Judging by hypocritical standards

While most people disapprove of the initial outlook of the A Christmas Carol character Ebenezer Scrooge (in the 2009 film, the attitude was intended to make people both shake their heads and laugh at his extremism), I would say most people actually share it, at least to some degree. They work for their own interests and feel others should do as well. They can have sympathy for those they get to know but some feel that the "undeserving" poor (those who can work but don't, or waste the money they do make) don't deserve to be helped (which makes sense, as actions should have consequences) and even people who feel the majority of the poor are not undeserving of help put themselves first and do little to personally help them as they still remain abstract. Given that time is limited, putting self first and not knowing how the poor are (and so assuming the worst or close to it to justify oneself) is understandable but people who do this should admit that those are their decisions and not condemn those who decide likewise or are the ones not afraid to admit it.

When we talked about my idea that most people are similar to Scrooge, my mother said she was not and my father admitted most people are similar but to a lesser degree.

Degrees should indeed be considered, but the problem is that people are often only too willing to be overly favorable towards themselves and condemnatory of others and some use the idea of degrees to try to argue that their share of the trait is so small it's really nonexistent; this is a violation of the idea that one should seek and accept truths.

Scrooge's attitude that the poor should die quickly to "decrease the surplus population" is harshly stated, yet many don't have alternatives to what should be done when a region or globe does have a surplus population. Social services come through extracted personal income, decreasing people's choice of what to do with what they make, and may only delay, if not enlarge, the proplems.

Philosopher Garrett Harding (in the essay "Lifeboat Ethics") made the argument that selfishness is preferable to generosity, especially at the international level, as the more aid is given to hungry, populous countries, the more the global population will expand until the globe isn't able to feed everyone, as when a lifeboat tips over from having too many passengers and everyone drowns.

As a sidenote to films and audiences making judgments (without reflection on the person who judges), Vegas Vacation has the daughter character dancing while in a covering red dress; he father is nonetheless appalled and takes her away. The daughter instantly change her mind, saying she doesn't know what came over her, even though she seemed to very much like and want to perform the activity earlier. These types of sudden changes of opinions, in order to avoid showing conflict and challenging the audience, are usually unconvincing and hence bad writing, though they may, by not showing conflict and not challenging the audience, enhance commercial appeal and possibility. The father has lecherous moments which are considered acceptable; this nonjudgmental attitude may make males sympathize with him, and his hypocritical condemnation of his daughter for providing such feelings to others makes him sympathetic to those who claim to not be lecherous, or at least only lecherous within reason. Unfortunately, a lax standard for self and a harsh one for others is often considered to be just, appropriate and reasonable.

Confidence and Despair

One of the ways people attempt to increase their sense of security is the "blaming the victim" approach. In order to believe that the world is just, people decide that those who have been harmed/victimized did some action that caused their own victimization; therefore the people who behave in wise and moral actions have nothing to fear as they won't make the mistakes that lead to victimization.

The approach is perhaps incorrectly named as most people who believe this way don't only blame the victim, but attribute them some responsibility, perhaps the decisive share, but with the majority of the responsibility going to the victimizer or the situation.

This method may be self-defeating as, when believers are victimized, they may blame themselves. However, they may be more lenient with themselves or they may have in fact been partly to blame and the self-blame can lead to better behavior.

While "blaming-the-victim" has a negative connotation, I believe the belief in a just world, with its implied corollary about those who are treated unjustly, is widely shared in the world. It would probably be hard to live with the perception that the world or are systems are not necessarily just, that injustice does occur frequently, that are statuses may not be just and so are not intrinsically permanent.

While I believe in freedom and the ability to pursue happiness, I also feel that humans have an obligation to try to learn and acknowledge the truth (this obligation is not something that should be legislated, as in many matters truth is subjective); while it may cause some discomfort, it is an important aspect to appreciating and preserving freedom and happiness.

The entertainment media has an interest in persuading people that we do live in a just world (so we feel justified in focusing on ourselves and not improving it), but sometimes entertainment products take so much for granted that their messages are laughable if not infuriating.

In the 2003 comedy Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey's Bruce Nolan complains that God is doing a bad job at running the universe, particularly with regards to him but also in general. God (Morgan Freeman) gives him his powers so he can go on vacation and the film sets out to show why it wouldn't be good for an ordinary human being to have divine powers.

Or not, though most viewers probably agreed with the film's viewpoint. There are strong questions about whether Bruce, a light-news reporter, is really ordinary. He's unusually well-off by global standards (given that many people are forced to live on a few dollars a day), which you would think the deity would be more concerned. While the film was chiefly intended for "Western" audiences, a deity as a character practically demands a wider focus, which this film chose to exclude.

The film almost touches on the point that, because Bruce is materially comfortable, he wants more. But as his position is considered average, it's really a false critique of all humanity. Powered-Bruce creates marijuana in the van of a rival reporter (which is considered to be funny, though laughing at someone for what is not his fault is questionable) while a grower of the plant would probably use his power to legalize the product, creating a benefit for all sellers, buyers and people in general as police forces could spend their time working against interpersonal harm. A prisoner deprived of liberty for having condemned views would probably gain liberty and only a little more.

On being scolded for his selfish acts, Bruce takes a lazy approach to benevolence-he approves the requests all people make in prayer. This leads to too many people winning the lottery, getting a low amount, and rioting.

Rather than use his power to pacify the people or at least heal the injured and repair the damage, Bruce despairs at the first time his power caused problems, the first sign that people have flaws. This is considered a good sign of humility rather than evidence of a lack of imagination and perseverance.

Bruce also faces personal problems as his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) believes he was too close to another woman and is too selfish in general. While it's been some time since I saw the film, if I recall correctly the other woman incident was not Bruce's fault but merely the choice of the other woman coupled with bad timing. Bruce could have argued that it wasn't his fault or that it shouldn't matter, or simply accepted that his true self and Grace weren't a good pair, but instead he laments that he can't persuade her to love her; he doesn't consider moving on.

God says he has the same problem in being unable to force people to love him without violating their free will, but this comparison only works if you consider the world to be just, if you consider that people have only unjust or petty grievances against God.

If, on the other hand, you think that Bruce's misuse of power and quitting at the first sign of trouble (the latter of which is considered good and proper humility) is no sign of failure for the human race and that it is unwise to give up ultimate power over a few troubles, you could well do a better job than either of the film's characters.

The best part of the film is that Carrey and Freeman's characters both have, at least at times, a rather malevolent sense of humor. Freeman's God claiming that Bruce only won a fight with a girl is in touch with the misogynistic attitudes that some attribute to the ultimate creator/ruler.

The end of the film's trailer (Bruce, in a high position against a dark power, exclaiming "My will be done!") suggested that, after comical beginnings, the protagonist would be horribly corrupted. While I've learned in the years since I watched the trailer that trailers are sometimes deceptive, what was promised would probably make a much better film than what was released. That a better film was suggested makes Bruce's quitting at minor troubles that much more disappointing and artificial.

Given that the world is so troubled, to present quitting after minor troubles as the good action seems to be a refusal to acknowledge the really bad problems the people of the world face, so that we can think that the world as it is is just, or at least the best it could possibly be.