Philosophy of Hate

Welcome, Loren - while I am thinking of where I might begin to help you - can I just say that you might like to remove your email from here? People will answer you on this thread - and you are likely to get hit with lots of spam, since spammers automatically grab email addresses from wherever they can.

Hmmm - I have found a philosophy forum:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4

which seems to encourage such questions - it might be helpful, along with suggestions you get here...

WELCOME, LOREN . . .
Welcome, Loren, to A2K. You're going to like it here!

Out of curiosity, I typed the words "philosophy of hate" into Google - more than nine hundred thousand sites! So-o-o, maybe you could consider some subtitles? Religion (Holocaust), in literature (one or more specific pieces - like between Hamlet and Gertrude?), lovers - real or fictional, teenage bullies, neighbors (fences), jealousy, low self-esteem, crimes of passion, the judicial system, ancient feuds - the Capulets and the Montagues in "Romeo and Juliet" is based in true historical fact: somewhere in the 12th or13th century they had a falling out over dividing the spoils of a battle they had won together against their common enemy. And, what's that one about the "who?" and the McCoy's?

Do post back here and let us know where you've taken your project. Good luck! [/color]

Hatfields and McCoys.

Thank You very much. I'll check out all of the stuff that you guys gave me. Thanks again!

hate is the decision that the target of hate is detromental to your survivability. Without modern society and law, once upon a time you would have just killed that person off to improve your chances of survival. But with law you are able to make the decision that the risk involved in eliminating this person is greater than the reward.

I've finished my paper!
I just want to say thanks to everyone who responded and gave me suggestions. I finished my paper, here it is, feel free to read it and comment. I know it isn't the greatest thing, but like i said, this isn't exactly my strong point, and I was proud that I finished. Enjoy!


Oct. 21, 2003

Philosophy of Hate

For the most part, people want peace around them. Humans do not generally go about hating each other. Some, as a matter of fact, try to avoid this emotion altogether. People feel that if they are nice to others, then others will be nice to them. It is this strive for everything to be peaceful that brings this question to my mind- "If humans want peace, where does the feeling of hate come from?"
No one can say that they were born hating. A baby does not know enough of the world to point at any specific thing and say, "I hate that." Similarly, a baby can not point to any specific person and say, "I hate that person." As the child grows up however, we will soon see the word HATE has been miraculously added to its vocabulary: "I hate John because all of the kids like him." " I hate Mary because she has more Barbies than I do." "I hate my mom and dad because they do not let me do what I want to do." "I HATE broccoli!" The ways that a child uses the word hate in its life time are unbelievable. Where in this child's life did it pick up the concept of hate? It is my belief that we are taught to hate. Not in the same way that we are taught math or history; there is no school to teach emotions. Hate is taught very slowly and progressively throughout a person's life time by the very people that surround them, allowing this emotion to grow as the person grows.
A good example of this is a child that grows up in a racist family. When this child was born, he did not automatically dislike a certain race. I doubt very much that he was able to see any difference between one person to the next. However, growing up around people who pointed out differences such as skin color, the child becomes aware of people who are not like him. This awareness, combined with the family's dislike for people that are different around them becomes the child's own form of hate.
Philosopher Alison Jagger believed that our preferences rely heavily on our emotions. In her essay "Love and Emotion in Feminist Epistemology" she says that what we consider valuable is shaped by our emotional reactions to various experiences. She believes that as kids we are taught how to emotionally respond to situations. (I.e.- "...to fear strangers,to enjoy spicy food, [and] to like swimming in cold water."(pg. 306) These emotions help shape our values and what we believe. This stance on emotion supports what I believe about the feeling of hate, this fact that we are trained in what to accept and what not to accept, what to like and what to dislike, what to hate and what not to hate. Though not valuing something does not exactly mean that we will hate that thing, it can certainly lead to dislike and hate.
Jagger also believes that emotions "...are socially constructed" (pg. 306). Meaning that our emotions and values can also reflect on society. She believes that there is no such thing as an "objective observer." She feels that everyone is effected by emotion. With this in mind, it seems impossible for a person to look at something and not pass a judgment. In toady's society we are told what to accept and what not to accept and are practically programed to hate the things that others tell us to hate. For example, modern society tells us that it is wrong for a husband to cheat on his wife. Therefore it is understandable when a wife feels contempt towards her husband when she finds out that he has a mistress. Another example could be when it was announced that the people responsible for the events of 9/11 were Arabic. After this was announced there were a wide variety of hate crimes directed towards that specific race. Society tells us to dislike and, possibly, hate the people who cause us harm. We are not told to embrace our enemies. The mere fact that the people involved in 9/11 were Arabic was enough for some people feel that they needed to act out against all people of that race. This shows how much of an impact society makes on a persons emotions.
Contradicting this take on emotions, Philosopher William James believes that emotions are a result of physical reactions to situations. He believes that people get the causal relationships wrong in the way that they speak. He says that in order to feel emotions there is no mental process needed. That our body first reacts in a physical way and then feels the emotion that follows. He uses the example of meeting a bear in the woods. He states that the causal relationship that we would make would be to say that we saw a bear, were frightened, and then ran away. He believes that it should be: we saw a bear, ran away, and were frightened. He also uses the example that we are angry and therefore we strike; James would say that we because we strike we are angry.
This take on emotions would not work with the feeling of hate. There does not need to be a physical reaction in order to feel hate. Once again, using the example of the wife that feels contempt for her cheating husband, the wife does not need to physically harm or act out at her husband in any way in order for the emotion to occur. She simply needs to know that her husband is cheating on her.
I feel that Jagger presents emotions in a more understandable way. Our emotions are affected by what is around us and our emotions help shape what is valuable to us. "Emotions presuppose values [as] values presuppose emotions." Hate is an emotion that is learned, it is an emotion that is caused by what we are told to dislike. I feel that the way Jagger explains emotions best describes the reason for why hate exists.