There is a long tradition in philosophy of arguing over the idea of a “just war,” i.e. a war which is rationally defensible for at least one of the participants. In the West, we usually trace this back to the Greeks, but apparently, it goes back as far as Ancient Egypt, and the Chinese and Indians have their own Just War traditions. I don’t want to litigate the history of just war philosophy, rather I want to suggest that the very idea of a “just war” is problematic at best and, moreover, anti-human, certainly from the perspective of the people who are going to die in that war, a war that isn’t about justice for the vast majority of themRead more
Everyone is the hero of their own story. Whether or not your own story is successful in your own mind, you’re still at the centre of it. There is no way to avoid this; there is no way to be objective or to be a different subject than the person you are – you are necessarily at the centre of your experience due to the nature of human consciousness and of human existence. Now, whether you’re a real hero or a villain in the minds of others is something that is very hard for you to judge; others are much better at judging your actions.
Viewing myself as the hero of my own story is a fact I have to live with but it obviously distorts reality in many ways; being biased towards myself is a problem when it comes to making moral/ethical decisions involving of affecting other people. Other people’s and society’s judgment and feedback help with my ability to make these decisions but sometimes they hinder me too. I can get good advice and bad advice and I can get social cues that help me figure out the right thing and social cues that encourage me to do the wrong thing. But even with good guidance from outside, we are still prone to many cognitive biases that come from our radical subjectivity, where we’re at the centre of the universe and nobody else is. And these biases of our own radical subjectivity interact with another bias, the Just World Fallacy.
The Just World Fallacy is the belief that the world is actually, fundamentally fair – or should be fundamentally fair. It might seem weird to argue that a subjective view of the world and a view of the world as objectively fair could coexist in the mind but it’s actually typical of the human experience. Human beings can and do carry irreconcilable beliefs in their mind as a fact of experience. Moreover, these two beliefs actually support and reinforce each other, allowing us to have terrible beliefs about other people who are not at the centre of the universe as we are.
The belief that the world is fair makes us believe that everyone gets what they deserve. This allows us to blame anyone who is less better off for their problems. There are many, many ways that this affects our lives. I have written about this extensively.
A further problem, that is not part of the original investigation of the Just World Fallacy, is that our radical subjectivity distorts the Just World Fallacy further, subjectivity warps perceived fairness around us. So we view the world as fair for everyone else – so the successful are successful because they are talented and the unsuccessful are so because they are lazy, etc. – but it is either extra fair or extra unfair for us: we deserve the things we get more than anyone else does or, for people who suffer from depression, we deserve the bad things we get because we are so awful, whereas everyone else is treated the right way.
So we have a warped Just World where the universe is fair but it is centered around us. And this causes us to apply our view of the Just World Fallacy selectively. To wit: a woman is shot and killed during hunting season in the woods, technically within the city limits of Hamilton, Ontario. She was not wearing the colour orange which is what all hunters are supposed to when hunting deer in these woods during hunting season. The belief in the Just World tells us she should have known better, she should have worn orange and, because she didn’t, she deserved to die. (If that sounds harsh to you please know that this is a real incident and real people told me that this woman deserved to be shot as their first reaction to the news. You cannot make this stuff up.) But our radical subjectivity skews the Just World so that if I was shot for not wearing orange in Hamilton, ON during hunting season, I cannot have deserved it. If anything, the hunter should have known that I couldn’t have known that I needed to wear orange. Other people are victims because they deserve to be, but I am an undeserving victim because I am the centre of the universe – I matter more than the woman in question because I am the hero of my own story.
The belief in a just or fair universe is bad enough, it allows victim blaming and the lionization of people who lucked into success. The belief that I am more important than anyone, including you, is bad enough, as it allows me to believe that I am special or The worst. But the two of them combined allow us to take victim-blaming and personal exceptionalism to new heights. One of the reasons social psychology exists as a discipline is to explain how human beings could participate in genocide (specifically, the Holocaust). One reason human beings could participate in the Holocaust is that the belief in a just world allows us to believe the people in concentration camps did things to be there. And being the hero of our own story allows us to believe that, whatever those people did, we would never do those things (nor would anyone we would choose to know). Our radical subjectivity plus the belief that the world is fair allows us to spend our lives victim-blaming and believing that, whatever we do, we are not deserving of the same treatment. In essence, the combination of these two biases allows us to tolerate the suffering of others. Maybe that’s why we don’t live in a just world.
This site is about the Just World Fallacy, so for serious, thoughtful Christians, my writing about Christianity, a religion that sees the world as inherently unjust, must seem odd and incorrect. Please bear with me.
Why do so many American fundamentalist Christians oppose abortion while opposing social programs that help living human beings?1 Why do so many American fundamentalist Christians support political and social policies that neglect or even actively harm other human beings when the traditional image of a fundamentalist Christian is associated with turning the other cheek? Why is it so easy for American fundamentalist Christians to behave as if they were negligent assholes when it comes to government policies affecting strangers they will never meet? Aren’t the political behaviours and opinions of the Religious Right in the United States the furthest thing from true Christian behaviour?
- To be clear, legal abortion is ethically superior to no abortions because it prevents actual suffering in the world and values existing life over potential life. The latest objection to legal abortions – about heartbeats – misunderstands the science and the nature of the heartbeat. It’s a sliding scale which pro lifers try to move every time they think they have medicine on their side. They don’t – the heartbeat at 6 weeks is not indicative of a human or a human consciousness. ↩
We men are under threat. White men make up only 30% of the US population. There was a time when it was over 40%, only about 100 years ago. In the interim, we have been under attack by feminism and homosexuals, losing our traditional roles as providers and even our manliness.Read more
Note: I am not an economist. This is not about why inflation happens but what I have written here is going to anger the “fiat currency is a conspiracy of the international bankers” sect and will be challenged by them and others because of certain assumptions I have made. See the bottom of this article for those assumptions.
Inflation is a constant reality of living in a human society which uses paper currency. So why does it bother so many people?
I admin the YouTube channel of a Canadian immigration company. Every few weeks, we get a comment or two about how the immigration company (or immigration in general) is destroying Canada’s economy or society or both, and the term “cultural genocide” is often thrown in there.Read more
There is a war raging on the internet. That war centres around a rather stupid question: are millennials to blame for everything or are boomers? Typical of every internet debate, it is a debate which often lacks nuance; while there are informed pieces on both sides, most of the content amounts to blaming millennials for all the problems in the economy or blaming boomers for the problematic economy as a whole. Generation gaps are a natural part of human life, but why does this one seem so large?
Is the world a meritocracy? If you work hard will you be rewarded? If you are lazy, will you be poor?
Supply-side economics, popularly known as ‘trickle-down’ economics, has been the most dominant approach to economic policy in North America (and some other countries) since the 1980s. Despite all economic evidence to the contrary, it is a policy that is still pursued today, to some extent or other, by both conservative and centrist parties in liberal democracies. The primary real-world consequence of these policies is a drastic increase in the economic differences between the rich and poor. The record is not good. Why is the policy so popular?
Why does everything have to be so complicated?
Danielle: I heard they found evidence on Vic.
Dutch: Yeah. Maybe a little too much.
Danielle: What do you mean?
Dutch: You ever hear of Occam’s razor? The simplest answer is usually the right one? Good. Now apply that to the Lemansky case. Now all this evidence is pointing to Vic. Occam’s razor would suggest he’s guilty. Walter Chatton a contemporary of Occam’s. Disputed the razor. Coined his own anti-razor.
Danielle: What’s that?
Dutch: Chatton believed that the world was too complex. Too many variables to assume that the simplest answer was always the correct one.
From “Baptism by Fire,” the second episode of season 6 of The Shield.
I haven’t watched The Shield in years, but this exchange has haunted my dreams ever since. The world is indeed a complicated place, and most complex phenomena have complicated explanations, but, more often than not, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Why are so many of us tempted to believe otherwise, like Dutch here?