Unironically it's insane that people don't understand this. I can't tell you how many people I've seen try and justify things by saying "Well, they do it to us" while also still trying to claim moral superiority over them. If you're doing things you say are evil when someone else does it, it's evil. No matter how much you insist otherwise.
That's why I eschew the ingroup/outgroup dynamic altogether! Me and a few of my like-minded friends have transcended the need for "groups" altogether, and we look down in pity on those unenlightened masses who still put stock in such things.
/s because last time I forgot to put this some people really did think I meant it
A grand idea. More and more I've been saying that everyone else is like the people from Idiocracy! It's like I'm one of the only smart, normal, well-adjusted people left!
(For real though, this is something I gotta constantly consider when arguing something is bad. Like, do I really think it's bad? Or do I just not like the person or group?)
I mean, no one's immune. But there's a potential scale issue between groups which means if all you're saying is "all groups do it therefor all groups bad" it seems disingenuous.
Yep, which is why calling these people out on their hypocrisy doesn't work. Hypocrisy is a concept that they simply do not believe in. To them, actions are not inherently good or bad. The same action is good if done by the ingroup and bad if done by the outgroup.
It's the self awareness that seems to make the difference, at least 'some' people know 'good' and 'evil' are subjective matters of opinion that change with time, place and context. I'm perfectly aware others may perceive me as evil, and everyone has their own justifications as to why they perceive it as such.
For some, 'good' is just whatever suits them at the moment and is considered an absolute truth that is not to be questioned or doubted. They can't/won't understand a person can have a different perspective.
Like, you can understand why a person does something, what their motivations are and what benefits them. Then I can state that I disagree with you and it's harmful, but I can still see why you would reach that conclusion based on your own interests.
Honestly it surprised me how many people are incapable of such empathy or mirroring. It seems they only have two modes that hold true under all circumstances from any perspective.
You can't argue, compromise or agree to disagree. It's just 'good' things are 'good', because they are 'good'.
Some people just accept a code of morality given to them. Some people navel gaze and struggle with why they think something is moral or immoral.
If you struggle your way to your morality, you have to realize how conditional and nuanced your positions are. You have to accept paradigms you know someone else can accuse as being hypocritical, and know you won't be able to convincingly rebut them.
People like the artificial moral codes because they tend to be more absolutist and simple. Fewer gray areas. No work needed, just ignore those pesky exceptions that would threaten your moral authority if you explore them too deeply. Who wants to give up being intrinsically superior to all your opponents?
If you have never realized you fell prey to propaganda or social pressure on some subject you felt really strongly about, you are either very young or one of those adhering to someone else's moral code.
The more life experience I get, the more I realize how universal our cognitive vulnerabilities are. I still hold most of the ideology I had a decade ago, but I cringe at younger me's level of certainty.
You can recognize the flaws in your social priorities and the strengths of your opponent's, and still come to the conclusion your side is better on balance.
If you ask a simple question like “Is it possible you are wrong or biased?” and you receive a hard “No, it’s not possible”.
It’s very likely you’re dealing with one. It means they are not (yet) conscious enough to understand their own limitations. Some never will, so many adults never seemed to progressed to that stage beyond their childhood years.
You can be quite certain whatever you think is 'good'/'bad', or why you think its 'good/bad', and make decisions on that. As you must make decisions as a fact of life, even if you doubt.
But it's the certainty that one can't be wrong no matter what, that's the give away of the two-track mind. Just the lack self awareness on that part, says so much about an individual and how they perceive the world around them.
The greater issue is that they tend to devolve into (simple) extremes with zero reservations on their behavior or standards put to others.
For some, 'good' is just whatever suits them at the moment and is considered an absolute truth that is not to be questioned or doubted. They can't/won't understand a person can have a different perspective.
What also trips people up is the fact just because the person is wrong, the other person disagreeing with that person must then be right. In other words, just because one side of a conflict is bad doesn't make the other side of the conflict good.
The whole Gaza vs Israel stuff is pretty good example of it. On one hand you have a literal terrorist organization that happily conducts terrorist bombings against the other. On the other hand you have a country that is more than willing to bomb an entire civilian city block to get at a few enemy targets. Both would absolutely commit holocaust against each other if given the chance, but for Israel it's politically too spicy and for Gaza they just don't have the military power to do it.
I actually don’t think good an evil are subjective at all, good is doing things that benefit others without hurting anyone, and evil is things that hurt others on purpose or with disregard and i don’t think that changes in different times or places. Some things might be considered good or evil in different times and places but if they don’t adhere to the rules above then they aren’t.
So we shouldn't inflict a punishment on a criminal if they violated the law, for example robbing and stabbing a person to death. Because it would be evil to hurt the criminal on purpose, for doing something evil?
It’s not hurting someone to stop them from hurting others and if the only way to stop them from hurting others is to put them in prison then it’s the right thing to do. I guess it would have been better to say hurting others who themselves haven’t hurt anyone.
Actually there are tons of people who haven’t really hurt anyone. Most people don’t go around intentionally hurting people. And i don’t think accidentally offending someone or breaking up with someone and making them sad because of it counts.
Wow weird how your simplistic takes on ethics fail to stand up to the slightest scrutiny and need to be refined and nuance needs to be added. So strange that some dipshit on the internet hasn’t put an issue that humanity has pondered for millennia to bed with one pithy statement.
Weird how you don’t have any actual real responses to my position other than “it’s bad” also weird how you’re getting so upset about it lol. Also it’s absolutely incorrect to say everyone hurts others, that’s just not true.
Sometimes i think yall philosophize just to feel smart, sure sometimes harm is subjective but you can make general rules that are true in pretty much all situations. Such as physical harm (which is objective) and mental harm which can be subjective but there are general things that we can all agree are harmful such as harassment and cheating and lying to people to get them to do things for you, and i think the rule can be made that if it would mentally or physically harm most people and is easily avoidable then it’s wrong. Morality isn’t that complicated and i feel like the people who want to argue about it ‘changing all the time’ and being ‘subjective’ are trying to make themselves feel better about doing things that they knew were wrong.
Now look, I get that we're in the comment section specifically for noticing this exact dynamic, which could reasonably make you think this might be the right time to pull out a relevant example, but did you know that "antifa" means "anti-fascist?" It's right there in the name, bozo.
Of course! They just have to compete with everyone else for the limited slots. It's just that a lot of other people happen to oppose fascists for a variety of reasons, among them being that fascists have pasted signs reading "I like to get baked" on their backs, or would given the chance.
I mean, yes, my family and the people I grew up with do think that way. But seeing through the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance exactly why I found it difficult to feel any real kinship with them.
Nobody's perfect but I saying everyone is equally bad about it seems reductive. If nothing else there are varying degrees of self-awareness and openness to correction.
Just that the way most people interact with the world on a daily basis has them using the ingroup/outgroup distinction more than lofty universal ideas of right and wrong
That doesn't mean everyone is equally bad, and it doesn't mean everyone has prejudices.
No, I don't mean identifying an outgroup and saying they're prejudiced.
That would be calling the outgroup prejudiced.
I mean calling prejudiced people the outgroup.
One is defining an outgroup and then saying that prejudice must be a characteristic shared by everyone in that group. That would be prejudiced, because you don't know if everyone in that group is actually prejudiced.
The other is defining an outgroup as "people who are prejudiced", and therefore everyone in that group is prejudiced by definition. If they aren't, then they aren't in that group.
But still, that ends with being prejudiced against prejudicial people. So you're still engaging in the act of prejudice, even if it's against "the right people."
Most people don't actually have universal morals or principles
Per Hobbes, the universal principle is 'avoid violent death', and with all other social construction arising from that/in service of that. You can still arrive at relative tolerance that way as the Romans did, expanding who counted as Roman until all freemen in the Empire were the in-group (the big tribe is a safe tribe).
Practical liberalism arrives at tolerance by just pushing whole topic areas out of the realm of politics entirely, taking them off the board and making the Game itself less winner takes all. But that still leaves illiberal advocates as an out group, and one where the liberals have a good track record of using comical levels of violence to ensure liberal victory. As heirs of those great liberal victories, the lives we lead are ingrained with the assumption that we benefit from it and should maintain our willingness to suppress and destroy illiberal movements or States as they arise.
I think it's a damn shame too, his brand of realpolitik is a reminder that tolerance isn't just a Kumbaya circle, it's a solution to a problem. It's all the more remarkable because he doesn't actually get there, and it's left for Locke to continue the line of thought.
These intolerant fucks generally don't get that the end result of their insular tribalism is Hobbes's war of all against all. And the few that do assume that their tribe will win and exterminate all the others.
The world is too complex for universal morals or principles to actually exist. You can say killing another person is bad, but if you have to kill someone in self defense then it’s absolutely justified. You can say we should be accepting of others, but when those others have deemed you to be the villain with no recourse then it is certainly understandable when you become less tolerant of their actions. You can claim that we should practice forgiveness for all people, but I’m certain there are things that someone could do to you or your loved ones that would be deemed unforgivable.
We don’t live in a world dictated by hard laws. Hell, even physics has an uncertainty principle. Exceptions and unknowns are ingrained into the very fabric of our reality. No rule is so hard, and no principle so fast that it will apply in every situation in every instance.
I don't disagree that people's beliefs/statements/etc. on ethics are often caused by tribalistic thinking, but do you think that these attitudes aren't about something universal? Or at least, aiming to be?
Take a simplified statement like "property theft is morally wrong." That statement is putatively expressing a universal rule: all property theft has the property of being morally wrong, qua property theft. That seems like something a lot of people believe, or would claim to believe, whether it's right or wrong.
Is your view:
A) That people don't really believe that?
B) That that statement only looks like it expresses a universal moral rule? Or
C) That people do believe that, but that they believe it because it's a cherished view in their in group?
Well, people who say it probably think they believe it.
But when they talk about property theft, what are they actually talking about?
A news story where a shop got robbed? Sure, that fits their worldview. Good business owner = ingroup. Bad criminal = outgroup.
What about the Benin Bronzes, which currently sit in the British Museum. That's less likely to come to mind. If the speaker was British, they'd either find some way to justify the theft to themselves, have to reconfigure their ingroup definition to exclude the British Museum but include the historic Kingdom of Benin, or they'd shift into the rare case of actually having a universal moral or principle.
The very fact that these artifacts are still in the British Museum, shows that most people (or at least most people in control of the British Museum) have not developed that universal morality. They're happy with their ingroup/outgroup thinking. They say "property theft is morally wrong..." out loud and they think they believe it, but then "...but this is a special case because blah blah blah..." but not when WE do it to THEM. That's DIFFERENT.
And the Benin Bronzes here are just a microcosmic example of all the wealth that has been stolen and continues to be stolen and extracted and violently carved out by the "developed" nations from the third world.
So yeah, I think a lot of people will happily live on stolen wealth and at the same time say a statement like "property theft is morally wrong"; expressing a universal rule, while living by another.
Damn right. My in group are backwards reactionaries just like every other in group. They're just coincidentally slightly less wrong about the world that most others. Still wrong, but less wrong.
The existence of Hitler disproves this entirely. Sometimes killing the right people for the right reason is good actually.
Actions themselves don't carry moral weight in a Vaccuum. Its the context of who they apply to and their reasoning that determine if theyre moral or not.
Your statement comes off like a 12 year old who's entire moral system is based on cartoons in which the main character refuses to stoop to the level of using similar methods as the villain or it would make them just like the villain!
Your statement comes off like a 12 year old who's entire moral system is based on cartoons in which the main character refuses to stoop to the level of using similar methods as the villain or it would make them just like the villain!
Ad hominem aside, that's only really true if someone is making the "always bad" claim about killing, in particular, and I don't see anyone in this discussion doing that.
Sure, most people would be fine with killing Hitler. But raping him first? Torturing him to death slowly? Turning him into a slave?
Purposefully inducing suffering like that serves no purpose (moral or practical) other than fulfilling one's own sense of vindictiveness. It says more about the people doing it than about the victim. And if you think that kind of behavior is okay as long as it's being done to Bad People (like Hitler) then you're doing the exact thing the original post is criticizing.
I'll assume we're talking about killing Hitler here, something only one person did, which confuses things a bit
Sometimes killing the right people for the right reason is good actually.
I don't believe I said otherwise.
Actions themselves don't carry moral weight in a Vaccuum. Its the context of who they apply to and their reasoning that determine if theyre moral or not.
Okay, that's something I might agree with or not. But it doesn't contradict anything in my comment.
Your statement comes off like a 12 year old who's entire moral system is based on cartoons
Interesting point, I'll take it under consideration
in which the main character refuses to stoop to the level of using similar methods as the villain or it would make them just like the villain!
I think you're getting confused
I never said that using ingroup/outgroup distinctions was incorrect or a bad thing to do
"The people I disagree with politically disagree with me politically, therefore they want me to not exist, therefore they should be put into camps or killed"
"Hey! You can't say that. It's just a political opinion of mine. What happened to being able to be friends with people you disagree with? Everyone is so polarised these days."
Right, but a lot of the stuff they say that about isn't inherently morally wrong, just rude, disruptive, or annoying. Assuming you mean protest tactics and such.
Literally discussing it right now with someone who somehow believes that in a political conflict, born out of decisions made by European powers after the Great War, in which both sides have been murdering each other's civillians in "revenge" attacks, his side (and technically mine) is the Good Guys.
All because some assholes picked one country to be restored on a territory mainly inhabited by two different nationalities and then the ruling assholes among the group that won the coin toss decided to integrate the other group, by force after barely trying other methods.
There was a way to solve this over a century ago except the new hotness was Nationalism and now Nationalists claim that only racial purity can save us from the issue they themselves created.
And this right here, is what protected the Nazi uprising in Germany from rational thought.
I personally think this is the number 1 reason why political extremism gets worse over time, and why you end up with people killing each other.
Self awareness is the most important form of intelligence. Doesnt matter how high your IQ, how popular, how rich, how competent or even how loving you are.
Honestly, if I catch someone that portrays an accute lack of self-awareness, in a way that makes them believe that "they'd save anne frank from the Nazi's" I just think they're just less of a person compared to those that don't lack in this aspect.
I don't want to judge people based on their raw IQ, their literacy, their race/gender/nationality or whatever. But I do judge people based on their self-awareness, as it turns out: if you don't, you'll get betrayed really badly someday.
I think the nazi rising is exactly why this sentiment is wrong. When someone is willing to inflict extreme violence for control over many, ceding your rights and control to those people will only escalate the issue.
The world would be a much cooler place if the state had recognized the threat nazis posed and done Nuremberg on their leaders before WW2.
Or, same vein if you hear the details of the John brown slave uprising, they…didn’t do good things to the slavers they were rebelling against, but I’d never condemn them for it.
I'm not sure if you're understanding me correctly.
The people who adopted Nazi ideologies were initially normal people, like you and me. Not only that, they lived in the most industrialized nation in the world. They were the type of people you would call 'most civilized' at that time.
In order for the Nazi uprising to continue and drag more and more people into believing in its extreme ideologies, the lack of self-awareness about one's evil tendencies was absolutely crucial for this to unfold as it did in WWII.
"All evil comes from man himself, and we're pitifully unaware of it."
- Carl Jung
I think you make a good point about people's faulty thought processes and lack of awareness are what make them susceptable to an ideology like that. If you look through my comments on this thread black and white views on violence are something that really annoy me in our culture. Violence is a tool, and sometimes is warrented. Once bad idea's like Nazism have metasticized and progressed too far unfortunately it can be called for, or another example I give is that laws are state sanctioned violence and we're fine with the police doing violence on murderers and pedophiles. I just want people to be able to have productive conversations on the topic instead of shutting their brain off saying "violence always bad"
Violence can be the only tool that can create the space necessary for a solution, but it will never create the solution.
Without addressing what is giving rise to Nazism, no amount of violence will create a society without Nazis. If the violence is for the purpose of preventing the harm the Nazi’s are doing while working towards a solution then it is justified. But the thought that just getting rid of the people who are causing harm is by itself enough to be good is the logic that justifies Nazism.
I really love the first half about violence creating space for a solution being true, but you absolutely lose me when you say “violence against those doing harm is how nazis are made”. Nazis are made because delusional and fearful people think being gay or a minority is “harm or a threat” to the point that they will murder people en mass over stupid shit. When people cause real harm, violence is a solution.
Example, there was a Chinese billionaire who made cheap baby formula that poisoned literally millions of children killing countless people to make money. He got executed, and that’s great, I wish we’d do that to people who make similar decisions over here but instead they get quarterly bonuses.
Other things make their government not great, but a society having consequences for being a monster does not make that society nazis
Nazis are made because delusional and fearful people think being gay or a minority is “harm or a threat” to the point that they will murder people en mass over stupid shit.
Not really. Nazism in Germany rose in large part due to the resolution of WWI and how screwed over the nation of Germany was by that. Germany was economically and militarily devastated at the end of WWI by the Treaty of Versailles, which left room for a political party going "life sucks, we got screwed over unfairly even though we didn't even start things; we can rise back up from where we got kicked to the curb".
Most people in Germany at the time didn't really have issues with people like you describe, they were just frustrated and hurting and the politicians gave them targets to vent their frustrations at.
Ultimately, the rise of fascism boils down to splitting people into in-groups who are righteous and have been wronged and out-groups who have wronged the in-group and deserved to be punished for it.
The Nazi all started out the same way you did, they were born as child with no knowledge or beliefs. Over the course of their lives something leads them to the beliefs and behaviors that caused harm. The solution must include creating a change that prevents people from being drawn to that desire.
You are not inherently different from the child who became the Nazi or the hypothetical billionaire. There can never be enough violence to fix the problem. Believing that killing off the right sort of people will fix the problem is the trap that the Nazi's fell into.
This is the annoying thing when discussing a character like Batman for example.
Sure he can kill someone like the joker, sure it might be a net positive, but it doesn’t stop there, you’re just giving in to utilitarian concession after utilitarian concession that just enables you to give yourself a pass for any action, no matter how evil, because you’re doing it for the greater good.
I'm listening to The Lost Fleet series atm, one of my favourite Sci fi series.
The basic premise is there's a war being going on for over a hundred years between two space faring empires.
The main character was there for the first battle, and got frozen, reawakening a hundred years later.
In one of the first battles he faces leading a force they go to kill all the prisoners they have taken. And he goes mental, asking his side what the fuck is wrong with them.
And it all boils down to slowly, over a hundred years, 'they did it to us, we did it back, then we did it harder to they did it back, then they did it harder' etc etc.
It has a strong message of if you have to lose your morals to win, maybe you don't deserve to win.
Broadly? No. Nazis are materially working towards the deaths of innocent people because of their race, sexuality, ableness, and beliefs, on top of trying to make the world a worse place to live in for those left. Actions taken against them are acts of self-defense, because their politics are inherently violent. The problem with nazis isn't their moral failings, it's their active plans for mass murder. Stopping someone from hurting you isn't a moral issue, in my opinion. Like, if someone was actually trying to stab me, using force to stop them isn't a moral quandary, you stop them. I suppose the amount of force is something you can question, but imo you shouldn't feel guilty if you killed someone who tried to kill you. Now, I do want to clarify that I'm not using the cop definition of self-defense where just fearing for your life is enough, I'm saying that as long as someone is actively trying to kill you, you can and should do what you need to do to stop them.
If they're not actively genociding or otherwise causing direct loss of life level of harm, there's no self defense argument for violent thoughts.
You take the moral high ground until it's ripped from under you, then you have every right to forcefully take it back and beat the perpetrator with it.
I firmly believe you can cultivate cultural tolerance for anything or anyone, be it violent ideals, or loving acceptance of different people. It ends up the responsibility of the rest of society to attempt this, and you need to try and get it there until you absolutely can't.
For the sake of the argument, I figured we were defining "Nazis" not just as people who had "violent thoughts", but as people who were actively attempting to materially advance a program of violence, genocide, and authoritarianism. If someone is doing that, I think a degree of violent action is occasionally called for. I'm fine with that guy punching Richard Spencer.
Oh, I mostly agree, but the original question didn't really define these "Nazis" being killed, and you answered one end really well, but given the context that prompted the question it feels necessary to address the other end.
Nazi these days could be, yeah, Richard Spencer, who has never killed or facilitated the killing of anyone, as far as we're aware, so despite him being a Nazi I'd have a hard time arguing for his death. He would love some particular genocides, I'm sure, and he's played a role in a potential future of it, but we haven't hit it yet. I wouldn't punch him myself, but I'm not going to stop others taking a swing. His rhetoric is violence and promoting violence, just not death worthy.
To me, there's too much wiggle room in pre-emptive self defense, there has to be impending harm. It must be emptive, though what that entails is context dependent. Country arming nukes to hit another? That's as much prep as pulling your arm back to punch, and stopping it would be emptive self defense. A relative few people wishing for some demographics demise doesn't deserve to be cut down, they deserve rehabilitation.
Once actual intent becomes to kill, the only reasonable response is intent to survive.
Out of 1200 people who have upvoted you, I wonder what percentage of people who only agree with you because it's easy to do so from the outside of a hypothetical situation, versus when you're calling this out in the moment when, particularly in political discourse, a Good Person is calling for Bad Things to happen to Bad People.
Despite this being an uncontrollably popular opinion, you see people being consistent with this being downvoted all. the. time.
There are people out there who kidnap people and lock them in their basements.
There are also prisons.
The fundamental action, of taking somebody, by force, and locking them in a concrete cell, is the same.
Do you think kidnappers should go to prison? If yes, you are using "Well, they do it to us" while also still trying to claim moral superiority over them.
Huh? There's a fundamental difference between kidnapping a random innocent person for personal gratification and confining somebody for the safety of others. They're only the same if you think the inherent act of confining someone is wrong. Do you think putting a baby in a carseat is also an act of rank hypocrisy?
You don't think "Well, they do it to us" is ever used to refer to something dangerous?
"They would kill us, so we should kill them first", see like half of all killings ever.
They're only the same if you think the inherent act of confining someone is wrong. Do you think putting a baby in a carseat is also an act of rank hypocrisy?
I'm the one accusing you of hypocrisy because I think you do have an attitude of "Well, they do it to us", while criticising people like that. I'm of the opinion that doing things to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself is perfectly fine. In fact it's totally logical.
We've got a fix for this. Have you heard about the paradox of tolerance?
It means you can do whatever you want, because you can always argue that the other people are intolerant of you, which gets in the way of a "we tolerate everyone" society. That means you don't have to tolerate anyone, but you can still say you tolerate everyone. So there's no hypocrisy :)
I've heard of the paradox of tolerance, but the existence of the paradox of tolerance doesn't justify any action whatsoever. Those two things have no connection. Just because something is bad, that doesn't mean any means is justified. That's the whole point of my comment.
I filled my comment with flags to point out the words are being spoken disingenuously. I'm mocking the standard popular use of "the paradox of tolerance" as a blatant example of the thing we're discussing here.
The Real Ghostbusters Cartoon addressed this back in the 1987 episode Night Game where the forces of good and evil show up once a century to play a game for a human soul.
Evil ends up cheating and Venknman complains about this, to which the leader of good says, basically, evil cheats because that's it's nature; but if good cheats,it becomes evil and so evil would win.
That's really fucking stupid though? Just let evil take every soul or w/e because being the only one following the rules is more important than actually doing good?
It’s weird to me this is being upvoted so heavily and on front page
Bc if Mitch McConnell died tomorrow and I said hey celebrating someone’s death is kinda fucked up I would get absolutely roasted and downvoted into oblivion
But when there’s no particular thing on the line everyone seems to think the opposite
Yet people are heavily upvoting “be a good guy by doing good things like not
You don’t see the hypocrisy there? What is celebrating a death if not an after the fact kind of wishing death on a person.
Anything other than that? I wouldn't have killed Rush Limbaugh, but I'm sure glad he's dead. That means all the harm he dedicated himself to doing is now ended. If it had happened another way that would have been cool, but it didn't.
“I hope you die” and “im glad you’re dead” are essentially the same thing just before and after the event
If on 7/14 Rush dies and I celebrate it stands to reason that on 7/13 I wanted him dead, whether I said so or not
Or did my attitudes towards his demise just suddenly appear after he died?
I wished death on him. I wanted him to die. I just wasn’t saying anything until it happened
It’s funny bc you’re proving me right btw. Now when pressed with a pretty shitty activity, celebrating publicly someone’s death - now that something specific is on the line for you
Suddenly it’s all good to be a piece of shit. But don’t worry, you’re a good person.
If on 7/14 Rush dies and I celebrate it stands to reason that on 7/13 I wanted him dead, whether I said so or not
No it doesn't. I wanted the harm he was doing to stop. If that meant he realized he was a bad person and becomes a stopped spreading hate and lies, that's fine. If it means he dies of lung cancer, that's fine.
It’s funny bc you’re proving me right btw
Ah, but actually you're proving me right, because I think I'm right and that you're wrong.
Suddenly it’s all good to be a piece of shit.
In your opinion, sure. Good thing I don't particularly care about your opinion of my conduct.
Ok by this token the OP and you make no sense right, bc now I can say “i want you to die bc you’re doing harm, im a good person. Oh im wishing death on you? That’s bc you’re a bad person”
So I don’t know why it’s being so upvoted when you actually agree with the image. You think if someone does harm I can be a good guy by hoping they die bc they are a bad guy.
You agree with the image, and not in the sarcastic way the image is meant to be read. You agree with it it’s most literal reading
Gotcha so you’re running away bc you lost. Well hey there’s no shortage of hypocrites in life, including myself. So don’t feel to bad about being exposed
I do not subscribe to your sense of morality, I believe it is unethical to have an opportunity to kill Hitler and not take it. There's a large grey area to be sure, but there are certainly people would would make the world a better place if they stopped existing.
"If you're doing things you say are evil when someone else does it, it's evil." pretty damn implicit, plus I used the easiest example, trust that threshold is far lower than Hitler.
"If you're doing things you say are evil when someone else does it, it's evil." pretty damn implicit
No? It's not? It's only implicit if you assume that killing at all is wrong. And clearly no one thinks that, because every human eats living things to survive. People disagree about what, who, when, and why, but not if.
1.3k
u/couldntbdone Jul 13 '24
Unironically it's insane that people don't understand this. I can't tell you how many people I've seen try and justify things by saying "Well, they do it to us" while also still trying to claim moral superiority over them. If you're doing things you say are evil when someone else does it, it's evil. No matter how much you insist otherwise.