Random Area XVI: The Random Menace

I see, that's really cool! I still need to read a lot about older schools of philosophy, given that I still lack enough knowledge in anything before the 19th century lol, so I won't be able to comment much unless I wanna embarrassed myself 😅 I'm especially interested in Nietzsche, considering his influence on existentialism, or "optimistic nihilism" as some like to put it.

As for your question, mostly stuff like Suzerain, or the stuff Choice of Games/Hosted Games make. They make really good games of pure text, imagine it like interactive novels where you are the main character, in many genres from fantasy to slice-of-life. Idk, I just kinda enjoy those type of stuff, as a way of escapism maybe. And no, I totally wasn't bribed to say all this

Also, I must say, now I realise how much I missed having such eloquent and respectful debates lol, which is unfortunately rare to come across nowadays. You know how online debates usually end... hence I promise myself I'll take a break from these stuff for the sake of my mental health every other day, and yet when one finds such good debate partners, it's hard for even the most virtuous to resist the temptation So thank you both, nikomachos and Theron of Acragas, I've really enjoyed this Always nice to hear other perspectives.

You are raising pretty good questions, some of which I don't think I'm qualified enough to respond to, given that I'm still doing readings on ethics. I'll still try to answer, but my responses might fall a bit short, so sorry in advance On a more positive note, it's actually surprising how much we seem to agree lol.

I'd like to believe I would. There were many groups who opposed it, and given my current leanings, I'd hopefully be one of them if I was alive back then. Furthermore, while there might not be a pre-determined morality, as humans we have still developed a sense of one together with out evolution. And it still keeps evolving every day, like the human race. And while it might be artificial, this doesn't make it any less valid. For example, our emotions are caused by chemicals in our brains, and many human actions are at least affected by existing material conditions. Does this make them any less valid? Of course not. I personally believe that life has no inherent meaning, which gives us the liberty to choose our own purpose. So, why not make the most out of it and help others live their lives to the fullest too? Personally, that's what makes me keep living despite everything, and where my sense of morality comes from. From materialism, a historical analysis and a pragmatic calculation, instead of idealism and a separate morality isolated from our material reality (not that the latter is necessarily bad, of course. To each their own.). Moreover, on the contrary, I'd say that one isn't genuinely good if they need an external incentive, like religions, to become good. While it's certainly fine if that helps one to become a good person (hence I respect religion even though I'm an atheist myself), there are many good non-theist people as well, which means that one doesn't need anything to be good, except from the act of being good itself. We aren't inherently good or bad, but rather, our initial personality is determined by the socio-economic system and the environment we live in.

As proven by science, consciousness exists within and together with the confines of material reality, not separate from or above it, which means that we are limited to material conditions we live in: if you lived among evil people all your life, it's unlikely you even know what goodness means. If the system you live in rewards greed, you're more likely to be greedy, as you have no option but to be greedy in order to climb the ladder, like our modern society. The counter example is many different cultures that existed throughout history, which rewarded compassion and cooperation instead: hence we won the game of evolution and survival against other animals despite our physical disadvantages. Or if you're born in a Christian family, you'll likely stay as one unless you experience a life-changing event. We are limited to the reality we live in, and the socio-economic system by extension. That being said, while material conditions guide our actions and they cannot exist seperately, we still hold the final say in the end. We still have some degree of free will imo. That's why life is worth living, and goodness is worth fighting for.

Edit: Btw, here's another quote then, this time from Doctor Who. As cheesy as it may sound, I feel like it perfectly summarises my view on morality:


As for your second paragraph, that's absolutely true. And luckily, the Interwar is my favourite period to talk about Back to the original topic, I agree there are many things wrong with our society. Remember that the Western allies held sympathy for Hitler at the beginning (in the hopes that the Nazis would counterbalance the Bolshevik threat which was apparently scarier for the rich men of the West), and they even cooperated till the end: until the monster they helped create attacked themselves. Remember how they repeatedly refused the Soviet offers of an anti-fascist collective alliance, and even indirectly mocked them during the negotiations. Or the Spanish Civil War, where they were openly sympathetic towards Franco against the democratically elected leftist government (or the German Revolution of '18, when the government willingly cooperated with far-right Freikorps against the revolutionaries). Which in turn caused the Soviets to become isolationist out of a desire to protect themselves (unlike what the media usually tells us), while Hitler could have been stopped way earlier if it wasn't for the Allies.

However, the Western governments were very well aware of the Nazi threat, they were certainly no fools. The thing is, they preferred Nazi Germany over the Bolshevik threat, in order to preserve their power. Like how many Western millionaries and manufacturers willingly cooperated with, and were sympathetic towards, Nazis. The amount of those, unsurprisingly often hidden by media, is truly unbelievable and extremely disgusting. Is profit more important than human life and basic ethics? This is the system we live in. Or like how the Western Allies were sympthatic towards the fascists even until the very end (mass cover up of war crimes, amnesties to high-ranking criminals, and how many prominent leaders became high-ranking officers in post-war organisations like Nato, from Heusinger to Waldheim to Hallstein to von Braun. Do I need to count more?). Or how the West openly cooperated with Neo-Nazis during events like Operation Gladio during the Cold War, and sponsored fascist coups in countries like Chile or Turkey, as well as countless mass killings and tortures against the political left. Regardless of our personal views, all of these are ethically barbaric and monstrous. Just disgusting, and often covered up by the mainstream media. And during WWII, Nazis even hoped till the last moment that they could still unite with the Allies against the "barbaric hordes of Slavs and Bolsheviks." Or how about the Indonesian genocide of '65, supported by Nato, which resulted in millions of anti-fascists and ethnic minorities dead? Curious... There's really something fishy here, don't you think? I'm starting to see a pattern. And did millions of heroic soldiers throughout the world sacrifice their lives for this? Just for their governments to betray their legacy with the enemy? This is just so frustrating Anyways, back to Interbellum, controlling the entire state apparatus, it was easy for the Allies to convince the masses of the appeasement policy as well. The population was already weary of war due to the enormous sufferings WWI caused, so that was easy. Again, while this might be immoral (I certainly think it is, and imo, WWII was inevitable from the moment Versailles was signed. Honestly, the West shot their own foot from the start. They served literally everything to Hitler on a silver plate until the last second, dismissing every chance to end it all before it was too late. None of this can be a coincidence, as they were certainly no fools.), they did this to protect their own national interests at the expense of leaving millions of innocent people to the mercy of fascists, until the beast they created this time stoop up against its master. In the end, only the innocent civilians lost due to this willingly unprevented set of events, despite many chances to stop the cycle. How unsurprising...

I don't think we're really allowed to talk about recent politics here, so I'll cut this short just in case. Though I definitely agree with your assessment, like literally every single word of it . Personally, I'm neutral on this war, as a pacifist. It's just so sad to see brotherly peoples (who lived peacefully together until a certain event happened around 30 years ago against their own will...) fighting against each other, especially as a partial Slav myself, even more so the effect of the West on the start of this conflict. I have sympathies for the civilians of both sides, but the governments just equally suck imo. The only victors will be the oligarchs of both sides in th end... Anyways, like I've said, I don't think we're allowed to talk about recent politics here, so maybe it might be better to continue this elsewhere? Because I'd really love to. For example, do you use Discord by any chance?

Oh, I'm sure it's fine lol. I remember it being discussed here before as long as it remained respectful, like in our case. As long as we don't repeat it, we're fine... Probably Anyways then, feel free to message me there if you want to, my username is put on my signature

you guys were originally talking in the context of morality. I know i said i dont like ANY consquentalist arguments bc of where such viewpoints would lead to in other situations. (Yes there is moderate utilitarianism, but even that is lacking) not that i say we should not ALSO look at the outcome/consquences but they should not provide the fundement for arguments of choosing lesser evils.

Specifically in regards to the bombs. The problem is not that they shortened the war and saved lives. The problem is the unconditional surrender part from the casablanca conference and the conferences that followed after and kept it as a central dogma of their policy. Its not like japan had anywhere to run to at that point... the pacific arena was so freakin bloody in the endstage bc us/allies had commited to the idea of taking every island... and when they thought hm maybe not the best idea after all they dropped a bomb on civilians. This might be a very unpopular opinion but they should have sued for peace with japan and ended the war. And it wouldnt have been any catastrophic show of weakness on behalf of the allies, i mean...
Or dropped the bomb somewhere "safe" / military facility and not civian big city first as a warning (there is lots of other specualtion while the bombs were dropped that have nothing to do with "ending the war" but i dont care about that right here and i dont know the truth.)

I am less familiar with the british example. But what would be the overall difference? Ethically not all that much. Its still the trolley problem variations. BUT: argueing british misinformation and its consequences as response to german bombings: imo you would have an easier time arguing that it was an "ethically proportional" response. Proportional to the threats presented and the results of their actions. While the bombings imo were above and beyond unproportianl to the pressure on allies, since it was allies making pressure.
In the context of the actual history and realism of war: Well it just makes sense to do what the british did as a defensive measure. Why do the bombs not "just make sense" because they had imo better options should have reconsiderd uncoditional surrender for J, reintroduced diplomacy, or just dropped one bomb as a a scare tactic but not on civilians.

The "they should have done"s of course with a grain of salt as always.

ok so i agree with much that you said and not with some. But my text had terrible horrible structure so i will reiterate

Argument 0 was the context i originally reffered to was , why i prefer other ethical concepts over utilit+consequ.
I simply said you shouldnt look only / mainly at the consequeces. That beeing said every modern ethical concept that doesnt not get torn to pieces immidietly nowadays pulls from more than 1 ethical concept. Meaning me saying i dont like pure consequentialsm is not an original thought, it just states sth that is very much aknowledged, that most ethical systems draw from more than 1 axiom bc of the problems that arise if you build morality on just one. But ethics is normative so that we cant just pick and choose when we disregard sth.
[Normative]

Argument 1 (yes, was the unconditional surrender stuff. It avoids the trolly problem, i agree. It was my response for the specific event we are discussing, the bombs, instead of speaking on the abstract universal level of ethics as a whole.
[Concrete]

Paragraph 3 starts of saying: i know i didnt solve the trolley problem. Bc i answered with a historical persepctive for sth A1 [concrete]. Therefore in order to provide an arguement that is not rooted in the specifications of this particular event i provided:

Argument 2: proportional response is a thing both in ethics as in war itself.
Ww2 didnt use biochemical weapons in the same dimension as ww1. -> Bc everybody agreed it sucks. If one of them were to have used them, the other would have retaliated. Same as the nuclear cold war.
The bombs were etically out of proportion is the arguement.
Even with argument "2.1"
[abstract/(normative)]

Argument "2.1" initiative/aggressor vs defense comparison

But lets call it Argument 3: was mushing together proportinal evaluation (A2) with A2.1.
[Concrete]

The last sentences returned to the [concrete] and real examples. Me summing up "better options", for whatever its worth.

Ok now responding to what you wrote.
Yes i know argument 1 avoids trolly.

"Japan being rendered incapable of repeating aggression"
there is no guarantee, especially not by occupation and forcing reperations and disarmament or sth. We have seen versailles. Unless you occupy and stay ussr stylez.
There is no way to know whether J would have accepted to withdraw: well, you wont find out if you dont ask. There is no evidence that they wouldnt have at that stage of the war.

"You claim a distinction because the V2s were enemy action. I don't think this distinction holds water, because Japan was fighting a war of aggression that, as far as we know, it had every intention of continuing"
"The ethical formula doesn't change based on which hand pushes the button"
You are correct it doesnt hold water i smushed together argument 2.1 with A2. Instead consider none of 2.1 agression or defense, instead A2 on its own alone always applies.

the bomb on civilians was not proportional and ethical, rather they jumped to a 100 immidietly. The lvls of escalation for proportianal response were skipped, eg military target first etc.
"They had only 2 bombs" i know, that doesnt change the normative aspect of ethics, thats the point it always applies whether you have only 2 or not whether your desperate to win or not, thats why ethics exists.

"I don't think this distinction holds water, because Japan was fighting a war of aggression that, as far as we know, it had every intention of continuing. The Allies were justified in putting an end to the aggression; if that necessarily entails some degree of civilian casualties and puts us into a trolley problem situation, I'd submit that it's still the responsibility of the aggressor. In other words, in both cases, ultimately it's a choice that results from the other side's hostile actions, so the distinction doesn't hold up."

The distinction of the agressor: so yes my 2.1 argument is invaild bc in both cases, british and us were not the agressors.
BUT this doesnt justify putting an end to aggression by any means.
A2 still applies. That is literally why war of terror is judged to be unethical, targeting civilians is war of terror. Therfore this part is wrong in several ways:
"Allies were justified in putting an end to the aggression; if that necessarily entails some degree of civilian casualties and puts us into a trolley problem situation, I'd submit that it's still the responsibility of the aggressor."
A degree of civilian casualties is what you would call accidental casualties in the truest meaning of happening by chance. None of civilians who died by of the bombs died by chance, they were the target. (Not the intent, forcing j to surrender, but still the target)
the fault of with which means you defeat the agressor isnt simply "all on the agressor" even if you are justified in defeating him and he is in ethical worse position for attacking you. It doesnt justify any means.
Imo...means that dont arent a proportional response A2.
_________
Addendum now if this "evaluating when sth is proportional and when not" sounds very "relative" to you, like evaluation is almost like picking and choosing. It sure feels like that when you have absolute morality as a reference, as you stated in a previous post. You did not yet state that you for one would prescribe pro bomb, rather you asked me to make the argument aganst it, which is not easy i admit, and is not the same as taking a stance. But i would nonetheless be i interested in your personal view as well. If it is indeed that as your post says (keynotes: aggressors at fault, civilian casualties acceptable) how does this match with absolute morality / religion.
If that was only theoretical to refute my arguments and i wrongly applied it to your person, with what ethics would YOU refute the consequentialist argument. And what would be the result?