4 ms·
Interesting. So you think morality is quantifiable? Like it's fine to violate X amount of human rights but not X + 1. I'd like to hear your criteria.
by RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
Interesting. So you think morality is quantifiable? Like it's fine to violate X amount of human rights but not X + 1. I'd like to hear your criteria.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y agoIf you think genocide, ethnic cleansing, natural resource exploitation on a global scale, modern day slavery & deadly global pathogen release are equivalent to US misconduct I wouldn't know where to begin in engaging with you.
- RyEgswuCsn 5y agoI can spin this too if you allow me: "genocide" of Muslims via constant war-waging; "ethnic cleansing" of native Americans; natural resource exploitation on a global scale; "modern day slavery" (i.e. extreme capitalism) both domestically by trapping workers into lifetime debts, and overseas by outsourcing to sweat shops; "deadly global pathogen release" by politicising pandemic responses while failing at it. Rivalry states smear each others all the time. Also no contender for hegemony is morally superior than another.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago> no contender for hegemony is morally superior than another. Contemplate Nazi Germany winning WWII, or Soviet Russia winning the Cold War. Your contention doesn't stand up to history's lessons.
- RyEgswuCsn 5y agoThat’s exactly the point. Had the Nazis won WWII, the narrative would have been the allies were the one that commit genocides, the morally corrupt, and the war-mongers; the Nazis will boast themselves as the most righteous, and most people would have no problem believing that. Hard to imagine for sure, but in a world where the winners write the history, it would be naive to think only the winners must be just because “justice always prevails”.