4 ms·

>Once the missiles are flying, there is no rational reason to retaliate Why is that? It appears to me that most humans value getting revenge on an enemy who h

• jokoon 7y ago
  Like it was discussed, if you're already dead, why kill your enemy? It's vain and childish, because in this case killing doesn't serve any purpose. Revenge comes from an emotion, that's why I'm saying it's not really rational. Nuclear weapons are weird, because it's not really designed to kill soldiers, and even if it does, you can't hide from it. It's an honorless weapon. And remember why it was designed.
  • nokcha 7y ago
    >because in this case killing doesn't serve any purpose. Revenge comes from an emotion, that's why I'm saying it's not really rational. Rationality is a means of achieving a goal. Rationality says nothing about what the ultimate goal should be. If one's system of ethics places value on punishing those who misbehave, then it would be perfectly rational to launch a revenge counterattack. And I think it is quite plausible that humans evolved to behave in accordance with a system of ethics that places value on retributive justice. Viewed from the perspective of game theory, being able to credibly pre-commit to punishing defectors even at one's own expense can be quite helpful in the long run. Perhaps you think that launching a revenge counterattack is wrong. But I contend that that is a question of ethics, not a question of rationality.
    • jokoon 7y ago
      you're being pedantic I don't think there's value to retributive justice