« MY LIFE - damnit, I am sick.... | Main | SOFT DEV - C++ huh?! »

December 14, 2003



I caught myself reacting this way many years ago, as far back as I can remember (which ain't far, considering the constant memory fog I live in).

I find I can reason myself out of this reaction. I frequently catch myself forming first impressions based on physical appearance, going as far as feeling strong, baseless emotions (both negative and positive). When I realize I'm doing it, I force myself to shift perspectives, and see that person as a human being. I find it helps when I try to empathize with them, trying to imagine what their life is like, what they're thinking at that moment.

We are animals, yes, but we are also capable of reason.

It sounds like bullshit, I know, but I'm serious. You have to find a balance between the sensual, the intellectual, and the spiritual (yes, even atheists need that last one). This is one of the fundamental qualifications for humanity, in my admittedly humble opinion.



I have the answer to your "2 guys in a bar" example.
First we need to make an assumption: You prefer good-looks over bad-looks.
When we have this assumption, then your problem can be answered: You choose the handsome guy because he may never have a disfiguring accident in his entire life. So you're giving it a shot. However the disfigured guy already had a disfiguring accident.
Conclusion: You're making a gamble on whether your boyfriend will ever encounter disfigurment. Of course the guy on the left has a higher probability of making your gamble a win.
Question: Why will you not dump him if later on he encounters a disfigurment?
Answer: Because you're compelled by your high moral values, not to further antagonize your partner by dumping him. You'll accept that you had made the best decision, considering all the information that is available to you at that point in time. Of course, the knowledge that in the future, he'll encounter an accident, is not available to you at that time, because we know nothing about the future. Thus the situation could not have been any better. It is already the best-case scenario.


Hey TengHui, thanks for commenting on an old post... I certainly welcome comments on this from anyone at any time.

I think the interesting thing is that I see what you are saying, but makes me feel.. bad somehow.. um....

- Raist


We judge people on looks and consequently, prefer certain looks over others. This process is grounded in both society and biology. ... Hypothetically speaking, suppose we were to remove society's influence on beauty by some kind of conditioning (I'm not saying this is possible) and only judge people by our innate, permanent biological makeup. The question is: would it be immoral to judge someone on their looks even though you cannot prevent doing so? The answer is: yes. Of course it is immoral. Some people would argue that because we cannot prevent it, it is moral. That's absurd. Jeffery Dahmer and many other serial killers had a predisposition to violence - their sadistic urge was in them whether they liked it or not. Does this make their actions moral? Of course not. ... Prefering the guy on the left over the right is immoral. What can we do to correct this? Nothing. We are naturally immoral.

The post by Seeker lacks "consistency." "Because you're compelled by your high moral values, not to further antagonize your partner by dumping him." What high moral values? She chose the man on the left in the first place. That is a distinct immoral choice. And, according to her values, she WILL most likely dump him after the accident.


Correction: The post by TengHui lacks "consistency."

From a brief glance, it looks as if the posts are made by the name above them. My eyes deceived me!



Thanks for your message.

I am not going to comment on the moral vs immoral but I would say that I think there's a big assumption in that she (Him in this case) would dump the guy after the accident. It is quite possible that something got built, created new in the relationship that by then, makes and opens for new choices.

I am not saying this is necessarily so, but as a possibility.


Seeker is relieved that his is not inconsistent.

Seeker would also argue that morality is an artifact of the self. This has lead to much unhappiness, death and whatnot. Seeker posseses morality, but recognizes it for what it is.

Seeker also tries (and 'try' is key) to get to the heart of the Matter, but knows he cannot. Physicality is obviously not the Heart. Neither is any of this spiritual claptrap. Truth, for you humans, is a hodgepodge, clouded by the ridiculously complex. 'Try' is the best you, we, can hope for.

The comments to this entry are closed.