But if there is not objective morals then we can't make any ethical arguement.
Of course you can. Ethics doesn't have to rest on "objective morals."
So if someone judges that all Jewish people must be exterminated because they are of less value as humans and in fact will contaminate the human race this is not deluded or irrational thinking as far as what we know about humans being equal regardless of ethnicity.
I would argue that it is irrational in that there is no basis for thinking they are of "less value."
But that is not comparable to decisions about how to discipline children. Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to discipline children; the disagreement is about the methods.
Yes but we still hold them responsible because qwe know that they are capable unless mentally ill to not behave like that.
Exactly. It's a choice.
So though they may have got to a point where they lose control or become deluded in their thinking they could have along the way avoided this.
Except I don't agree that abusive parents are out of control, at all. Again, you have provided no evidence for this.
The point I was making is that using belief as the only measure for why people behave the way they do is unpredictable because belief is subjective.
Belief may be subjective, but that doesn't put it beyond scrutiny.
That doesn't tell us anything and its more likely that something besides belief is causing people to be this way. .
Except that there is no evidence for this. Yes, there are various influences on people's beliefs. But the difference between abusive and non-abusive parents in otherwise comparable situations, is that the abusive parents hold attitudes and beliefs which justify the abuse.
But if they are wrong as in they got the facts wrong then they are wrong because they got the facts wrong. If they continue to claim they are right in light of the evidence then they are thinking irrationally. They are disregarding rational thinking that should lead to the facts and relying on beliefs or emotion instead which in the lighyt of the facts or reality of the situation is irrational.
The point is, people who are abusive are not necessarily being "irrational" in their decision to abuse. They're not acting that way because (for example) intense emotion has overwhelmed their reason. They have made deliberate decisions about their parenting in light of their beliefs about what is good and necessary in parenting.
Yes attitudes about their position in the hiearchy or their role being the only role or more powerful. But the hiearchy and role itself doesn't have attitudes. The person within those situations has the attitudes. Another who is also within that hiearchy may have positive attitudes about their role being one of many and each being equal.
Sure. But what tends to underpin abuse is a cluster of attitudes condoning violence, insisting on hierarchy and control, and rigid roles. Without that belief in hierarchy and control people are less likely to feel entitled to abuse, to control another (whether violently or otherwise).
The point is as you just pointed out that these aspects of hiearchy, rigid roles and power differences don't always have a culture of violence. So these aspects are not violence in themselves but rather its the people who become abusive and exploit their positions.
Well, it depends on context. In the workplace, hierarchy might be neutral. In parenting it's necessary. In, for example, marriage, I don't believe it's ever healthy. But yes, when we're talking about physical abuse it tends to be both; the hierarchy and the acceptance of violence together.
The point was there are reasons why people have those specific beliefs about abusing others is ok and it has nothing to do with belief. You can't use beliefs to explain why people have beliefs.
How a person forms their beliefs is complex. But all I'm arguing for is getting to the point where we recognise that abuse is driven by the abusers' attitudes and beliefs; not their life circumstances. Nobody abuses because he is poor, or because she is a single mother, or because he is anxious.
It is these experiences and conditions we need to understand to be able to prevent people cultivating those beliefs and being primed to believe such things.
Well, and more to the point, we need to deliberately form a culture in which the opposite beliefs are nurtured.
The person obviously didn't suddenly come to believe that pushing his friend was ok. He just reacted and pushed his friend because he was emotionally distressed.
I disagree. I would say he always believed that pushing his friend was an acceptable way to cope with his distress. Perhaps his friend just hasn't seen it because he hasn't been that distressed. But people who truly don't believe it's acceptable, don't lash out at others, even when distressed.
Isn't that the same to how we determine child abuse. Some disicipline is good and some is not.
Exactly the point I was making. The difference between healthy discipline and abuse depends on the value system used to evaluate it.
I don't think its about an actual rod and beating a kid until they are damaged. This can represent a wide range of viuews including using an open hand as a 'rod' or using a specific implement like a paddle board or wooden spoon lightly and not out of control.
And yet some people do use an actual rod and beat kids until they're damaged. Please acknowledge reality enough to not deny that basic fact.
And a paddle board or a wooden spoon still meet the definition of physical abuse.
In saying that if there is obvious evidence that certain ways of treating kids is abuse and harmful then I agree it is these attitudes and beliefs we need to challenged and prevent.
The point of this whole thread, but 66 pages later we're still having to put up with people trying to excuse, minimise and justify abusive behaviour.
But then you just previously said that these alternative beliefs are rational and justified and theres no way we can tell the difference.
I didn't say they were justified. I said they weren't necessarily irrational. As in, the person with these attitudes may have a completely coherent, logical belief structure and act in a way which is consistent with their beliefs.
We tell the difference by having an agreed standard of abuse, set at a level which has been demonstrated to be harmful (which we do). That is the basis on which we can begin to challenge beliefs which justify abuse, by demonstrating the harm done.
But if you want to challenge these beliefs and attitudes you say support abuse and violence then if they are rational how are they the wrong attitudes and beliefs to hold.
Okay, let's make it my turn to have a hypethical example. We have a mother, Nicki. Nicki has been raised with strong attitudes which require parental control and docile obedience from children. Children must, in her world, be seen and not heard; must be instantly and cheerfully obedient to parents, and so on. Anything else puts their souls at risk from the sin of not honouring their parents. So, in order to guard their souls, and raise what she hopes will be respectful young adults, she runs a household where control is at the heart of every day. From the moment her children get up, to the moment they go to bed, their days are rigidly controlled and monitored, and any deviation from her expectations is met with (what we would consider) abusive levels of discipline. She frequently resorts to the cane, the belt, and other implements, to the point of bruising and welting on her children's buttocks and thighs, although she is just aware enough of different social attitudes to be careful not to let the marks show below school uniforms.
Nicki is not unloving; she loves her children very much. She doesn't enjoy punishing her children in this way but believes it is necessary, for their good. She is consistent in her approach and it makes sense in light of her fundamental understanding of what "good" parenting is.
Is she rational? Completely. She's not out of control, or overwhelmed. She's not stressed to the point of not functioning. Her life circumstances are not such that she doesn't have the resources she needs to cope with life. She's doing her best with what she knows. She sees herself as a much better parent than her own parents, who had their own issues and didn't leave her well equipped to consider other approaches. Trauma and long term mental illness are simply not on her radar.
Is she "wrong"? Well, you and I might say she's making poor choices. We would be able to put together an argument for why she should do differently. We would need to encourage her to re-examine some of her fundamental religious beliefs, social attitudes, and experiences, in order to build a different understanding. She would need a lot of support in that process. But even while we might say she could do much better in light of what we know about abusive behaviour and its outcomes, she's not irrational.
And before you tell me this is a completely unrealistic hypothetical, one which doesn't match your experience, let me tell you... I've met Nicki and lots of people like her. I've lived far too closely with some of them. They are exactly the kind of abusers I think your "risk factor" approach won't even recognise, but who are petty tyrants in their own suburban hells, in far too many homes.
Like I said if they are rational beliefs and attitudes then they can claim they are doing nothing wrong.
And that's why it's so important that we now have the evidence to demonstrate the long term harm done.
Your actually building a case for the rationality of abuse for some people.
I'm acknowledging their reality and experience. Which is something I don't really see in claims that all abuse is "irrational," or that people are "out of control," or the like.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
But caning certainly was. I was caned. Caning leaves quite impressive welts across a child's thighs. 
