MasteroChieftan t1_ja8hp0u wrote
Reply to comment by Feerlez_Leeder101 in Universal ethics/basic law for all people & global moral education: A new way to sustainability and peace? by fortin1984
Thought experiment - If we can accept endless brutal violence against us by the anti-social for no reason, can we not accept limited brutal violence against the anti-social, by us, for the purpose of making a more peaceful and sustainable society?
JoeRuckus319 t1_ja8k1is wrote
It only took 2 hours and 45 minutes to go from "We should all agree on a common ethic for peace" to "we should kill everyone who disagrees."
Honestly, I expected it to come faster.
MasteroChieftan t1_ja8l2q3 wrote
"We should all agree" is a nice sentiment. But that's all it is. You can't even get people to agree that a pandemic is worth being socially cautious.
The bad guys write the rule book. It sucks and I hate violence. But violence is a tool.
Every society employs force to get its people to confirm to its laws and ways.
Feerlez_Leeder101 t1_ja8kndz wrote
One is faccism the other is communism.
MasteroChieftan t1_ja8l7vd wrote
Employing force on a serial killer is not fascism or communism.
Feerlez_Leeder101 t1_ja8sd2i wrote
When did anyone mention serial killers? Is that your biggest concern about humanity at large? The serial killers? Alright, fine, we'll lock them all up for ya, like they already are. Now the question remains, what about all of the rest? And who gets to define "antisocial"? Do we just kill anyone anytime they do anything wrong like a eugenic meritocracy?
MasteroChieftan t1_ja8xglx wrote
Nope. Just the purest example of my point that we assert our will violently on people who're anti-social.
Who gets to define anti-social? Hopefully someone kind and pragmatic who also has empathy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments