Thank you for your meaningful reply again :)
Rationalization is not something new, I agree. It's just our natural defense mechanism successfully applied in the "fraud area".
Although I agree with you on the point that protection is related to knowledge about the human psyche, I don't think that people act this way out of ignorance about their mentality.
Whenever somebody is committing a fraud or deception he or she actually thinks that will not get caught and is in the superior position in the situation.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Isn't that ignoring my mentality of being a victim? I mean, when I commit a fraud, and I am aware it is illegal, do I not be ignorant to the fact that my motive is chosen out of an inferior mindset? If I would consider myself to be able to choose legal steps or having alternatives for my needs wouldn't I then pick those? I find that people commit dishonesty or hurting ethics for the reason that they believe they have no other chance and also their actions might not harm those who have to deal with the consequences of their fraud. Downplaying it.
On the surface, there is the illusion of superiority and no risk.
Or may it be the case, that the premise itself is not taken up by a con man? Like betraying and stealing is, in fact, okay, because "everybody" is doing it?
Do you have a certain case where you witnessed a downcrash of ones beliefs? I find that really interesting.
That's rationalization.
Yes, almost every case I've had with confessions is a downcrash of ones beliefs. But not exactly, because these beliefs were not genuine in the first place. Deep down every person committing a crime knows that it's a wrong thing to do. (not speaking about the ill people, they are different)
The interesting thing is when a person confesses, he or she does not give a full explanation why the fraud was committed (besides money of course).
It's a really rare case when one admits that he did something wrong and excuses his or herself about it.
thank you, you pointed that already out in the article which I found good that you did that. So, when actually the premise "not to steal/betray" is accepted by everyone with a healthy sense of justice, then all people who still commit fraud act against their own conviction.
This leads to guilt. Guilt leads to suppression/ignorance of responsibility. As you know already the "why" it seems obsolete to give a reason, because the reason is obvious, no?
When a person - not mentally ill - sits in front of me and I sense that he/she HAS the sense of the law, I could ask: "Is it possible, that you partly acted against your own conviction and if yes, how do you feel about it?"
... could write a lot more, but will leave it as it is :)
Your topics always leave me with more thoughts.
Thank you for your further thoughts on this topic. I didn't suspect it would awake such interest. I am just finishing the third and final (for now) part and we will discuss more :)