>>311538There's a chance I could hypothetically gain access to some.>>311542>We remember the conqueror as a villian.>We remember the liberator as a hero.
The Russians busted their asses to defend themselves from the Germans in the second world war, but for fifty years after, we remembered them as the great satan.
The US had no vital interest in the first world war, and wasn't in range of the enemy in either world war save for that one Hawaii attack. They trounced over Europe late in the game like a conqueror, attacking another conqueror after they'd already been exhausted of conquering and were now struggling to defend their shattered country from the enemies. Everyone else had already liberated most of the death camps, but we took all the credit.
The Meiji empire was started when the US busted down the doors at Shuri Castle and demanded Japan trade with us. In effect, our own conquests created the only enemy that was an existential threat to us.
If you cross the seas, you're a conqueror. We remember those conquistador acts as heroic acts.
We ran for our dinner, and we were the "good guys."
The Russians ran for their lives, and they'd live on to be the "bad guys."
>Also. Morality is less about there being universal law and more about general respect for the world outside of your own personal perspective.
When you die, what do you have? Nothing.When you die, the world ends.
If your world is over, who cares what you left behind in it? How can you appreciate what you have or haven't done for it when you don't exist?
What positive reason
is there to care about anything outside you, beyond the degree to which it affects you, and the things you personally care about?
Intellectual detachment as a virtue stems from the fact that personal feelings can be circumstantial fetters in understanding objects in reality. This is sometimes necessary if you want to direct their impacts to better affect you.
It's just putting temporary feelings on hold so you can use them to optimize them later on, by exerting more control over your reality. Beyond that, there's really no reason for it to be an intrinsic virtue. It's a fixed ideal that serves itself, not you. It's no longer just a useful tool at that point.
>If the only person you care about is you, the only person who will care about you will be you.
Society is selfish, and won't hesitate to exploit the perfectly selfless altruist even to the point of their death to its own betterment.
Society is an organism and selects for traits in its "cells" that serve its own betterment. Selfless units are more prone to be exploited and are thus unfavorable.
Weak units that "do their best" to embody the prevailing morality of their society, but are themselves too weak to better it, will aggregate to the point of causing social breakdown unless a society culls them off, which they often do. Society's morality serves its own betterment only, not all the units dwelling within it.
Unless you happen to be born embodying all the traits a society finds useful, it's counterproductive to embody the ideal of a given society's morality, beyond the extent to which it protects your own existence. Your worth to them begins and ends with your usefulness to them, which is something you don't get to decide.
They are not "moral" in the post-Christian sense, in which "anyone can join so long as they follow the rules," because what you are at your core dictates whether they can tolerate you. Thus, framing society's self-serving morality in this false framework of a code that you can choose to abide by or not abide by according to your egoistic interests, is not useful.
TL;DR no one but you cares about you.
This post was edited by its author on .