4 ms·

On the contrary, if luck decided everything, why shouldn't the luckier reap the rewards of their luck? Pagan religions put a great deal of emphasis on fortune a

On the contrary, if luck decided everything, why shouldn't the luckier reap the rewards of their luck? Pagan religions put a great deal of emphasis on fortune and very little on one's own moral choices. They believed that the fortunate have a moral obligation to rule the unlucky. That's why new emperors were hailed with "Felicior Augusto". Does someone deserve a position of responsibility, say a military command, just because life has been unfair to them? What if you give him a command and his bad luck continues? It would doom not only him, but his soldiers as well. Similarly, why should a fortunate man share his wealth with the less fortunate? If life is just one big casino, would you share your chips with someone in the middle of a losing streak? It's interesting how most modern attempts to redefine morality, in order to supposedly screw it in the favor of the poor, so often end up resurrecting the ethical systems of times and places, where the poor would fight to the death for the entertainment of the rich.

gamegoblin 4y ago
I think the notion of "everything is luck" and "what should we do about that" are totally orthogonal. One is an "is" statement, the other is an "ought" statement, and it is entirely unclear how to go from one to the other (and I don't attempt to do so). Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
vintermann 4y ago
> They believed that the fortunate have a moral obligation to rule the unlucky. Hardly. It's just that they can, and it feels good to rule over others, so why shouldn't they? You aren't really a "bad pagan" if you decide to do otherwise. You're just possibly a foolish one. The only "pagan sin" is hubris, thinking that you're more powerful than you are and gaping over too much. I agree that there's a tendency to recreate all that stuff.

gamegoblin 4y ago

I think the notion of "everything is luck" and "what should we do about that" are totally orthogonal. One is an "is" statement, the other is an "ought" statement, and it is entirely unclear how to go from one to the other (and I don't attempt to do so). Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

vintermann 4y ago

> They believed that the fortunate have a moral obligation to rule the unlucky. Hardly. It's just that they can, and it feels good to rule over others, so why shouldn't they? You aren't really a "bad pagan" if you decide to do otherwise. You're just possibly a foolish one. The only "pagan sin" is hubris, thinking that you're more powerful than you are and gaping over too much. I agree that there's a tendency to recreate all that stuff.