom one does not understand must be inferior to oneself and therefore worthy of a dismissive and demeaning label.

As for the perpetrator's attitude towards his own acts of revenge, I would call that another instance of self-justification for having done something bad by choice.

Really? How long ago was this.

I also wonder why no one has a pejorative for Indians. I mean other than dot-heads, which is a feeble attempt at best.
It was still extremely common when I left NYC in 1993. Words like "Jap" and "Kraut" were usually used only by older people, but they were still commonly heard and were perfectly understood by younger people as well. And of course, the younger people freely used the kinds of insults you may be more familiar with.

Oh, ok. So they were used in context by fictional characters. Ok.

*phew* I was wondering if my math was wrong. Hadn't thought you were that old. ;)

you are so mean to me!

my oldest brother was born in 1941 and was still in the hospital during pearl harbor.

never underestimate the influence of TV. in the 60s is was not considered wrong to have characters use names that are just too PI (politcally incorrect) to be used today.

Oh, ok. So they were used in context by fictional characters. Ok.

*phew* I was wondering if my math was wrong. Hadn't thought you were that old. ;)
Um, the real people I heard using them were my grandparents, and great-aunts and uncles, and their friends. They not only lived through WW2 but grew up in the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant neighborhoods of NYC where ethnic tensions were always high. And many of those people are still alive and still able to talk.

Wow, I had no idea this was so recent. Though given that it was the older folks saying it I suppose that's somewhat understandable.
And of course, it makes an enormous and vital difference to the discussion at hand that society has largely moved on from shouting "kraut" to shouting "raghead." Thanks for keeping us all on point. :rolleyes:

It was still extremely common when I left NYC in 1993. Words like "Jap" and "Kraut" were usually used only by older people, but they were still commonly heard and were perfectly understood by younger people as well. And of course, the younger people freely used the kinds of insults you may be more familiar with.

Wow, I had no idea this was so recent. Though given that it was the older folks saying it I suppose that's somewhat understandable.

Hatred is never a cause; hatred is itself just a veil used to avoid having to confront your reasons.

Why does one hate the "raghead"? Is it because they want to fit in with their community? Is it because they feel that they have been wronged by him? Is it because they do not understand him? Is it because he is a threat to their life or status? Is it because he seeks to take their pleasure or their prosperity from them?

Even Revenge is, to the perpetrator, Justice; a wrong to be righted.

but obviously oure "true" reasons are just no longer good enough to get the majority motivated for war.

so we didnt go into iraq for oil, we went in to protect ourselves from unjust attack. we went in to liberate the iraqi people. if the real reasons had been put forth, it never would have happened.

you are so mean to me!

my oldest brother was born in 1941 and was still in the hospital during pearl harbor.

never underestimate the influence of TV. in the 60s is was not considered wrong to have characters use names that are just too PI (politcally incorrect) to be used today.

*hides behind something*

Sorry, I'm used to needling people about their age. My mom turned 50 last November and my dad turned 50 in 2k4.

And I don't really see a problem with those words in context of the time. It's like saying that "redskin" is something that shouldn't be said anymore in cowboy movies.

That was my point. It was more commonly used by people around WW2.

Ash was born after WWII, hence my confusion.
Please see one of my earlier posts. People do not lose the power of speech after age 50 or 60.

I applaud your effort.
Did it take long?

Um, the real people I heard using them were my grandparents, and great-aunts and uncles, and their friends. They not only lived through WW2 but grew up in the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant neighborhoods of NYC where ethnic tensions were always high. And many of those people are still alive and still able to talk.

That was my point. It was more commonly used by people around WW2.

Ash was born after WWII, hence my confusion.

*hides behind something*

Sorry, I'm used to needling people about their age. My mom turned 50 last November and my dad turned 50 in 2k4.

And I don't really see a problem with those words in context of the time. It's like saying that "redskin" is something that shouldn't be said anymore in cowboy movies.
What utopia do you live in where if an insult goes out of fashion, it stops being an insult? I suppose you think it's silly for Native Americans to be uncomfortable about team names like the Washington Redskins because nobody has called Indians "redskins" to their faces in such a long time.

Look, enough. This is so off-topic. Do you think the OP's 7 Deadly Motivators are deadly, or don't you? And please explain why, thanks.

Please see one of my earlier posts. People do not lose the power of speech after age 50 or 60.

I understand that. In fact, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

What utopia do you live in where if an insult goes out of fashion, it stops being an insult? I suppose you think it's silly for Native Americans to be uncomfortable about team names like the Washington Redskins because nobody has called Indians "redskins" to their faces in such a long time.

I come from a country where a formerly pejorative term is now used commonly to refer to what it originally referred to before it was co-opted to be an insult.

I guess real Indians just have thicker skin *shrug*

I come from a country where a formerly pejorative term is now used commonly to refer to what it originally referred to before it was co-opted to be an insult.

I guess real Indians just have thicker skin *shrug*
I see, so you do live in some kind of weird utopia. Fine. I live in the US where even a young German will guess something is amiss if you call him a kraut. Can we get back on the OP topic now?

I see, so you do live in some kind of weird utopia. Fine. I live in the US where even a young German will guess something is amiss if you call him a kraut. Can we get back on the OP topic now?

Well if you walked up to me and called me a dot-head, I'd be offended. I'd also be surprised.

And yes...

/threadjack

Well if you walked up to me and called me a dot-head, I'd be offended. I'd also be surprised.

And yes...

/threadjack
You can fix that. I already posted my first response to the thread topic on page one. Interested to hear more people's takes. Let's start with yours.

Community, Authority, Wealth, Justice, Knowledge, Pleasure and Life.


i still think you are overestimating their uniqueness.

all that is required for many people to do the wrong thing is a simple calculation (not a conscious calculation) of benefit vs cost. so if i think i can get away with it, i have a likelihood of doing it. whether its taking a few office supplies home from work or invading canada.

This seems to all imply that there is always a rational thought process or reason behind causing harm to others. What about people who are genuinely insane and a danger to others?

This seems to all imply that there is always a rational thought process or reason behind causing harm to others. What about people who are genuinely insane and a danger to others?

they get locked up because they didnt make the correct calculation of how likely they are to get caught.

they get locked up because they didnt make the correct calculation of how likely they are to get caught.

But that still implies a rational calculation of the risk/benefit. What about someone who simply does not care about being caught? Someone who doesn't bother to analyze the risk/benefit?

Off topic: I'm heading home. Will try to jump back into this discussion when I get there.

But that still implies a rational calculation of the risk/benefit. What about someone who simply does not care about being caught? Someone who doesn't bother to analyze the risk/benefit?

Off topic: I'm heading home. Will try to jump back into this discussion when I get there.

i guess myu needs to address that one. i dont know where it fits in his ideas.

Money.

Or, by extension, any form of significant personal gain, "significant" being highly subjective and "gain" being defined broadly.

Everything else is mere justification, including your 7 Deadly Motivators.
I suggested those 7 because I thought they represented the atomic gains; that is, any other motive for gain or retention can be expressed as a composite function of those 7 things (example in response to Ashmoria below). It may well be that there is some redundancy in that list, but I suspect that there are no irreducable reasons that lie outside of this block of motives.

i still think you are overestimating their uniqueness.

all that is required for many people to do the wrong thing is a simple calculation (not a conscious calculation) of benefit vs cost. so if i think i can get away with it, i have a likelihood of doing it. whether its taking a few office supplies home from work or invading canada.
It's still a question of motivation. Why do you take the stapler if not to add to what you own, for the secret enjoyment of performing the theft, for the investigation as to the mechanism of the stapler itself or for the justice in stickin' it to the man? Why invade Canada if not for the desire for more stuff, for the authority among the Canadians, to test out some new method of warfare or to give those lousy Quebecians what's coming to them?

The 7 don't need to occur in isolation, but rather I propose that by occuring together to varying degrees they span the spectrum as the motivations for the discard of empathy.

But that still implies a rational calculation of the risk/benefit. What about someone who simply does not care about being caught? Someone who doesn't bother to analyze the risk/benefit?
Well, firstly, what I've been analysing is the role of motivation in leading one to harm another. In the case of accident or carelessness, there is no motivation, and the same can be said of one who has no control over his own actions.

Secondly, I'd question the assertion that an insane individual who does have control over their actions necessarily acts in an irrational manner. The relative importance of the gains and losses to them might seem different than they would to the rest of us, but I still suspect they still are picking what seems like it appeals best to their innate needs. Take, as an example, the Virginia shooter; isn't it possible that from his distorted point of view the authority gained in his self-righteous suicide and the justice gained in his revenge justified the taking of his own life and the deaths of those who he might have communed with?

The information available to us will guide the weighting of our motivations. When that information is changed or distorted that weighting will vary, though the underlying motivations don't need necessarily to change.

but obviously oure "true" reasons are just no longer good enough to get the majority motivated for war.

so we didnt go into iraq for oil, we went in to protect ourselves from unjust attack. we went in to liberate the iraqi people. if the real reasons had been put forth, it never would have happened.
You're possibly right about that. However, the real reasons people go to war are not always the real reasons the war is forged. Soldiers are given information and they act on the basis of the information they're given. They may have no reason to suspect that what they're being told is false. What matters is that the information given about what they would do strongly appeals to their core needs; most likely to protect one's community, to gain property or to uphold justice, depending on the individual. That is enough to drive them into action.

I have it on good authority that my community takes great pleasure in a wealth of knowledge about life. If this is justice, my world is complete ;)