5 ms·
Convenience isn't the point. The rules of society, laws, morality, ethics, compassion as a virtue ... they don't exist as physical laws. They're human construct
by gnat 4y ago
Convenience isn't the point. The rules of society, laws, morality, ethics, compassion as a virtue ... they don't exist as physical laws. They're human constructs, and humans can (and do) choose to ignore them.
It's an important growth moment to realise that the consequences of violating those "laws" are not delivered by the laws of nature but instead by the behaviour of humans. So you can be rude or arrogant, and the only punishment for that comes from people choosing not to work with you or similarly being unpleasant back to you.
Nazis had a lack of compassion and denied some people the (man-made!) rights of humanity based on race, ability, sexual orientation, and other categories. The consequences for that behaviour had to come from other people standing up to them.
I've met people who think that "the universe" will deliver just punishment for violating an ethical or moral code. In reality, every society and set of values is held together by people defending them and meting out punishing to violators. Sometimes formally (police, courts, armies, declarations of war) and sometimes personally.
- rgrieselhuber 4y agoI understand the argument you’re putting forth, I just view it as the equivalent of the argument made by the Nihilist Germans in The Big Lebowski. It ends in will to power. Within the constraints of the materialistic assumptions underlying it, I do agree that the ideals of compassion and empathy are examples of best-case behavior but the humans who rise to the top in such systems are usually not encumbered with the capacity for either. They would push back on the constraints of such “objective ideals” anyway because they see no coherent place for them in will to power systems.
- sanroot98 4y agoAt macroscopic level ,human construct is as valid as nature's