Date

4-28-2020

Description

In the modern political, social, and economic in the United States (and many other parts of the world), there is a growing tension between opposing ideologies. Depictions of liberal and conservative, religious and secular, and other contrasting views have become binary, thereby leading large numbers of people to condemn others for merely disagreeing. In committing ourselves to such a violent treatment of others' explanations for their worlds, we worsen both our own and others' mental and emotional health. Nontrivial suffering (loss of loved ones, depression, etc.) that comes from a combination of mental, emotional, and physical constitutes one's existential pain threshold (EPT). As one approaches their respective EPT, they become increasingly unable to pursue that which is most crucial to their continued existence being worthwhile. Similarly, when one reaches or exceed their EPT, the potential for self-harm, both physical or otherwise, as well as concerns over suicide emerge as prominent realities. Presumably, most people do not wish for an existence that is so unbearable that it drives them to suicide. Accordingly, it follows that we should promote practices that avoid such miserable consequences. Thus, when we find that someone's explanations for the world vary from our own and are not innately dangerous (i.e. not violence-invoking doctrines), we should not condemn said person for holding such beliefs. This extends to religious, social, political, and many other spheres of experience. It is, plainly said, morally impermissible to condemn others for their internal existential explanations.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 28th, 12:00 AM

Against Explanatory Condemnation: Existentialistic Ethics in the Modern Divided Climate

In the modern political, social, and economic in the United States (and many other parts of the world), there is a growing tension between opposing ideologies. Depictions of liberal and conservative, religious and secular, and other contrasting views have become binary, thereby leading large numbers of people to condemn others for merely disagreeing. In committing ourselves to such a violent treatment of others' explanations for their worlds, we worsen both our own and others' mental and emotional health. Nontrivial suffering (loss of loved ones, depression, etc.) that comes from a combination of mental, emotional, and physical constitutes one's existential pain threshold (EPT). As one approaches their respective EPT, they become increasingly unable to pursue that which is most crucial to their continued existence being worthwhile. Similarly, when one reaches or exceed their EPT, the potential for self-harm, both physical or otherwise, as well as concerns over suicide emerge as prominent realities. Presumably, most people do not wish for an existence that is so unbearable that it drives them to suicide. Accordingly, it follows that we should promote practices that avoid such miserable consequences. Thus, when we find that someone's explanations for the world vary from our own and are not innately dangerous (i.e. not violence-invoking doctrines), we should not condemn said person for holding such beliefs. This extends to religious, social, political, and many other spheres of experience. It is, plainly said, morally impermissible to condemn others for their internal existential explanations.