4 ms·
It's refusing to accept that there is a moral basis for initiating force or harm against another. Now this world really does operate by force, and spends a lot
by verisimi 3y ago
It's refusing to accept that there is a moral basis for initiating force or harm against another.
Now this world really does operate by force, and spends a lot of resources to accommodate its citizens to its force - education, culture, finance, law are all part of the toolbox. It will justify itself, call itself 'good', 'better than other options'.. it will even use its superior forces to undermine any other attempts of living. Anyone who initiates violence against someone is in the wrong - it does not miraculously become 'right' when the government does it, just cos it has written some rules on bits of paper.
So it depends on how you stack things. Is doing things right most important thing? Or is one in thrall to whoever currently holds the levers of power to exercise its force as they see fit? And, a personal question, if it is the latter - do you call this is if force 'good', is government good? Do you accept this authority?
- ajkjk 3y agoRight but most people won't agree with that premise, about there being no moral basis for harm. It is weird and irrelevant to reality for most of us. If you are trying to make a point to someone else who doesn't reject that premise, then it does literally nothing to talk about all the conclusions that follow from the premise. It only convinces your audience that they were right to ignore you in the first place because you are discussing an irrelevant contrived question.
- verisimi 3y agoYes, most people think it's fine to initiate harm. It's foundational to the state. It's a choice to accept this, and go along with it.