Sometimes in this blog have opened debates fueled by different philosophical perspectives on an issue, some other times the debates were fueled by an imbalance of knowledge in parts of the discipline discussed. Never before have I been here a moral debate.
Morality is the set of rules of a social group that provides guidance on what is right and what is wrong, and I was surprised to see how the debate between the participants, certainly not representative of the population ignorant and outcast (easily manipulated) reveals a vital break in the moral structure of society in Argentina.
was clear, I think. I was not talking about relativities, my judgments were absolute. I said the guy is a usurped, a corrupt, amoral, a lawbreaker, a hypocrite, someone who abused his role and its function not for their own benefit, a liar. An offender in the final. And do not say based on the number of cases that require investigation and trial, I say this based on what he did openly, laughing in the face of all. To me there is no gray or interpretations on this. It's a simple fact. In a fair and serious type prison was over long ago. (And I hope no one falls in the boludez of ask what are the cases that exemplify each of the adjectives, because I will not waste my time on this answer.). And I'm not comparing countries: if the place is not fair and there is serious, but the sense of justice and responsibility there is in me, which is completely different.
As a result of my post, a portion of the commentators, representing an educated class, came out to make apology for the crime (attempt to justify actions of dubious legality - or illegal - usually by speech.'s public praise of a criminal act). That is the moral of society (assuming that the debate here was representative of the polarization of society) is broken. The definition of good and evil is completely transformed, at least for a good portion, but certainly for society as a whole.
The comment I liked was that of Damian when he mentioned that Argentina is experiencing a collective Stockholm Syndrome. (The Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological reaction in which the kidnap victim develops a relationship of complicity with those who have kidnapped. Sometimes you may end up helping their captors to achieve their ends or to evade police. One of the possible cause is that criminals are presented as benefactors to the hostages to prevent an escalation of events. From here you can birth an emotional appreciation of the victims by the perpetrators.) In psychology it is also common to find a profile of someone who feels psychological identification with the abuser powerful (are numerous cases where domestic abuse victim can not leave the abuser). If a good proportion of people have abused the victim syndrome, or otherwise identifies the abusive practices, it is unclear to me, but certainly something is not right.
is also true that people have different capacities in the management of abstraction. The "morality", for those without strong guiding principles and the ability to disregard the environment around them, ends up being defined by the "normal." And "normal" is what does not show much difference in your group. And here is where it gets interesting perspective emigrated. For someone who has lived long enough in countries with different development, the "norm" is at a different point regarding the person with monovision. An Argentine can say that Argentina is very insecure an Australian can tell me that Australia is not very safe. My emphatic answer to both is that they have no perspective, and his opinion is of relative value. Neither group understands the rule. The view that is wrong and that's fine, morale is seriously limited by lack of exposure to the group. is like trying to explain to Mike, the mono-eye character Monsters Inc, which means to see in 3 dimensions.
Someone who did not experience different realities and not abstract tends to define the "norm" on shaft temporary. Compare this with what we had before or what may come, and conforms with small relativities in this regard. Does not analyze the problem for the group composed of other realities.
