There are certain irrational ideas that are the basis of the functioning of society and, therefore, of man; Albert Ellis calls them “monsters. “In fact, many of these irrational ideas underlie irrational thoughts that obscure our moods, slow down our behaviors, and obscure our cognitive abilities. Ellis’ third irrational idea, which we will discuss in this article, also plays that role.
Ellis proposes irrational ideas as irrational acceptances of what the world and the people who live in it should be.
- Many of these ideas are inherited from the historical process of each culture and.
- In our case.
- Many of them derive from the tradition and morality of religion.
- Which until recently were present in every corner of our society.
So, in this article, we’ll focus on Ellis’ third irrational idea. Although this is considered irrational, many still believe in it and base their knowledge and actions on it.
Ellis’ third irrational idea says
The idea that there are some kind of vile, petty and infamous people who must be seriously blamed and punished for their wickedness.
Many can argue and agree with this idea. Is there a tendency to label people as good or bad?depending on the actions they take.
If a person chooses an option that we consider objectionable, we generally label it incorrect. Not only that, wrong people must also suffer because of their nature or actions, they must be punished.
Although, at first glance, and again of the contextual framework and sociodemographic heritage we have, this is not an unreasonable idea, Ellis sees it as the basis of irrational, non-evidence-based thinking that abuses absolutes. I mean, it’s a toxic way of thinking it doesn’t seem to do us any good.
But why isn’t this idea true, aren’t there bad people who do bad things, they don’t deserve punishment?
Ellis, in his book Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy (1962), tries to explain why evil is not a fact, arguing, among other things, that the idea that people can be good or bad is part of the ancient theological doctrine of freedom. Be.
Many philosophers (Descartes, Hume, and even Kant) have spoken of free will and, above all, ethics based on free will. If there are good or bad people and there is free will, does that mean that people are free to do?or “evil. “
In a way, can this premise also indicate that there is an absolute truth, dictated by a single?God, or by a “natural law,” which determines what goes into “good” and what is part of “evil. “
This doctrine has no scientific basis and its key words (a god, an absolute truth, free will?) It cannot be tested or refuted, so to say, as a basis, that there are good and bad does not make sense.
A bad deed, or a bad deed, is not defined as “bad” the person who executes it. In fact, although we tend to infer that these impulses come from a clear bad nature, in most cases they arise simply because of selflessness, disrecognisement or some kind of health problem.
Regardless of whether these individuals cause and are responsible for the harm they cause to third parties by their misdeeds, this does not mean that they deserve a humiliating and fatal punishment for their unknownness, unknownness or some kind of health problem. On many occasions, when we punish people who have done something wrong, the latter seeks to punish an alleged evil.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to make that person, next time, not so ignorant, so ignorant, or not in that state of health?The idea that a man who does something wrong is bad has been projected into many sermons from different churches: many religions believe they are the guardians of morality.
However, the reality turned out to be more complex: a person can give money to the homeless and come home at night and abuse their child; a person cannot allow an older person to sit on the subway and work 14 hours a day to pay. your father’s medical care.
A bad deed determines nothing, as much as the definition of “bad” is subjective. Some find something good in evil and something bad in good.
Ellis, in his work, argues that it’s unrealistic to think we’re going to do everything right. In fact, fallibility is in the nature of the human being; much of their learning comes from trial and error.
So, to say that a person “does something”, “should” have done the opposite, is not true. The use of absolutes and “should” is the basis of every irrational thought, and the person should not have done so because man is fallible and can make mistakes.
Punishment often has less favorable effects on the learning process. If a person makes a mistake or a “bad” action, blaming them in a vengeful and angry manner can be counterproductive.
When a person is confused with ignorance, the punishment imposed on him by his actions will not make her less ignorant, so if after the punishment the person is expected to act differently, it does not make much sense, Ellis sums up this problem with an example:
“I hoped he would be an angel instead of a human being and not to be wrong. Now that you’ve proven yourself to be a fallible being, I ask you in a less realistic way (with punishment) to be a perfect angel in the future?
Also, if a person makes a mistake due to a psychological health problem, can you even blame them? Of this condition. Guilt, anger, and hostility are at the root of many psychological disorders.
In the face of this philosophy of guilt, in which children are immersed from a very young time, guilt is exalted for past, present and future mistakes, without this guilt, feelings of anxiety, guilt or depression would be more difficult to settle in us.
Many of us have been educated according to the premises that underpin Ellis’ third irrational idea, which makes us feel guilty, afraid to make mistakes, fear of punishment, and vague ideas about what is good or bad, affects our mood, our way of being, and our behaviors.
Therefore, before judging a person’s wickedness, one must think several times. Similarly, if a person judges or rebukes our actions, we must also think about Ellis’ third irrational idea and decide whether our guilt is legal or not.