I want to broaden the discussion in this thread, which asks if you can “disagree” with homosexuality and still be “nice.” It reminds me of Sarte essay on antisemitism (sorry, no cite, but I’m not trying to prove anything) where he says antisemitism is not merely an opinion, such as what kind of wine one prefers with cheese – it is a statement about character and what kind of person you are. He says, to the antisemite, “you are a different kind of animal than I am.” That was Sarte’s context, and I don’t want to dwell on anti-Semitism as the issue, but my proposal is that Sartre is right. Some things aren’t merely opinions. They are character traits.
I think there’s a distinction between having an opinion and acting on that opinion. For instance, if someone was deeply anti-Hispanic, but never acted against Hispanics nor ever spoke ill of them, is there any harm as a result?
So, basically, a nasty person is okay as long as they hide it well?
I’m in agreement with cricetus (and Sarte for that matter). Hate and prejudice are a symptom of some deep-rooted and fatal character flaw. Simply put, “nice” people do not harbor evil in their hearts.
If a person is nasty in his heart but doesn’t act nasty towards people, I can’t find myself faulting him for holding nasty (IMO) opinions.
Or, as a witch once said, “I ain’t too certain about where people stand. P’rhaps what matters is which way you face.”
I think there’s a big difference between being an anti-semite and disapproving of homosexuality.
My guess is that Sartre would have seen that too.
Perhaps it’s the inability to see that difference that is indicative of the presence of character-flaw syndrome…
True, if someone has poison in their heart, it’s not good.
However, if someone has a certain (crackpot, bizarre, off-the-wall) opinion, but is enlightened enough to know that it would not be appropriate to inflict it on anyone else, how bad can they be? They are enlightened enough to keep it to themselves—to still condemn them for what’s buried in their hearts sounds a little like “though police.”
In other words, their thoughts aren’t hurting anyone or anything, but I’d daresay that if you ask a lot of people, they’d say that these people are not entitled to their (socially unaccaptable) thoughts. I’m not sure I like the sound of that. (Of course, we’re all entitled to opinions on someone else’s private thoughts, but actions speak louder than words, and if someone never shows any intent to do anything, I’m not enclined to get all worked up about what their private thoughts contain.)
I dunno how far one wants to stretch this.
If so, probably a good 90% of my family and relatives and family friends would be characterized as Bad People. A cousin of mine, who is normally one of the nicest and most intelligent people I know, recently launched into a long, passionate, emotional tirade (after the 2004 elections) against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. He even said he would have voted Republican if it would prevent same-sex marriage - and this from a guy who practically contemplated suicide when Bush won.
In that characterization of Bod People will be whole nations and cultures of people who don’t know better. You ready to back up such a broad judgment of people? You ready to sit on the Judgment Seat?
Instead of judging people based on their opinions, one should judge according to their circumstances. My family, relatives, family friends, and people in the Old Country, so to speak, have been raised in an environment where homosexuality is condemned and disparged without recourse to discussion or disagreement. If you disagreed, you kept it to yourself. Being against homosexuality is seen as a social, cultural, and religious value. Islam condemns homosexuality: the Qur’an does so numerous times. The shari’ah makes it a capital crime. No Muslim who respects the value of his or her life is going to advocate gay rights in the middle of a conservative Muslim country. Nor will other points of view be made available to others for them to decide for themselves whether homosexuality is right or wrong. The decision had been made for them, many centuries ago.
Another thing to remember: we’re Westerners, foisting our Western values upon people who don’t believe in them. Is this right? Is this good? Who gives us the right to say that a people’s values and cultures are bad and wrong? This is quite arrogant, not to mention very haughty of oneself.
If you’re going to say that, despite the above, my homophobic family (my honorable parents, whom I love more than my own life itself) and relatives are Bad People, I will take it personally and strenuously disagree with you. (“You” is whoever says, “opinions determine character.”) They don’t know better. And they cannot know better.
And for the record, I’m gay and believe it’s a natural part of myself. And I choose to rise above my own whining to embrace what’s good in others.
WRS
I think it’s an insight into one’s character but not necessarily the be all end all of it. In the same way that a guy who kicks puppies has a tendency to commit violence of other sorts, a person who dislikes the idea of homosexuality is more likely to be a moral autocrat in other ways too.
But they are less likely to exhibit other character flaws if their opinion is formed by their culture. But the same thing goes for cultures as for individuals: they are also more likely to have learned other bigotries from their culture as well, it’s just that cultures have had so long to develop their idiosyncrasies that different forms of intolerance are not necessarily linked to each other.
I thought everyone had dark thoughts that they consciously suppressed… honestly… is it just me then?
No, it’s not just you. I think most of us do.
Better watch out, though. Perhaps the Thought Police are out to get you. 
Is it worse to disagree with homosexuals than to disagree with people who disagree with homosexuals (or is worse yet to disagree with people who disagree with people who disagree with homosexuals)?
Sartre argued passionately for murdering whites. Is wanting to kill people on basis of their racial features merely an opinion or does is it tell us something deeer about Sartre’s character and whether his words are appropriate on a topic about the morality of dislike?
Something can be a character flaw without rendering a person utterly worthless and without any redeeming qualities. We all have character flaws. Recognizing this doesn’t mean we can’t still on balance be decent people, but it doesn’t make our character flaws stop being character flaws.
It’s also possible for something in a person’s background or upbringing or native culture to have formed the flaws in their character. Knowing where they’re coming from may help explain their moral defects, and even make us more sympathetic to them. For example, someone who grew up in the Great Depression may be very stingy–undertandably so once you know the details of his or her early life. Still, knowing that a person grew up in circumstances of great poverty doesn’t magically render that 15¢ tip into an act of great generosity.
A person raised in a racist society may for the most part be a decent and generous human being and yet still harbor the bigoted attitudes he learned at his mother’s knee. He may even be courteous and kind to “those people” on an individual basis, while still believing that “they” in general clutter up the welfare rolls, can’t be trusted and are always trying to keep the brothas down, stabbed the Fatherland in the back in the Great War, etc. And, while he may not be entirely to blame for the bigoted attitudes he was taught when he was very young, and still may be a good person in many respects, his brother who is also generally decent and kind and who recognizes that some of the things he was taught as a boy are wrong and struggles to overcome them is, well, a bit more virtuous–insofar as you can ever really compare people this way.
Two things, for clarity. First, it is not about dividing the world into good people and bad people. We all have character flaws, so the question is just one of recognizing some so-called “opinions” for what they are. Second, someone says something about “opinion determines character,” which is exactly reversed. No, character determines opinion. That’s the point. You’re not “bad” because you hate gays – you hate gays because your “bad.” I would rather stay away from the “bad people” designation, but that’s the argument.
Environment doesn’t matter. People raised in environments that teach oppression can and do realize they are wrong. Perhaps that is not the lack of a character flaw so much as the presence of some kind of greatness, but it is still about character.
From my spiritist friends I learned something I agree totally with… they say that the more “knowledge” and learning one has the more responsibility as well.
So if your from a extremely poor and racist family and you don’t manage to outgrow that heritage its certainlynot comendable. Yet if you come from a well educated, wealthy and tolerant society and despite that develop “racist opinions” then its **much worse ** of course.
Also if a KKK member hardly ever has contact with blacks or even spoken to them… its hard to determine if he has a character flaw or just has never had a real chance to determine what a “nigger” is. In other circumstances he might befriend them and actually be quite tolerant. I think the cultural and educational element is important if your going to “judge” people by their opinions.
Now if given the chance to meet normal gays and to have acquaintances that are gay… and without social pressure to “ridicule” them… you have some minimal education… and you still disagree with them… then you might have a “character flaw”.
You can’t take that statement out of context. Sartre was an existentialist and, IIRC, he might have said that the difference between being homosexual and not was merely making the choice. From what little I’ve read, Sartre didn’t fathom the important processes that made a person who she is; instead, he seemed to feel that one could be, say, anti-Jewish (since anti-Semitic per se is a racist and ignorant term) and turn into a pro-Jewish person simply by way of choice.
That notion is simply preposterous.
There are some things you need to explain. Why can a person not have a racist opinion? Why is a racist opinion sufficient to make a human no longer human? Why are you not sub-human for having such a hateful attitude toward others based merely on internal thoughts? Do you seriously think a person should be damned for her thoughts?
First, antisemitic may have been coined by a racist, but it’s origins have no bearing on how it is used now. I don’t hold to the linguistic fallacy that the etymology or origins of a word are encoded in current use. I may be a pagan and live in the city. I may be supercilious and have my eyebrows down.
Second, I don’t know why a position that people may make choices that betray their character better than their stated opinions is indication that Sartre didn’t “fathom the important processes that make a person what one is,” or whatever. The fact that people DO behave contrarily to their official opinions is evidence enough that whatever makes them what they are, the discrepancy between public opinion and actual behavior is part of it. If anything, Sartre shows insight in recognizing that there is a such thing as positive hypocrisy.
Third, your last para is a mess. My argument is that such a thing as racist beliefs are not independent of character. I never argue that a person with such beliefs is not a person, or are subhuman. Nor do I “damn,” them. It is rather ironic that someone would have the “opinion” that such a person has no right to live, no right to marry, no right to work, or otherwise wish to deprive them of basic rights and simultaneously feel stung because they have lost the nonexistent right to be hateful and mean without being judged as hateful an mean. Obviously, my judgment is just a judgment. I would not deprive such a person of any civil liberties unless they committed a crime. My right to hate is the same as their right to hate.
The high regard for ones own rights (real and imagined) and low regard for the rights of others is the very meaning of sociopathic. It is not suprising that such a notion is commonly held by people who have already revealed themselves to be of weak character.
I would venture to suggest that we are all different kinds of animals from each other; our minds are constructed over time by self-organising processes, influenced/prejudiced/aided/inhibited/etc by a very wide range of often inter-related factors, both external (nurture) and internal (nature) - the idea that we fit perfectly into two or more discrete and coherent categories is just convenient fiction (sometimes convenient enough to be practically useful, but no more true for it).
There is no ‘good people and bad people’ - there is just ‘people’, who happen to individually possess an assortment of different traits, some of which are generally agreed(or perhaps even logically defined) to be ‘good’, others ‘bad’.
I don’t believe it’s that simple. Americans have prejudice in their hearts. You, me, all of us. It’s rooted deep in our culture and there’s no avoiding it. The difference is in how we deal. Some don’t want to admit it but feel bad anyways ( white liberal guilt ), some accept and embrace it ( Lester Maddox, Louis Farrakhan ), and some accept and work to remove it ( me, Karamo from the Real World ), and the rest just ignore it, consciously or otherwise.
[QUOTE=Rune]
Sartre argued passionately for murdering whites.
[QUOTE]
If this is true - I’m not much of a Satre scholar - then it points to one of the most insidious types of passion - the hatred of one’s own type.
Am I the only one who baulks when I hear, say, English people rubbish English people, or Chinese rubbish Chinese?
I agree with Cricetus/Sartre. Any belief that another group of human beings is inferior or immoral because of an innate physiological trait such as “race” or sexual orientation is betraying ignorance at the very least, and a character flaw at worst. and there comes a level of adulthood and maturity where simple ignorance is no longer a moral excuse.
That is not to say that this should be way to sort human beings into some sort of simplistic, binary classes of “good people” and “bad people,” just to say that bigotry is only one of the many potential character flaws which we are all riddled with. Some flaws are worse than others and bogotry is one of the worst, but it’s not necessarily all-encompassing or defining.