@Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh
POLL REQUEST
every boy growing up has to contend with violence & war. his attitude to violence, capacity for it, inclination for it, skill level, under what conditions to use it, against whom, how far to go.
this includes hunting, revenge, retaliation, defense & offense. and for those of us that believe in a moral universe, good and evil.
under your ethical framework, how do you contend with this?
@Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh
Thanks gents, good turnout.
Pacifism: I included this option but unsurprised it got ZERO votes. It's a retarded option.
Might Is Right: The winner, and not surprising for this audience. Your heroes are likely Greco-Roman and/or the Nietzschean ideal. You have to ALWAYS win, or accept every degradation of defeat you inflict on your foes. Your strongest enemies are Jihadists / Holy War-ists.
@Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh
Consequentialism:The runner up, and probably the winner in normie audiences. Congrats, you are the inheritors of Atheist Liberalism. This wins against personal 'Might is Right' (i.e. fucking RUN when overpowered), but fails against geopolitical 'Might is Right' AND 'Jihadism'. It is also highly susceptible to demoralization.
@Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh
Jihad / Holy War: You live in a moral universe where objective morality is Truth. This paradigm never fails according to it's own internal rules. It can TEMPORARILY lose against 'Might is Right' and 'Consequentialism / Just War' in a 1v1 AND geoplitically, but is not susceptible to demoralization. All things equal, it wins the long game due to the power of Eschatology.
@Engineer @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Stahesh
I'll concede, if there is a post vote change allowed I would go for option B over C.
Life is short, life is sweet, and life is precious. I don't like being the one to decide that for others but you're right, might is right. We're all just a bunch of damned dirty apes, amiright?
L taken.
@Engineer @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh
> Do you really think most religions military leaders genuinely believed their own bullshit?
Theocratic leaders? Yes.
No matter, let's grant your thesis. If your fighting age men are true believers and ready to martyr themselves, good luck.
In any fight, personal or army, the 3 winning variables are size, technique and heart.
Many a smaller man or army has defeated a larger foe out of sheer ferocity.
@Engineer @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh while i mostly agree with "Might makes Right" i do observe that there are cultural universals, and that sort of implies that there might be a "common morality" , values that are seemingly inborn across many different groups of people, the taboo on incest is a good example, and I believe it is present regardless if it is explicitly taught or not.
@PordanJeterson @Engineer @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh your common morality is meaningless in the face of a strong enemy who thinks that might makes right. Only when you are strong and your enemies have been defeated or unable to fight/win against you, only then can you allow yourself to explore such mentality. Good luck arguing your moral supremacy against a stronger enemy who thinks that might makes right
@37712 @Engineer @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh not moral supremacy, just values that for whatever reason were adopted by many groups, completely independent of eachother, likely due to all of these behaviors aiding in survival or reproduction, or even child rearing in some manner. That really the only reason there is any "universal morality" it is simply values that are beneficial to all hominids (and in many cases other species too) survival.
@PordanJeterson @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh I've always seen exceptions to every sop-called "cultural universal" I've come across.
The physical consequences are always the same
But different people have different goals for what physical consequences they want
If there are certain physical consequences that a group of people agree on then that is objective for that group and group consensus can be reached
If people do not want to be murdered and they hang around other people who do not want to be murdered
They know that they want to eliminate people who murder people from murdering them
Everyone in that community is wiling to use defensive force to imprison or execute or somehow stop people from murdering even if they do not care if other people then themselves are murdered simply to prevent a murderer who might go for them next wondering around
This means if you do not want to be killed or imprisoned you would try to hang around such a community and also not murder people because if you murder people the community will retaliate against you by executing or imprisoning you
This results in a shared objective morality for all people who do not want to be murdered and who also do not want to be imprisoned
Ultimately this results in something very similar to a voluntaryist, anarchist, libertarian, classical liberal, minarchist, christian morality, or a morality similar to many other religions, philosophies and worldviews that suggest not to initiate violence but to use defensive force against violence
Although this does not lead to a 100% match with any of these necessarily depending on the fine details of which version of which philosophy, religion, worldview, political system, etc.
But such morality is not universally preferable by all people as some people commit suicide
@Engineer @UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh whatever happened to exceptions don't break the rule?
@shortstories @37712 @ButtWorldsMan @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Engineer @Stahesh @Tfmonkey @UncleIroh did you even read this?
Wikidedia lists lots of royalty committing incest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage
Incest in Bible Stories
In the biblical narrative, Sarah is the wife of Abraham. In two places in the narrative he says Sarah is his sister
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah
Can You Marry Your Relation?
The immediate reaction to Cain marrying his sister or niece is often shock or disgust. Today, marrying close relations is called incest. However, approximately 6,000 years ago God did not forbid marriage between close relatives
answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/creation-basics/
@shortstories @37712 @ButtWorldsMan @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Engineer @Stahesh @Tfmonkey @UncleIroh The point is is that there is a disgust for taboo in the vast majority of cultures, regardless of how different or far apart they are, and that a behavioral phenomena that would arise this frequently in exclusive conditions is pretty significant.
@UncleIroh @Tfmonkey @ButtWorldsMan @shortstories @37712 @Chimi_Chuang_Tzu @Stahesh Might makes Right is undefeated, because you can use theological or other ideological exploits to maintain an iron grip on your normie masses. Do you really think most religions military leaders genuinely believed their own bullshit? Of course not. Psy-ops are just another form of exerting might. Might makes right is not a moral position, it is an astute observation of reality.