Its a common mistake from phils and psychs to confuse "emotions" with "morals" specially if they didnt read Foucault.
In a nutshell...read the seven deadly sins and the seven virtues of christanity, u will see that they try to trach people that the morals of a society have the same value/ bias inside of the individual, that they can be find quasi inside of you, in your soul.
But they are constructed and produced to keep you in line, to discpline and "normalize" urself in the relationship to others and the reflect often enough the opposite of what u think, believe and desire. Thats exactly the reason why they are the way the are, because indivual desire conflicts often enough with the relationships/normatives in a society.
For example why the word "good" means equally something moral and something emotionally "good"?
Because they "should" be the same...but are they always...?
stingadsguck t1_iseaq0f wrote
Reply to The Desire for Moral Impotence by ADefiniteDescription
Its a common mistake from phils and psychs to confuse "emotions" with "morals" specially if they didnt read Foucault. In a nutshell...read the seven deadly sins and the seven virtues of christanity, u will see that they try to trach people that the morals of a society have the same value/ bias inside of the individual, that they can be find quasi inside of you, in your soul. But they are constructed and produced to keep you in line, to discpline and "normalize" urself in the relationship to others and the reflect often enough the opposite of what u think, believe and desire. Thats exactly the reason why they are the way the are, because indivual desire conflicts often enough with the relationships/normatives in a society. For example why the word "good" means equally something moral and something emotionally "good"? Because they "should" be the same...but are they always...?