Hating the Other is Never the Answer

We must overcome evil with good

Humanity has known evil and injustice for most of its history, including to the present day. Yet how we grapple with such challenges will determine whether we will become part of the problem or the solution.

How should we respond to racism, greed, injustice, riots, insurrections, or other threats to people’s freedom or safety? And how should we respond to situations and circumstances when those causing us (and others) harm seem to flourish and when things seem to get worse?

For many (both now and in the past), the answer has been to turn to hate. Indeed, to hate those we consider our adversaries or enemies is to follow the emotional path of least resistance.

The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius once said:

“It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get.”

Though it may be more natural and personally quite appealing to resort to hating those with whom you disagree or those you perceive to be a threat to your agenda or interests, it is not in society’s best interests.

You cannot have an organized, civil society when the people living in said society refuse to listen to one another, believe the worst about each other, and hold each other in utter contempt.

At this point, it’s important we clarify our terms. Merriam-Webster defines hate as “extreme dislike or distrust,” but according to one renowned psychiatry professor, it’s more than that.

In his book Hatred: The Psychological Descent Into Violence, Willard Gaylin writes:

“To the average person, hatred is an intense feeling indistinguishable from rage, which it is, if one thinks of hatred only as an emotion. But to leave it at that is to disregard the peculiar complexity of hatred. Hatred is more than an emotion.”

Gaylin, the Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, argues that hatred is “a severe psychological disorder.” And yet he eschews what he sees as the “therapeutic trivialization of morality” in much of the field of psychology.

Seeing hatred described as a “severe psychological disorder” (and one with moral implications) may lead us to think that it’s something that affects others and that we are somehow immune to it. This is a mistake.

Every human being is flawed and imperfect. And every human being has wants and needs. And it’s quite common for us to evaluate others by whether they help or hinder us in our pursuit of a happy life.

To use a camping analogy, we put certain stakes in the proverbial ground upon which we erect our metaphoric tent to protect us from harm and to allow us to live in peace, security, and happiness. In this analogy, we choose to share our tent with some and our proverbial campground with others.

But when someone or another group — an “other” — comes along who threatens to intrude upon “our” campground, possibly even to invade our tent (or make us have to move it), or who starts to uproot our stakes, well… that person or group has just trespassed in our fragile mental ecosystem in which we’ve invested a great deal of our energy and identity.

And we don’t view those people we deem as threats or “trespassers” in positive terms.

More often than not, we view those who threaten our peace, security, and happiness as being adversaries, if not enemies. And if they continue to press against us or threaten us (in real or actual terms), we regard them with contempt.

And what is contempt? The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it best when he defined contempt as “the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.”

Make no mistake. A society that surrenders to hate is one whose citizens increasingly justify considering a large number of their fellow citizens as unworthy of courtesy, civility, or perhaps even basic civil rights.

And does this not sound like the society in which we live? A world where people increasingly can’t disagree respectfully or settle differences with civility but rather must regard those on “the other side” with hostility and disdain.

We don’t need to resort to hatred, contempt, or disdain to defend ourselves, safeguard our interests, or advance our cause.

It’s one thing to hate ideas, points of view, or behaviors. It’s another to hate people. It’s one thing to hold people accountable — even in the context of criminal justice. It’s another to want to destroy them out of vengeance.

Hate destroys. Like an out-of-control inferno, it rages and consumes. Like cancer, it spreads and ravages. Hate doesn’t leave justice in its wake. It leaves misery and destruction.

Hate also hurts the one who embraces it. In his landmark classic As a Man Thinketh, James Allen writes:

The soul attracts that which it secretly harbours; that which it loves, and also that which it fears; it reaches the height of its cherished aspirations; it falls to the level of its unchastened desires, — and circumstances are the means by which the soul receives its own.

The more you hate, the more your soul becomes darkened by hate, and the darker your life will become.

This is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had in mind when he declared: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

You may not be a person of faith, but few can question the wisdom of Paul the Apostle when he wrote that we must “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21, NKJV)

Society is full of complex challenges and problems, and there are few easy answers. But one answer we dare not turn to is hate.

The more people who pick that answer, the greater the likelihood we will lose our society — and ourselves.