What is the Logic of Hatred?

Many psychological philosophers have spoken about the logic of emotions.  Anger is a response to injustice, fear a response to danger, lust a need to reproduce.  Hate is akin to anger, yet one can express hatred to a person one has never met or an idea not yet heard.

Operating on the assumption (which may not be reasonable) that there is a logic to hatred, what might that reasoning be?

Is hatred simple retribution?  A gang member is killed in a fight, so the grieving gang must get revenge on the gang who killed, which leads to revenge back.  This leads to a perpetual feud and mutual hatred between the groups. It is "eye for an eye" gone out of control.

Is hatred a result of misplaced personal identity?  Homophobia seems to be a form of this, where those who are most clearly homophobic are those most struggling with homosexual desires.  These desires do not fit the identity of the person having these desires, so he projects all his anger at himself on others who freely express those desires.

Could hatred be the result of fear?  The connection between fear and anger has long been noted, that one tends to be angry at what one is most afraid of.  This is especially true when one's security is threatened (or imagined to be threatened), and so one reacts with hatred to that which is assumed to cause insecurity or threatens.  Certainly Hitler feared the Jews and assumed that they had power to economically control Germany's destiny, which the Nazis feared, thus fueling their hatred.

Could hatred be a response to any stripping away of any human need?  When a person has what they consider to be a basic need taken from them, or they are denied the opportunity to meet their need, they respond with anger and violence.  Perhaps hatred of those previously unknown is the assumption that that person or group will take away from them what they need.  The KKK assumed that blacks were naturally violent and sexually deviant and so they had to protect themselves.  A black man values respect and he assumes that no white man will ever give him the respect he is due so he has a hatred of white men.  Cultural misunderstandings could perpetuate this.

Or is hatred simply without reason?  We draw up excuses for why we hate another but the actual reason for hatred is lacking, it being just an anger that cannot be controlled?

Are Emotions Necessary?

In a world of logic, emotions have no place, so says Mr. Spock.  And we can see the difficulty of emotions.  Emotions can cause violence, or cause breakdowns-- either too much or too little action.  They can cloud our thinking by causing us to jump to conclusions or to hide significant pieces of information.  But are emotions always bad?  In fact, can we even function without emotions?  For what reasons do we have emotions anyway?

Emotions give us personal information.  While emotions may not always help us understand the world around us, they can give us information about ourselves and how we are responding to that world.  How do our emotions show us what is significant to us?  How do our emotions communicate what we fear or what we hope or what we long for?

Emotions drive us to action.  If we did not have emotions, for what reason would we do anything?  If our emotions were absent, would we care enough about anything to act with appropriate drama when necessary?

Emotions are one form of communicating.  Were it not for our emotions, would anyone else know what was significant to us, whether positive or negatively?  If we always spoke in even tones of voice, would we be effectively communicating not only information, but depth?

Emotions help us process events.  Could we process what needs to be done in a short period of time without emotions?  With anger, we instantly see options for injustices done-- perhaps they are not the best options, but they give us options to begin the process of judging and determining right courses of action.  Depression may slow us down, but this is important for us to do after a time of significant stress.  Fear may lead to fight-or-flight, but when we see that these are only the first responses to a varied situation, but often the instant response is the correct one.  Without emotions would we accomplish what we need to do, as quickly as they need to be done?

In the end, the question is: are emotions necessary, or should we get rid of them?  As useful as emotions are in these ways, could they be better replaced by more rational, thoughtful responses?  Or do we need the instant, intuitive, personal response-- is it a part of being human?  Could we even reason appropriately without emotions?  Is it possible, or desirable, to live on planet Vulcan?