2 ms·

I mean, it's not the point, not to sound picky, because, the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not. It's be

I mean, it's not the point, not to sound picky, because, the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not. It's because people under this rule have no power, no influence, almost no clue about it, because of the imbalance and the disconnect (of power, of knowledge, of capacity). Such as would any creature under a powerful god, would gods exist. But you at least expect gods to have some sort of perfection or status or narrative that could somehow justify their whereabouts. But here, there's no god. Just imperfect, broken humans breaking other humans, imperfectly, often for the wrong, or no reason at all. That will never make something right. That will certainly entice more hate and more evil. That's why this kind of weapon should be banned by treaties as unconventional (which they are). This is not war. This is ruthless domination, for better or for worse (more than often, worse).

tempguy9999 7y ago
> the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not Really? You don't think that whether people are better off matters? Or fundamentally, whether a thing is justified or not matters? Now I'm curious as to the basis of your morality. Could you explain how you would judge a thing to be right or not? (this sounds rather attacking, I'm not, just really interested). I expect I've got wires crossed but I'd like to uncross them.
- Juliate 7y ago
  It does matter. Tremendously. But the means to it matter as much, because they bring their own sets of consequences with them (and that is more than often ignored or overlooked, for "short term benefits"). The justification of an action is as much in the fruits, as in the roots. Both come hand in hand ultimately. (edit to add the following:) Then, as to judge/discern, I can't say I have a definite, certain receipt. I fear and keep away from those who say they do have one. I don't mean to advertise the "basis of my morality". I'm not that good. I have a set of principles, that come mostly from my (Catholic, practicing) upbringing (but that don't match at all what most "Christians in the US" showcase, if that can give an idea) + an inner desire for peace, balance and truth (as hard and harsh it could be) that many take for naiveté, + an acute critical look for bullshit, I guess. But that's not very telling, is it? :p

tempguy9999 7y ago

> the point is not to know whether the action is justified or not, people are better off or not Really? You don't think that whether people are better off matters? Or fundamentally, whether a thing is justified or not matters? Now I'm curious as to the basis of your morality. Could you explain how you would judge a thing to be right or not? (this sounds rather attacking, I'm not, just really interested). I expect I've got wires crossed but I'd like to uncross them.

Juliate 7y ago
It does matter. Tremendously. But the means to it matter as much, because they bring their own sets of consequences with them (and that is more than often ignored or overlooked, for "short term benefits"). The justification of an action is as much in the fruits, as in the roots. Both come hand in hand ultimately. (edit to add the following:) Then, as to judge/discern, I can't say I have a definite, certain receipt. I fear and keep away from those who say they do have one. I don't mean to advertise the "basis of my morality". I'm not that good. I have a set of principles, that come mostly from my (Catholic, practicing) upbringing (but that don't match at all what most "Christians in the US" showcase, if that can give an idea) + an inner desire for peace, balance and truth (as hard and harsh it could be) that many take for naiveté, + an acute critical look for bullshit, I guess. But that's not very telling, is it? :p