Modern human beings live through the ideal that they (we) have an ability to access neutrality of our thinking through insightful consideration of, again, neutral facts.
However, it can be a simple feat to see that no such neutrality is ever come upon.
The difference between the ideal and the actuality evidences the religious aspect of being human.
It is not psychological, simply Becuase the very idea of psychology posits accessible neutral facts against which we otherwise behave dysfunctionally.
It is none of our fabled ideals of intellectual prowess. They function for the religious instance to uphold the theological cosmology.
It is that we are humans and human beings function through religious theological categories. This is not correctable, it is simply true.
The post above, however startling and terrible ethically, shows that despite how incredibly unbalanced our system is, it will not be ‘corrected’. This is likely due to the pervading ideal that human beings are naturally ‘neutral’ ethically, here meaning that even though we might do ‘bad’ things, mostly if we (they) could, we would correct it under a given ideal of fairness.
This is never the case in the whole. It can only be the case in the part. The part is “content”, that part of living as human thinking by theological dogma that uses the dogma to situate ethical categories away from the religious determinism into individual agency.
The difference obtained through this kind of reference is, for any other terms, called “heaven”, or “blessed” if the agental scene unfolds in apparent benefit or according to the theological names, or “Damned” or “sin” if the scheme appears inconsistent.
In both cases the scene always changes to adapt to the religious cosmology, ignoring the injustice and setting it into a new cosmological context as though the sin has been justified or punished. This is modern absolution.