5 ms·

Meh. It's sad, but the structure of the universe is probably such that one cannot become a leader of millions without being a villain.

DFHippie 8y ago
You can ignore any villainy by this formula. "All leaders are villains, so I'm turning my attention elsewhere." As Edmund Burke or someone said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Also, it relies on equating hard moral choices with villainy. A hard moral choice is making citizen A hungrier so citizen B doesn't starve. Villainy is robbing citizen A to enrich citizen B because you like B more.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  The post you are replying to merely makes a statement, not the ethical argument that you have interpreted it as (though your distinction between hard choices and villainy is important.) I happen to think that it is an incorrect statement, and that, while leaders of millions will make mistakes, they need not necessarily be villainous. To be clear, I am not claiming that Churchill's actions in Ireland, Iraq and India were merely mistakes - the worst of them, together with the attitudes that allegedly justified them, belong in the annals of infamy.
- towaway1138 8y ago
  As a single individual, it's probably more effective to work on local ethical issues than to try to do something about global villainy. There are a few people in very special places and times who have the ability to make a global effect (Wikileaks comes to mind), but that's quite rare. Yes, we can denounce villainy that occurs on the global stage. But in truth that's almost entirely virtue signaling. We look good, but there's no difference effected in the world. Do something that makes a difference. Despising Churchill is useless, even if he deserved it (which is dubious).
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > But in truth that's almost entirely virtue signaling. We look good, but there's no difference effected in the world. This isn't true at all. The collective fiction that makes up civilization depends on this. Saying you believe in free speech, even though free speech is a national policy decision, is not virtue signalling if enough people do it. Saying you're against racism isn't virtue signalling if that makes the community as a whole more loudly against racism. If everyone becomes cynical and refuses to "virtue signal" as you pejoratively call it, it swings the door wide open to the government ignoring our rights since the people have collectively already decided to give up.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- naasking 8y ago
  > You can ignore any villainy by this formula. "All leaders are villains, so I'm turning my attention elsewhere." Perhaps it's more that those viewed as "good leaders" are simply the villains that were needed at that point in time. It's easy to villify almost anyone in retrospect, even if people at the time viewed those issues in much the same way.
thelasthuman 8y ago
Would you support a equitable society free of hierarchy (and then free of these leaders that must be villans)?

DFHippie 8y ago

You can ignore any villainy by this formula. "All leaders are villains, so I'm turning my attention elsewhere." As Edmund Burke or someone said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Also, it relies on equating hard moral choices with villainy. A hard moral choice is making citizen A hungrier so citizen B doesn't starve. Villainy is robbing citizen A to enrich citizen B because you like B more.

mannykannot 8y ago
The post you are replying to merely makes a statement, not the ethical argument that you have interpreted it as (though your distinction between hard choices and villainy is important.) I happen to think that it is an incorrect statement, and that, while leaders of millions will make mistakes, they need not necessarily be villainous. To be clear, I am not claiming that Churchill's actions in Ireland, Iraq and India were merely mistakes - the worst of them, together with the attitudes that allegedly justified them, belong in the annals of infamy.
towaway1138 8y ago
As a single individual, it's probably more effective to work on local ethical issues than to try to do something about global villainy. There are a few people in very special places and times who have the ability to make a global effect (Wikileaks comes to mind), but that's quite rare. Yes, we can denounce villainy that occurs on the global stage. But in truth that's almost entirely virtue signaling. We look good, but there's no difference effected in the world. Do something that makes a difference. Despising Churchill is useless, even if he deserved it (which is dubious).
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > But in truth that's almost entirely virtue signaling. We look good, but there's no difference effected in the world. This isn't true at all. The collective fiction that makes up civilization depends on this. Saying you believe in free speech, even though free speech is a national policy decision, is not virtue signalling if enough people do it. Saying you're against racism isn't virtue signalling if that makes the community as a whole more loudly against racism. If everyone becomes cynical and refuses to "virtue signal" as you pejoratively call it, it swings the door wide open to the government ignoring our rights since the people have collectively already decided to give up.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
naasking 8y ago
> You can ignore any villainy by this formula. "All leaders are villains, so I'm turning my attention elsewhere." Perhaps it's more that those viewed as "good leaders" are simply the villains that were needed at that point in time. It's easy to villify almost anyone in retrospect, even if people at the time viewed those issues in much the same way.

thelasthuman 8y ago

Would you support a equitable society free of hierarchy (and then free of these leaders that must be villans)?