intrusive thoughts are normal. the human mind has nearly limitless imagination and this kind of thinking, even parent to child, is normal to a degree. you know the saying, “if someone tells you to stop thinking of a white bear, that’s all you’ll think about?” the same naturally applies for when someone says “don’t drop the baby” or something along those lines, because what then will you involuntarily think about, in trying not to? alone, these thoughts don’t make you a bad person, provided that that is all they remain. where it deviates is if the parent acts on it or feels the impulse to act on it. if then, SEEK HELP and step away from the child.
and by all means, talk to someone about these thoughts. the more you try and repress them out of shame, the worse they intrude, and that isn’t healthy for anyone. it’s better to voice them and accept that they are an unwelcome occurrence then to bury them until you can’t think of anything else.
Very well said as usual. I just want to say, though you said it too, I feel it needs said a million times: You aren’t a bad parent and shouldn’t carry Shane or guilt for these types of thoughts when they are only just thoughts. For the birthing parent a slew of changes to body chemistry and the mind itself have taken place, and for any new parents the changes and stresses that tend to come with a new baby accumulate on top of everything else in life. It’s ok to have thoughts that you find unpleasant or disturbing, if you’re dealing with a baby your mind probably isn’t in its most optimum of shape. Don’t act on them and do what you need to do to make sure you don’t- but give yourself some grace and don’t beat yourself up over stray thoughts.
The fact this is normal etc. is covered so I’m not going there again save to say- be kind to yourself. What I will talk about is the part about being amazed at the darkness of the human mind. I mean…. The human mind decides what is or isn’t dark, there is no inherent darkness to it, you simply see darkness in it necessarily. Nature is full of heart wrenching brutality- is nature dark? It can be VIEWED as dark, but nature is a system by which things work on necessity and where we believe consciousness exists- desire.
It would be seen as dark to abandon a baby because a baby cannot care for itself, but most people won’t see abandoning an old chair you don’t want as dark but a chair cannot fend for itself- you simply decided that whatever resources went into creating the chair, you were ok to forfeit those as the chair didn’t suit you for whatever reason right?
“A chair isn’t alive!” Ahh. Ok. I won’t get into an argument over what “alive” is or how we thoughtlessly kill billions of living organisms a day through just sitting around doing nothing. The only relevance that specifically has isn’t a question of life as we don’t actually think life matters to much as our lack of remorse or punishment as we “kill 99.9% of germs” shows. We value life perhaps to the point where it would cause us harm or inconvenience- the germs you brush away that feast in your mouth are alive, but they can harm you. The harmless or beneficial germs that get caught up are not given much second thought. We eat what is alive- even vegans do. So then what we REALLY care about is consciousness- intelligence. Now…ethical vegans tend to be the perfect example here.
Refusing to eat creatures which are seen as possessing a certain intelligence or consciousness while eating those they see as not “worthy” of the same status.
Simply put- we recognize other life as “worthy” when that life possesses qualities we find relatable or sympathetic. This sort of “empathy” can be said to come from a place of self preservation. We value our own lives and happiness and wish others to value our own lives and happiness.
A culture which doesn’t respect the lives and happiness of life forms similar to self runs into a problem- how do you codify for the sake of teaching or law, what makes a life from worthy of respect and thusly ensure you are entitled to safety and happiness if you cannot base that code off of traits you posses because they are shared with other life forms? One method is as said- you simply give any similar life from protection if it meets those criteria.
Classically, humanity has simply used limited or biased scientific reasoning or religion, philosophy, or spirituality to justify how humans are unique and posses either some special quality or inherent superiority that makes any classifications beyond humanity superfluous. “Animals don’t have souls.” “The creator gave animals to man..” using science of a sort we have said things like “animals don’t feel like we do..” “animal intelligence is limited..” but study and observation have indicated such assessments may not be so correct, with even the “simplest” creatures like many insects having been shown to posses somewhat complex capacities or at the least , greater capacities than previously thought. Wether by advanced understanding or the sentimental anthropomorphism of finding relatable behaviors and actions in other life, we come to a place where we increasingly see ourselves in other creatures.
This is where we enter perception vs. reality. How you feel about a thing doesn’t change the practical truths. A less abstract way t see this is in the differences in morality between people and often cultures- where what one’s sees as “right and wrong” may be seen the opposite of another. It is common in some cultures that a doctor will not tell an older person they have cancer. It is thought they will likely die soon regardless or not, but that there isn’t much to be done and it can cause worry or where stigmas exist they may face such stigma. Other cultures value informed choice regardless and would see that as ethically wrong to withhold. We can say one or the other is right but different people will feel differently about this- the same as some people would want to have life support and others would not. Another example is when a friends partner is unfaithful.
If you have evidence a friends partner is unfaithful do you tell them? It may seem simple to many but there are largely two broad categories: “their relationship isn’t my business” or “I have an obligation to let them know..” In serving your own morality though you may find your friend does not have the same morality- they may be upset you told them or upset you didn’t right? People who believe the truth must be revealed or vice versa may think it’s inconceivable that anyone would feel otherwise, but that shows a clear lack of understanding or exposure to other people and different world views. Would it shock you to know that some couples have explicit or unspoken arrangements where infidelity is tolerated or even condoned so long as the partner being stepped out on doesn’t know? That some people don’t care about things that do not directly affect them if they are able to otherwise live happily? That shouldn’t be so shocking. How many people nowadays proclaim they don’t watch the news
because it is bad for their mental health? There may be news in there that touches on their lives or could be good to know to make informed decisions, but if they can’t see it or know what is going on just living their life- they don’t care because it doesn’t actually affect them right? Some people expect or accept a partner will do such things but simply do not want OTHERS to know or speak about it. This is a very “dysfunctional productive citizen” vibe- it is the idea of being talked about or pitied or seen as inadequate or submissive etc. which upsets them more than the cheating. Seem odd? Is it? Most of us poop and pee but most of us have some embarrassment around those things when other people get involved. We all have or will pee or poop ourselves won’t we? Most of us would be embarrassed to have others know even if we just took it as unavoidable but not ideal when alone and in secret if it happened.
So perhaps your friend doesn’t want to know or doesn’t want to know that other people know? Perhaps a witness doesn’t believe it is their place to be involved in the affairs of others where no crimes are done and no one is in danger of death or serious injury? There are many ways we can view these things and many potential consequences and ethical hoops to go through. By the same token another contentious ethical issue is wether a person who is friends with the cheater is at obligation to tell the stepped out on party they are being cheated on? What if they don’t even know the two partners involved and only know that their friend is stepping into that relationship? Many people who would say you are obligated to tell a friend at this point would say you aren’t obligated to go tell a stranger. But does the friend have an obligation to cut ties with their friend who sleeps with people in relationships?
If you choose to be friends with someone who steps into others relationships to facilitate infidelity- isn’t that a form of condoning the behavior? To use a more extreme behavior to illustrate- if you are friends with a murderer and you know they are killing people but you stay friends and especially if you remain friends and keep their secret, is that ethical? Does their behavior and your refusal to act reflect on you? Ok. What about the “other person?” What if someone doesn’t know their new partner is in a relationship and finds out? Do they go to the other persons relationship partner and tell them or send a message of some sort that they have been participating in infidelity with this person? Well- we already looked at this but let’s just say some people are very understanding and don’t blame the third wheel and others less so. So there are issues of ethics and consideration but also of personal well being to weigh right? The most practical thing to generally do is to not
involve oneself in such situations any more than is necessitated by circumstance. Is that wrong? As we have walked through- that’s a matter of perspective.
Of course even that statement is open to perspective. This is how perception bias generally works- we often aren’t aware of our bias because to us that just seems to be the natural and intuitive default, but the very concept that an individual has the right or should have the ability to self determine is itself a philosophical perspective. Individuality and individualism are philosophies. There are many cultures and value systems which prize collectivism or pragmatism in various ways. Systems that put class or caste or family or duty or social order etc. over individual thoughts and wants or needs. So the idea of considering the perspectives of others is itself a perspective and subject to disagreement.
Simply put- it is culturally valid and there are valid arguments to a philosophy wherein the individual opinion etc. don’t factor in. That a group or a society or a position of authority have dictated a course and that all have a responsibility to follow that course regardless of individual feelings and thoughts. This is a system of harmony. I’ll give one last example. Japanese culture attempts to be extremely equal. I’m doing so they often have rules- schools have uniforms and often forbid or limit makeup and accessories so that regardless of style or taste or wealth students are equal in appearance. It was traditionally common to require hair to be black, if it wasn’t naturally black one often would need to dye it black.
There is one generally acceptable language- in Japanese prisons for example even foreign prisoners must only speak in Japanese.
This is all largely done to make people equal as possible except for what they may stand out in terms of ability. This wouldn't fly in America. A uniform code that didn’t allow for wearing cultural or religious accessories, that narrowly mandated hair styles and such without regard to ethnic differences… is Japan “wrong?” Is America “wrong?” I mean- taken to extremes, the hair color and style problems, makeup and other issues, issues of religious articles like head and face coverings… to be equal and inclusive- if we made people all wear basically a walking shower curtain that covered their entire form, you couldn’t tell who had a turban or who had braids or who had long hair or blonde hair or black hair.
We’d all be… equal.. in that sense. But is that… “right?” Is that the way we want things to work..? Is that practical or safe..? Questionable.
So these are perceptive differences and this is how deeply perception comes in to things. So when we decide what is right or wrong or dark or light or good or evil or sick or normal or strange or whatever… we are making that distinction and we do so on our biases. Often times, those biases simply reflect what is in our self interest. Either of material or other benefit to us, or that which supports our world views and perceptions. We are more likely to see a tax increase that impacts us and pays for something we do not support or want as bad than if we weren’t effected or if we wanted or supported what the increase funded for examples of material or ideological benefit and our perceptions.
So the “darkness” of the human mind is often just… instinct or desire or pragmatism without filter. Your neighbor is noisy- you don’t like the noise. If your neighbor wasn’t there, it would be quiet. One way for your neighbor to not be there… is if they died. One way they might die is.. if you killed them. This is a logical and pragmatic train of thought until we consider all the implications and likely consequences or risks- and if we inject ethics or compassion we may find it a horrific thought. The basic functioning of an organism as we understand it is to survive and tend its needs. Desires tend to stem from needs. You need your neighbor to be quiet so you can sleep or study or work or have sex or focus or relax because we actually need relaxation psychologically. Or it is from a need to feel safe and in control of your environment etc. there is a need there and your mind will look at how to fill that need.
When it comes to survival, ethics is a secondary consideration. It is highly unlikely a raccoon concerns itself with the ownership rights of garbage. The birds stealing your food probably don’t consider the ethics- they consider the risk because while they may not have a concept of ownership they have an intuitive concept of possession. Bears will find Wolf dens and eat the pups. Bears are aware by instinct, deduction, or experience that if you start eating a wolves children while it stands there that it will generally not simply watch unbothered. So this most often happens when the parents are away. The decision doesn’t appear to hinge so much as pragmatism. An assessment of risk. At the very least it is clear to most predators that their prey does not desire or appreciate being eaten.
Humans are just animals. Our “higher reasoning” is a form of perception. So you may often have thoughts you find repugnant and you must realize that perception scan be changed. Your morality is adaptable. That doesn’t mean you may WANT it to adapt or that morality is meaningless- it means that is deliberate to some extent, but when consciously or subconsciously looking for solutions to problems or to fill your needs, morality doesn’t really enter the picture. You choose a solution or choose to ignore a desire to tend a need and that decision is an expression of your morality. While we can arguably say a person who considers every option possible that doesn’t involve theft to get an item has shown some morality- wether one considers other options or not of one ultimately resorts to theft they have expressed their morality as such.
So then wouldn’t we say the same thing of the opposite? Is it the case that having immortal thoughts but not expressing them ultimately shows one’s good morality- but the very fact they could have such a thought shows they are capable of an action? Well… sort of? We are only capable of what we can conceive. A person who wouldn’t even think to steal can be said at that time to not be capable of the act, and a person who thinks of stealing and doesn’t is capable. That’s an important consideration though. What that is is not a moral measure but a measure of danger. A bear can easily kill your while it is MUCH harder for a bunny rabbit to do so. The bear is dangerous. A bear which makes the decision to not kill you has made a choice. A bunny which does the same has made no choice- it simply had no choice to make.
Morality is by its existence in perception a matter of choice. One who is incapable of wrong is not perhaps a danger but they also are simply existing. They cannot be said in that sense to be “good,” they are simply easy or safe to exist around.
This is where we talk about nature- a storm kills and destroys without any perceivable malice. It simply does as its very existence demands and exists for pragmatic reasons. A release of energy that can be said to be an intrinsic part to the operation of nature as we know it and are suited to live within, or as a necessity to that existence. It has no choice and thus we cannot readily assign it a morality, but regardless of it did have a choice, that choice would be between not existing or existing; or between causing some harm for a “greater good.”
How one justifies the choice is again- perception. That whole “trolley problem” and all that- but where the trolley problem deals in a case where the harm would befall others, there is in matters of our own needs the weight of another life over our own. I won’t go too far here as we’ve discussed the basic principles that relate to this already. There is often a perception that in cases where one’s life or needs can be sacrificed for another’s that is inherently noble or right. We don’t see that reflected in most peoples behavior or society on a daily basis though. It’s perhaps more a romantic notion or a cultural notion.
Few people would literally give a stranger the shirt off their back or the keys to their car or most certainly not give a homeless person their home or pay their rent and live on the street in their stead. It is also often true that to do greater or more lasting good we need to have a base to allow that- a surgeon could quit their job to go cook soup for the hungry..
But as a surgeon couldn’t they offer those services to those in need, and it is far harder to find someone who can do surgeries than who can coin soup no? What’s more- as an employed surgeon, one’s earnings would likely be such that even donating some percent of the total that allows one to continue their work would probably provide more good than not having that income to donate but instead cooking soup. That isn’t to say someone cooking soup for the hungry is less useful or not useful- it probably helps more people to cook soup for the hungry than to make minimum wage and work in “multilevel marketing”
Regardless- the questions of morality don’t really factor in as a measure of the “darkness” of the human mind in our thoughts because the brain is essentially throwing spaghetti at the wall (poor choice of phases I suppose given the meme..). It is saying this is what CAN happen, do you want to proceed?
It hunks you want or need something and it is trying to get you there using the instincts and acquired pathways you might have.
What’s more- the brain, as much as we understand it anyway, sometimes has these thoughts not because they are “dark” or even because it wants you to act on them- but perhaps the opposite in fact!
So there are two theoretical examples of thought process in the brain Id like to bring up.
The first is one wherein the brain presents us scenarios for “rehearsal” of sort- these often happen while asleep but can happen while awake. The brain may essentially look at what’s going on in our lives based on what it can figure out, and then it sort of tried to come up with ways to “practice” things or work through concepts in “virtual space” vs. reality. No. It PROBABLY isn’t gearing up practice to be great at throwing babies- although we can argue that it MIGHT be since infanticide is common in the animal kingdom and amongst our primate relatives in times of resource scarcity or when there is a perceived defect or when a child is competition. So MAYBE we could hypothesize that the brain is getting into that mode of- “hey, this might become necessary…” or that the stress response and other mental and physical weights often common to raising a newborn trigger a response where the brain..
.. may believe that resources are scarce etc. because the body is operating in a similar state to “hard times” with high stress levels and/or sleep and nutrition deficiencies etc. it’s also possible it’s saying: “hey, there’s this baby, that means there’s might be more, and they could be a threat to you- so you may need to take out the competing babies. Here’s some practice to get your head right for if that has to happen…” and we could even guess that perhaps it IS trying to hear us up for a throw down with our own kid because in general- humans are wired to have a certain fear and/or aggression to that which is new or different, it’s a survival thing
So your brain may not be yet convinced that this tiny creature isn’t a potential danger, or it may be convinced it is- especially if this thing is at the center of lord of stress and potentially bloody and cracked nipples and all sorts of things your brain and body in their desire at self preservation and health would be less than enthusiastic about. Lots of creatures do not care for their young or even will eat their young for various reasons including simply being hungry and having young around.
It isn’t unique to humans to care for our young but it isn’t universal either. Why do we care for our young? Chicken and the egg so order it how you like but it is a strategy for reproductive success and survival. Humans like many animals are programmed to protect and care for your young. Most people don’t like babies. They are very unlikable if you think about it. You might say you like babies. You may speak the truth but you’re probably full of crap.
How do I know? How many babies do you have as friends? How often do you seek out babies to hang out with? Babies are obnoxious and needy, usually loud, generally unsanitary. They are lots of effort. Most people like ASPECTS of babies because you like the surge of hormones you get from certain aspects of babies. Most humans and especially mothers have all sorts of conditioned and instinctual responses and physiological and neurological mechanisms linked to babies. The smells and sounds and even the sight of a baby and many of the ways babies interact- especially with parents, trigger the release of chemicals in ways which compel us to to care for the kid. We feel an attachment to it as bonding hormones and feel good hormones and such release. Most all humans find the crying of a baby unpleasant- not just because it is loud or such- but because the specific properties of the sound are wired into us to trigger us to want to try and make it stop so that we don’t neglect babies.
There is a complex interplay of pain and pleasure in the human brain and it factors into our mating often as well as birthing children. We can say that sometimes we seek to suffer so we can experience a high of relief when that suffering ends, and that suffering can then be linked mentally to the anticipation of relief which then can create a positive association to the suffering. It’s all complicated, complex life forms are complicated. That’s why they are caked that and why after over 40,000 there is still so much we don’t know about ourselves and how we work or why. You can live an entire lifetime as a human and never even understand why you are as you are or do as you do or think or feel as you do; and if you achieve some understanding you often can’t manage to change it.
But rehearsal and such is only one of the two thought processes unwanted to discuss. The other is… aversion and avoidance. This CAN be related to rehearsal in that we can mentally rehearse how to avoid a situation- but when you stand on top of a tall place and you get the urge to jump… one theory is that it a form of warning from the brain. It’s thinking this is dangerous and the fact you are here maybe means you aren’t taking that danger seriously. You don’t want to die so suddenly wanting to jump off a cliff is more likely to make you get away from the cliff than it is to make you jump, or to remind you to be careful or consider your mortality. Seeing a mental image of your baby being harmed is for most people going to be unpleasant. It’s going to show you a way your baby faces danger and force you to feel some semblance of what it would feel like to go through that. So it can be a sort of wanting or aversion in that way- “you want this to happen? You like that? No? Then double down”
Of course it can be slightly more simple and just be a sort of… test. Not a response meant to remind you to be careful and make you face the unpleasantness of loss of baby- but your more basic brain is sorting out- “how would we feel about this..?” The brain is adept at the hypothetical. It’s how we survive and our species has survived. So perhaps there is some subconscious awareness that this thing is causing you problems and potential harm and it is causing stress and taking resources from you… and maybe you would be better without it? And then… you see it happen in hypothetical and you feel terrible and the brain goes: “huh. Ok. We’d don’t like that. Forget I said anything…”
In the end it’s just a biological machine trying to survive and do the job of making sure all the other machines it needs to do all that are also surviving and running well. It’s a simple machine at its root but many simple machines form a complex system that sometimes acts odd or even works against itself because it just does what its design dictates. Whatever your consciousness or perception are, if they exist, are along for the ride. So this machine is no more dark or light than the weather or physics. There are rules and there is what works and what doesn’t. The machine tries to figure out what is needed to keep the system running and at its best and that means if it is working properly or working optimally it is going to consider all manner of potential scenarios and ideas even if they make no sense.
It would be seen as dark to abandon a baby because a baby cannot care for itself, but most people won’t see abandoning an old chair you don’t want as dark but a chair cannot fend for itself- you simply decided that whatever resources went into creating the chair, you were ok to forfeit those as the chair didn’t suit you for whatever reason right?
Refusing to eat creatures which are seen as possessing a certain intelligence or consciousness while eating those they see as not “worthy” of the same status.
A culture which doesn’t respect the lives and happiness of life forms similar to self runs into a problem- how do you codify for the sake of teaching or law, what makes a life from worthy of respect and thusly ensure you are entitled to safety and happiness if you cannot base that code off of traits you posses because they are shared with other life forms? One method is as said- you simply give any similar life from protection if it meets those criteria.
Of course even that statement is open to perspective. This is how perception bias generally works- we often aren’t aware of our bias because to us that just seems to be the natural and intuitive default, but the very concept that an individual has the right or should have the ability to self determine is itself a philosophical perspective. Individuality and individualism are philosophies. There are many cultures and value systems which prize collectivism or pragmatism in various ways. Systems that put class or caste or family or duty or social order etc. over individual thoughts and wants or needs. So the idea of considering the perspectives of others is itself a perspective and subject to disagreement.
There is one generally acceptable language- in Japanese prisons for example even foreign prisoners must only speak in Japanese.
We’d all be… equal.. in that sense. But is that… “right?” Is that the way we want things to work..? Is that practical or safe..? Questionable.
This is where we talk about nature- a storm kills and destroys without any perceivable malice. It simply does as its very existence demands and exists for pragmatic reasons. A release of energy that can be said to be an intrinsic part to the operation of nature as we know it and are suited to live within, or as a necessity to that existence. It has no choice and thus we cannot readily assign it a morality, but regardless of it did have a choice, that choice would be between not existing or existing; or between causing some harm for a “greater good.”
Few people would literally give a stranger the shirt off their back or the keys to their car or most certainly not give a homeless person their home or pay their rent and live on the street in their stead. It is also often true that to do greater or more lasting good we need to have a base to allow that- a surgeon could quit their job to go cook soup for the hungry..
It hunks you want or need something and it is trying to get you there using the instincts and acquired pathways you might have.
What’s more- the brain, as much as we understand it anyway, sometimes has these thoughts not because they are “dark” or even because it wants you to act on them- but perhaps the opposite in fact!
The first is one wherein the brain presents us scenarios for “rehearsal” of sort- these often happen while asleep but can happen while awake. The brain may essentially look at what’s going on in our lives based on what it can figure out, and then it sort of tried to come up with ways to “practice” things or work through concepts in “virtual space” vs. reality. No. It PROBABLY isn’t gearing up practice to be great at throwing babies- although we can argue that it MIGHT be since infanticide is common in the animal kingdom and amongst our primate relatives in times of resource scarcity or when there is a perceived defect or when a child is competition. So MAYBE we could hypothesize that the brain is getting into that mode of- “hey, this might become necessary…” or that the stress response and other mental and physical weights often common to raising a newborn trigger a response where the brain..
It isn’t unique to humans to care for our young but it isn’t universal either. Why do we care for our young? Chicken and the egg so order it how you like but it is a strategy for reproductive success and survival. Humans like many animals are programmed to protect and care for your young. Most people don’t like babies. They are very unlikable if you think about it. You might say you like babies. You may speak the truth but you’re probably full of crap.