Mental vs. Moral Shortcomings

[CorpseGrinderClock]

It seems when people have some sort of mental deficiency, either mental retardation or a learning disability or simply a lack of comprehension of a particular subject it's treated with the same sort of scorn and anger that one would normally reserve for a character deficiency like dishonesty, cowardice, or cruelty.

I readily admit I have been quite guilty of this myself in some instances, but I wonder where does one draw the line and how between things like willful ignorance and simply an inability to process certain information?

[Darthleather]

It's better to be an asshole than a retard.

[Shady]

Nothing is willful.
Your personality is predetermined, just as mental retardation is.
It is the way that a person interacts with the world and how much good they do for others and for themselves which we must asses when considering a person, that is all.

[Lintire]

Oh, I've been guilty of that a few times, but I'd never change my stance on that people with Aspergers are scientifically-sanctioned assholes.

[LardLord]

At 12/11/11 04:31 PM, Darthleather wrote: It's better to be an asshole than a retard.

CorpseGrinderClock probably agrees with you on that point.

[Gagsy]

Actually that kind of behaviour towards mentally handicapped people upsets me greatly. Its basically laughing in someones face for them being the unlucky ones burdened with such troubling lives. And what do we 'regular' people do? Ridicule them and then go on moaning about the littlest issues as if they're the real great hardships of life.

[BananasFoster]

At 12/11/11 04:29 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: It seems when people have some sort of mental deficiency, either mental retardation or a learning disability or simply a lack of comprehension of a particular subject it's treated with the same sort of scorn and anger that one would normally reserve for a character deficiency like dishonesty, cowardice, or cruelty.

I think an actual character flaw deserves more criticism or contempt than a mental disability or handicap.

I readily admit I have been quite guilty of this myself in some instances, but I wonder where does one draw the line and how between things like willful ignorance and simply an inability to process certain information?

The way I view it, people without handicaps are capable of more damage to others. Simple ignorance can result in some bad happening, yes, but a perfectly capable, un-handicapped human being is capable of so much more damage.

I don't think someone with a learning disability could have been a Hitler or a Stalin, at least not without some degree if assistance or support from others who would almost have to be directly responsible for any actions themselves. I'd also consider moral/character 'handicaps' far worse than any developmental disorder. People who lie, cheat, kill, steal, and generally have moral shortcomings are capable of hurting far more people than people who are innocent but potentially very ignorant, and make mistakes that don't have malicious intent.

[Sensationalism]

I love people who see the world a bit differently than most of us do. They're usually a delight!

[CorpseGrinderClock]

At 12/11/11 04:37 PM, LardLord wrote:

At 12/11/11 04:31 PM, Darthleather wrote: It's better to be an asshole than a retard.

CorpseGrinderClock probably agrees with you on that point.

I actually don't but you probably wouldn't know it from the sort of imperious contempt I have for some real stupidity.

That's a shortcoming of my own, though, and actually a perfect example: I am probably more biting towards people who post stupidly than towards people who just have a bad attitude to an equal degree.

In other words, I'm a hypocrite. Which I think, by the way, is far worse than simply not knowing any better.

That said, there's a point when stupidity is not a result of deficient mental faculties, but simply a deep laziness and apathy, a willingness to spout idiocies and falsehoods and terrible regurgitated memes over and over constantly throughout the internet uncaring of the effect because of anonymity. That stupidity, willful accepted and even proud stupidity, that I truly hold contempt for.

At 12/11/11 09:06 PM, BananasFoster wrote: The way I view it, people without handicaps are capable of more damage to others. Simple ignorance can result in some bad happening, yes, but a perfectly capable, un-handicapped human being is capable of so much more damage.

I don't think someone with a learning disability could have been a Hitler or a Stalin, at least not without some degree if assistance or support from others who would almost have to be directly responsible for any actions themselves. I'd also consider moral/character 'handicaps' far worse than any developmental disorder. People who lie, cheat, kill, steal, and generally have moral shortcomings are capable of hurting far more people than people who are innocent but potentially very ignorant, and make mistakes that don't have malicious intent.

While I agree, let's entertain this question:

Hitler was deeply deceitful, he was willfully cruel and destructive and egotistical. However, he would not have been able to cause so much damage if people didn't believe the things he said, go along with him assured that doing so would be better for them.

Now obviously most of Germany wasn't mentally retarded. Some of what they were doing they should have been cognizant was deeply harmful, and quite obviously a great deal of willful ignorance allowed Hitler's propaganda machine to be successful.

But was that a mental failing to comprehend the greater effects of their actions, a moral failing to uphold a standard within one's own conduct, a failure to prioritize or what? Where does Hitler rank, both morally and intellectually, when compared to the other Nazis that drove his plan forward?

At 12/11/11 04:38 PM, Gagsy wrote: Actually that kind of behaviour towards mentally handicapped people upsets me greatly. Its basically laughing in someones face for them being the unlucky ones burdened with such troubling lives. And what do we 'regular' people do? Ridicule them and then go on moaning about the littlest issues as if they're the real great hardships of life.

Some of it, I think, is a failure to consider the implications of that mental deficiency from the person that suffers from it. They don't understand the difference between that inability to process and the willful ignorance I mentioned earlier in this post.

Ironically, I think that typically is an expression of that self-same willful stupidity and apathy. They get angry or haughty about someone else's deficiency, saying "obviously" and "if you thought about it" as though it were a simple lack of effort on that person's part.

I really have resolved to watch my own words and weed out this ungodly habit, for I am certainly guilty of exactly this.

It's easier, in one sense, for people who are very clearly visibly handicapped (for instance, persons with Down Syndrome, because you have to be really unobservant to assume intellectual laziness when someone who is clearly visibly retarded fails to comprehend something, but what people are unaware of is that learning disabilities are multifaceted and typically not visually obvious.

It's also harder in one sense because it brings out the real asshole in some people, who feel they are better than a person with Down syndrome as a person. Sometimes the people who really have thought it out are the worst, because they bend all their mental faculties to selfish and cruel desires.

At 12/11/11 04:32 PM, Shady wrote: Nothing is willful.
Your personality is predetermined, just as mental retardation is.
It is the way that a person interacts with the world and how much good they do for others and for themselves which we must asses when considering a person, that is all.

I would say it's to degrees.

I don't see myself as having any say over the fact that I am a total prick when I am almost all the way asleep. But when I'm awake, I do.

In one sense I suspect the mental aspects play into the manifestation of those moral aspects. A person perhaps may have a mind that is better suited to expressing empathy, but may choose to be cruel, or vise versa. This is conjecture of course.