You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to Easily Answer Extreme Hypotheticals
Great post. It's not surprising when we consider that we are bombarded with so many instances daily where violence is the only conflict resolution presented, that many people would find it hard to grasp the idea of the NAP. It seems that many people find it instinctive to intrude and intervene into the lives of others, be it verbally, through gossip, or through the manipulation of space. I would argue, that it is here where the antithesis of the NAP is realized, because if you can intervene so easily and naturally in a mental capacity, then it becomes easier to do so with physical aggression of body and property.
Yeah, violence is just a desperate last resort when you feel overwhelmed and out of other options. It wouldn't come up much at all if we were all raised with better problem solving skills. :-/
It's called being alive. See the first 30 secs of this, for instance:
Or, better yet, this quote by Nietzsche:
"No egoism at all exists that remains within itself and does not encroach—consequently, that “allowable,” “morally indifferent” egoism of which you speak does not exist at all. “One furthers one’s ego always at the expense of others;” “Life always lives at the expense of other life”—he who does not grasp this has not taken even the first step toward honesty with himself." (from The Will to Power)
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for individual rights and I guess I'm also a pacifist. But I'm also a realist. I mean, even forcing your child to go to school is a form of violence - and that's not an 'extreme hypothetical'.
I would never force my daughter to go to school. I'm her service provider, not her ruler.
I'm not sure what the relevance of his statement about life living at the expense of other life has. I see no problem with it. I apply the NAP to all sentient beings but I see no moral problem with our killing of non-sentient life forms like plants, fungi, and bacteria.
The reply was meant for @therussianmonk . It was meant specifically for his statement that
And what I meant to say was that "that's what living things do", they "encroach".
I did not mean to suggest the unrealistic notion that in a planet of 3 billion people there would be no encroachment, physical or otherwise. We can just try to squeeze into an elevator during lunchtime in an office building to see that impossibility. My suggestion was, that in a society that so often and easily encroaches on each others in more passive ways, such as the allocation of cameras on most street corners, or our activities and website usage being tracked online, etc., that more aggressive encroachment (such as violence at the individual/group/nation level) does not seem at odds with our general behavior, and it seems to flow logically from how we are conditioned. Like with other things in this world, the goal of eradication (of encroachment and violence) perhaps is unrealistic, but minimizing it can be achieved.
@therussianmonk, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.