>>10313452>Their "self-flagellation" doesn't just impact them. It makes the entire world worse, pretty much permanently. Do they not realize that or do they have a rationalization for that as well?yes, they believe they are earning eternal rewards in the next life. this hope is why despite never getting rich from donating to televangelists, evangelicals still do it because they believe they're investing in some magnificent palace after they die. they endure the suffering of atonement for their perceived crime of having more by doing everything they can to prop up the unfortunate, because to them this is moral and good
in some cases it's short-sightedness and an injection of deontology. utilitarianism believes in trying to maximize good for everyone. deontology believes that certain actions are inherently immoral or moral regardless of the outcome. a deontological approach would say stuff such as murder, incest, rape, robbery, lying, or any number of these or more, are inherently wrong even if doing it would lead to better outcomes (say, killing 50 people to result in better conditions for the rest - a deontologist would refuse)
to them, inflicting harm in the form of suffering or withholding help is inherently wrong. a great example is the recent welfare, where if people were not given so much money for being out of work, there would be greater pushback against the shutdowns and drive to find work and it would be better overall for the economy, but to inflict that hardship on them is considered wrong. it is wrong to allow people to suffer for not investing in retirement on their own, so social security was put in place even though it is now a fiscal burden and pitifully low payments, and without it people would put greater importance on frugality and their own long-term thinking
that essentially sums up the problem nicely: people shy away from even innocuous kinds of harsh actions that have greater outcomes because of that belief in inherent immorality
