Why shouldnt the strong do what they want?

[gansao]

Why shouldnt one group of people subjegate another group of people?
Why shouldnt a strong community enslave a weak one?
Why should the strong protect the weak when they reap no direct benefit?
Is a welfare state just the tyranny of the weak and lazy over the strong and productive?

I am arguing this from a completely amoral position.

[Big Orn]

I am arguing this from a completely amoral position.

Okay - lack of scruples aside...

Why shouldnt one group of people subjegate another group of people?

No reason other than compassion for one another. Once kindness and consideration are removed from the equation, leaders have only to utilize their power to do what they please.

Why shouldnt a strong community enslave a weak one?

Slavery only works in a weak community. Once a community resorts to enslavement, they - at that point - begin to rot from the inside. This happens at any level, starting first within the family unit. History has proven that oppression soon leads to poverty, despite the short-lived prosperity it may exhibit initially. There is more to this than the simple reply I gave, but I think you get the gist.

Why should the strong protect the weak when they reap no direct benefit?

Again, compassion has its own benefits. Loving-kindness in its purest form - which is hard to attain - can create a society where charity is commonplace. Charity, in this form, doesn't place others into groups of "strong" or "weak", but as servants of the community equally. Those that give become the servants to those in need and are blessed while doing so. Those that receive are blessed and soon become servants themselves. It soon becomes a cycle that weeds out who is strong and who is weak.
Ah...the perfect society...

Is a welfare state just the tyranny of the weak and lazy over the strong and productive?

In a political sense, it can't help but be so. The laziness rests solely on the shoulders of the strong who then become the recipient of the tyranny.
Talk about vicious cycle...

[gansao]

No reason other than compassion for one another. Once kindness and consideration are removed from the equation, leaders have only to utilize their power to do what they please....

Compassion is useless if it has no benefits for the compassionate ditto consideration. Compassion and considration for its own sake is a waste of resources.

Slavery only works in a weak community. Once a community resorts to enslavement, they - at that point - begin to rot from the inside. This happens at any level, starting first within the family unit. History has proven that oppression soon leads to poverty, despite the short-lived prosperity it may exhibit initially. There is more to this than the simple reply I gave, but I think you get the gist....

Nonsense. All of the ancient civilisations used slavery. Slavery only ended( even that is debatable) when machines could do what a slave could not.

Again, compassion has its own benefits. Loving-kindness in its purest form - which is hard to attain - can create a society where charity is commonplace. Charity, in this form, doesn't place others into groups of "strong" or "weak", but as servants of the community equally. Those that give become the servants to those in need and are blessed while doing so. Those that receive are blessed and soon become servants themselves. It soon becomes a cycle that weeds out who is strong and who is weak.
Ah...the perfect society......

There is no such thing as ' loving kindness in its purest' it doesnt occur in nature. Those who recieve are a drain on resources to those misguided enough to waste them

In a political sense, it can't help but be so. The laziness rests solely on the shoulders of the strong who then become the recipient of the tyranny.
Talk about vicious cycle...

Why should the unproductive be subsidised by the productive? The strong become the recipient of the tyranny of the weak once they are forced to subsidise them by law.

[Big Orn]

Compassion is useless if it has no benefits for the compassionate ditto consideration. Compassion and considration for its own sake is a waste of resources.

In a world where its inhabitants want to live like they alway have, you would be right. I don't think the people on earth are doing a good job of "doing what they have always done, while getting what they've always got".

Nonsense. All of the ancient civilisations used slavery. Slavery only ended( even that is debatable) when machines could do what a slave could not.

And that is why they are ancient. Is there really a nation that has ever become great when relying on the backs and blood of slavery to do so?

There is no such thing as ' loving kindness in its purest' it doesnt occur in nature. Those who recieve are a drain on resources to those misguided enough to waste them

It was never intended to occur in nature and is why it's hard to attain. Call it spiritual, mental, etc, it does exist. Most of the time, however, once it reaches it's apex, someone has to come along and change it by applying rules.

Why should the unproductive be subsidised by the productive? The strong become the recipient of the tyranny of the weak once they are forced to subsidise them by law.

True. I agree.

[gansao]

In a world where it's inhabitants want to live like they alway have, you would be right. I don't think the people on earth are doing a good job of "doing what they have always done, while getting what they've always got"..

So compassion is wasted in a world where the strong want to remain strong.
Not wasting resources is a universal concept.

And that is why they are ancient. Is there really a nation that has ever become great when relying on the backs and blood of slavery to do so?.

Apart from ancient Egypt, Greece,Rome etc and Spain and Great Britain in later times. Why does compassion need to have to lead to a ' great' civilisation to make it wothwhile? A chieftain on a small island will benefit from not wasting resources on the weak and subjegating enough of the population to make him and his family/tribe benefit

It was never intended to occur in nature and is why it's hard to attain. Call it spiritual, mental, etc, it does exist. Most of the time, however, once it reaches it's apex, someone has to come along and change it by applying rules..

Now we getting to a 'spiritual or moral' argument which has value except to assert that being moral or spiritual is desirable because it makes one moral and spiritual...a circular argument.
What advantages has a compassionate person have over a rich powerful person?

[Big Orn]

So compassion is wasted in a world where the strong want to remain strong.
Not wasting resources is a universal concept.

That is your part of the pond...so if that's the way you want to fish, yes I suppose.
In an attempt to make a better world, each person would have to let go off the idea that mighty-me is best.

Apart from ancient Egypt, Greece,Rome etc and Spain and Great Britain in later times. Why does compassion need to have to lead to a ' great' civilisation to make it wothwhile? A chieftain on a small island will benefit from not wasting resources on the weak and subjegating enough of the population to make him and his family/tribe benefit

That is, of course, subjective. And no, you can't have both.

Now we getting to a 'spiritual or moral' argument which has value except to assert that being moral or spiritual is desirable because it makes one moral and spiritual...a circular argument.
What advantages has a compassionate person have over a rich powerful person?

Just one thing...compassion.

[gansao]

That is your part of the pond...so if that's the way you want to fish, yes I suppose.
In an attempt to make a better world, each person would have to let go off the idea that mighty-me is best.

That is, of course, subjective. And no, you can't have both.

Just one thing...compassion.

Why should one want to make a better world...for others?
Wouldnt allowing the weak to perish if they were a burden and enslaving others make better world ...and more natural one?
Why is compassion a desirable attribute and not a weakness?

[Big Orn]

Why should one want to make a better world...for others?

When a company upgrades their policies to include worker safety, better benefits, working conditions, etc., they also improve productivity. In some cases that increase in productivity can be a direct result of not just those upgrades, but are also due to workers' attitudes. The top management made life better for everyone by giving first and later receiving from those that were blessed. Again, a simple example, but it works.

Wouldnt allowing the weak to perish if they were a burden and enslaving others make better world ...and more natural one?

Natural selection will never work in this new world - should we want it - because this NS can and will cause extinction of certain cultures. Like racists, those remaining would soon rid themselves of those who can be classified as "weak" and would be required to choose from one of their own. This "inner rot" would eventually bring that society to its knees and then, ultimately, to extinction.

Why is compassion a desirable attribute and not a weakness?

Mostly because of understanding. Strength void of understanding and kindness develops a society of fear and doubt, which weakens the infrastructure. To keep that community from crumbling, the strong turn to various methods to correct the problem. First they enact new laws, forcing the weak to comply or face punishment of some sort and level of severity. If that doesn't work, they'll restrict access to luxuries and/or entertainment, keeping the weak in societal cattle pens. Humans in that type of environment are worthless. What strong leader would want worthless citizens? Burn 'em all...so to speak.
Strength based on compassion fortifies the weak of their community. This gives each member the will to thrive and, thus, further the fortificaton to his/her neighbor and so on, until one cannot distinguish the difference between the weak and strong because there are no "weak" citizens.

[gansao]

When a company upgrades their policies to include worker safety, better benefits, working conditions, etc., they also improve productivity. In some cases that increase in productivity can be a direct result of not just those upgrades, but are also due to workers' attitudes. The top management made life better for everyone by giving first and later receiving from those that were blessed. Again, a simple example, but it works.

Natural selection will never work in this new world - should we want it - because this NS can and will cause extinction of certain cultures. Like racists, those remaining would soon rid themselves of those who can be classified as "weak" and would be required to choose from one of their own. This "inner rot" would eventually bring that society to its knees and then, ultimately, to extinction.

Mostly because of understanding. Strength void of understanding and kindness develops a society of fear and doubt, which weakens the infrastructure. To keep that community from crumbling, the strong turn to various methods to correct the problem. First they enact new laws, forcing the weak to comply or face punishment of some sort and level of severity. If that doesn't work, they'll restrict access to luxuries and/or entertainment, keeping the weak in societal cattle pens. Humans in that type of environment are worthless. What strong leader would want worthless citizens? Burn 'em all...so to speak.
Strength based on compassion fortifies the weak of their community. This gives each member the will to thrive and, thus, further the fortificaton to his/her neighbor and so on, until one cannot distinguish the difference between the weak and strong because there are no "weak" citizens.

A company that upgrades the condition of their workers are not showing compassion if they do it to increase production..no more than a farmer is showing compassion to his animals by feeding them more to get a better return.

Not subsidising the poor and not treating the sick that have no bearing on you and yours is not natural selection. It is not wasting resources.

It would be in the interests of the strong for them and their family/tribe to remain strong.
Your last paragraph doesnt make sense. Strength void of ' understanding' and kindness means nothing 'understanding' does not necessarily lead to kindness.
The next two sentences seem to describe a scenario where a subjegated section is rendered extinct or worthless.
That is not lack of compassion, that is a another way of wasting resources.
A farmer doesnt destroy his animals. He weeds out the weak and puts enough resources into the rest to get the best return.Slave owners did not destroy the slaves that were an asset.

I am not saying' why should the strong not destroy everyone else'?
Athough why should I care about the homeless, poor or sick that have nothing to do with me if I have enough means to ensure I never become one of those?

You seem to suggest that it is in the interests of the strong to make everyone around them strong.
This is wrong, it is in the interest of the strong to keep themselves strong and others less so thus remaining dominant

[Big Orn]

A company that upgrades the condition of their workers are not showing compassion if they do it to increase production..no more than a farmer is showing compassion to his animals by feeding them more to get a better return.

Not subsidising the poor and not treating the sick that have no bearing on you and yours is not natural selection. It is not wasting resources.

It would be in the interests of the strong for them and their family/tribe to remain strong.
Your last paragraph doesnt make sense. Strength void of ' understanding' and kindness means nothing 'understanding' does not necessarily lead to kindness.
The next two sentences seem to describe a scenario where a subjegated section is rendered extinct or worthless.
That is not lack of compassion, that is a another way of wasting resources.
A farmer doesnt destroy his animals. He weeds out the weak and puts enough resources into the rest to get the best return.Slave owners did not destroy the slaves that were an asset.

I am not saying' why should the strong not destroy everyone else'?
Athough why should I care about the homeless, poor or sick that have nothing to do with me if I have enough means to ensure I never become one of those?

You seem to suggest that it is in the interests of the strong to make everyone around them strong.
This is wrong, it is in the interest of the strong to keep themselves strong and others less so thus remaining dominant

I think we are talking about two different types of societies. Yours is like a ranch where people are the animals. I can't equate people to animals.

Apples and oranges.

[gansao]

I think we are talking about two different types of societies. Yours is like a ranch where people are the animals. I can't equate people to animals.

Apples and oranges.

Why not ? We are animals, didnt you know this?
Apples and oranges are fruit

[Big Orn]

Why not ? We are animals, didnt you know this?
Apples and oranges are fruit

Beasts of burden? No...didn't know it...won't except it.

Some people are fruits...I tell ya.

[gansao]

Beasts of burden? No...didn't know it...won't except it.

Some people are fruits...I tell ya.

It appears we are just intelligent apes and as such why should us intelligent apes have morals?
As an animal it is our job to pass on our genes to the next generation.
Why should we be concerned with other apes welfare?
With respect the fact that you do not accept this just means that. Your unacceptance does not justify morality or compassion.
Sorry to be an arse but I did say that I was arguing on an amoral position

[greg79f150]

Hello Orn,

Its been a few years now since I stopped by here, its good to see you still posting sir. I see you are still holding the olive branch while keeping your sword sharp! Greg

[Big Orn]

Hello Orn,

Its been a few years now since I stopped by here, its good to see you still posting sir. I see you are still holding the olive branch while keeping your sword sharp! Greg

Hey ol' padna! Yeah...and keeping my powder dry. too!

Good to see you too. Just got back myself. Things haven't changed that much around here.