[Paracompact]

The author cites Arendt a fair bit, whose claim to fame was that entirely ordinary people could become voluntary instruments of atrocity.

I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. Once we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country, carry more moral value than others, we're doomed to a descent limited only by our ability to make these world-worsening trades.

When I was a child, my dad would sometimes engage in small acts of corruption to please me or my brother. Taking somebody else's spot, telling white lies to get more than his share of a rationed good, that sort of thing. It never sat right with me. "Family first" has a very ominous ring to me.

[brazzy]

> I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup.

In my opinion, there is another tendency even more significant in that regard. Namely, the visceral desire to see "bad guys" deservedly suffer. Once people are in that frame of mind, they strongly resist any attempts to understand and maybe prevent whatever the "bad guys" did, let alone questions whether it was actually bad.

This is what fuelled lynch mobs, it's what makes MAGA types cheer when ICE murders immigrants, and it's what makes certain leftist circles chant "eat the rich" along with images of guillotines and wood chippers.

When you point out that poverty causes crime, rightists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" crime, and when you point out that poverty causes support for far-right politicians, leftists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" racism.

Of course, this interacts with your point: when someone from the ingroup does something bad, people are willing to look at their reasons and if found lacking it is only the individual that should be punished, whereas the outgroup is never afforded the luxury of complexity, and the entire group is held responsible for each individual's sins.

[kgwxd]

I have way too many family members and associates like that. "Family First" has the same ominous ring to me too. At least, in the given scenarios. Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though?

I think they're easily convinced we're living in constant state of war, even on a slow Tuesday at Costco. The propaganda they often parrot would seem to suggest it.

Or maybe they see there are scenarios that is considered noble, and generalize it to be the case for all scenarios. The people I know like that also have a habit of over-generalizing every aspect of life. Cliches, aphorisms, etc. are a huge part of their vocabulary, but they are rarely applied in the original spirit of the sayings.

[Paracompact]

> Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though?

The "family first, others second" interpretation is, I think, even more problematic when shit hits the fan. In disasters, it never benefits a community to turn on itself. And in fact, I believe the natural human reaction to disaster is to become more altruistic rather than less; see "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit for more on this.

The actually noble interpretation of "family first" is "family first, my own priorities second," at least so long as it doesn't lead to unhealthy self-sacrifice.

[reacweb]

Yes, the slogan "America first" is a forerunner of the worst kind of imperialism.

[Quarrelsome]

also "Make America Great Again" states that America is not currently great, which given its geo-political and economic position is just dishonest. Combined with "America First" you get an entirely clean canvas to be incredibly radical while cosplaying conservative.

[lynx97]

What you describe is deepest human nature. We are tribal, period. No amount of morales will change that, no matter how it sits with you personally.

[rayiner]

Some groups of people are much less tribal than others.

[QuadmasterXLII]

Wouldn’t that be horrible? If great masses of humans did act morally, and you didn’t have this justification that everyone does it?

[saghm]

I feel like this is a false binary. Acting more morally some of the time is surely possible (both as individuals and as a society); we have at least some level of ability to choose our actions independent of our nature.

[anal_reactor]

Yes, I was about to say this. A human is basically testicles with a brain attached, and the natural goal of life is to make sure that the genetically closest material survives and reproduces. That's why it's common to have stronger relationships with your family than with randoms on the internet. The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that.

[carlosjobim]

An even worse sign is when we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country carry less moral value than others.

[estearum]

Uh oh, is this a reference to the radar meme/study?

The one that conservatives keep claiming shows that liberals care more about out-groups than in-groups, but actually shows that either 1) many conservatives are illiterate and can't read a survey question, or 2) many conservatives literally don't care if right or wrong happens to acquaintances, strangers, their countrymen, humans in other countries, non-human animals, living things, etc?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moral-circles-heatmap