Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
So vox populi is always more ethical than any individual according to your philosophy?
Take it a step further: an individual’s reality doesn’t even exist.
The world you see is a model built upon external stimuli but those stimuli are capable of being false or wrong, therefor the only viable method of observing the world outside of the self is via repeated experimentation and verification with peers. I place literally zero value on an individual’s account of anything.
But yes, to answer your question in plain English, I think the only way to achieve the highest amount of satisfaction for the most people while abstaining from harm for all people is via a perfect and equal democracy. Every other method to approach ethics will fail to promote widespread wellbeing while avoiding harm. In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?
Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.
Half that list go to great lengths to prevent themselves from being offed on a daily if not hourly basis.
Mao’s regime has survived to today. Stalin died of heart disease.
I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that “we the people” so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?
The person you responded to is making the point that people don’t rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn’t/haven’t died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.
I’m also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.
A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.
There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.
On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.
Fuck, you Tankies sure like to ramble. It’s like you forget you’ve already lost all credibility before you post full page comments.
I’m not a Tankie. This right here is exactly what I expected.
I’m trying to bridge the gap between the two arguments being made in this thread.
The masses have to have an avenue to make change and decide ethics. People like Mao and Stalin and Musk and so on deliberately go out of their way to circumvent those avenues.
Eventually that leads to a pressure cooker of violent action because diplomacy has failed.
Either way, Ethics informs law, they aren’t two mutually exclusive entities.
You’re sounding an awful lot like a Mao apologist right now.
And if Mao could see what China has become he’d off the whole party.
Least coherent list in world history.
lmfao
Willfully ignoring so hard he forgets the context for which the implication stands upon.
No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he’s softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.
Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil…
Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not ‘Men who lived’ is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.
You are engaging with an unserious person and I recommend treating them as such
Quite right. That is my bad for feeding the unproductive, unserious israeli troll farm agent.
Mao killed those landlords right before he starved millions for shits and giggles, just like Trump and Musk killed millions of children after Xi helped him get reelected.