you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 11 hours ago* (1 child)

@protist@mander.xyz has already made my point for me. But let me add another layer.

We're only talking here on the level of individual rights and consequences, and that tastes extremely cynical and libertarian to me. Both things I associate with an inconsiderate, overly individualist approach that is indicative of a failed state and a breakdown in societal cohesion.

I honestly think the more important factor to this question is societal. The real question is, what kind of society do we want to live in?

  • One where killing another human being for personal reasons is endorsed or one were it's seen as an absolute last resort of protectimg other people?
  • One where the monopoly of violence rests with the state or one where we hold violence to be an individualist right?
  • One where you have the right to kill yourself or one where you also have the right to kill a (consenting) other?

Yes, you have a right to consent to be killed. But from that doesn't rise the right for somebody else to kill.

There is a reason the age of dueling ended when the enlightenment and humanism became something our societies adopted as a whole instead of those things being just the pursuit of some airy intellectuals. And it is that, with the rise of democracy, people became aware that they have the right, but also the duty to shape the society we live in to be better. This - for me - is the central point of civilization, to actively construct and shape a society that grows continually more moral and drives us to listen to "the better angels of our nature" to say it in Lincoln's words, instead of listening to our baser wants.

Off Topic Rant: It is truly terrible to me, that all around the world politics has devolved from giving the great example of striving for (even if not achieving) a more moral, peaceful, unified and just society to giving the example of letting ourselves be governed by greed, egotism and our baser instincts.

That's honestly the one thing I loved about Merkel and Obama, even if they were two useless, right leaning conservatives (yes, mainstream democrats are conservative, honestly the GOP is reactionary and fascist at this point. Fucking hell the Overton-window is so far to the right), they still inspired people to rise to our better nature. And that is also the biggest societal threat I see from especially Trump being in office. The example he gives for society as a whole is a return to criminal, amoral, egotistical and cynical barbarism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    You really need to expand your political horizons. Those false dichotomies are just... sad. There is an entire world beyond the line between state absolutism and libertarian individualism. But until you can conceive of it, you are incapable of comprehending my position.

    There is a reason the age of dueling ended when the enlightenment and humanism became something our societies adopted as a whole instead of those things being just the pursuit of some airy intellectuals. And it is that, with the rise of democracy, people became aware that they have the right, but also the duty to shape the society we live in to be better. This - for me - is the central point of civilization, to actively construct and shape a society that grows continually more moral and drives us to listen to “the better angels of our nature” to say it in Lincoln’s words, instead of listening to our baser wants.

    This development is the cause of the biggest extinction event in Earth's history, the colonization and genocide of tens of millions of people, and the incoming collapse of human population due to apocalyptic climate change. It has criminalized, sterilized, and slaughtered queer people for being degenerate; it has massacred barbarian indigenous populations; it has enslaved, criminalized, and exploited racialized minorities for needing a firm guiding hand; and it has beaten, murdered, and systematically disenfranchised working class people because they don't understand.

    These are not the unfortunate mistakes of the rich and powerful who have a sadly mistaken view of what it means to be civilized. Civilization has always been a means to justify violent subjugation of the working class to those working class people who are reluctantly brought on board as "middle class" because if they sided with other workers the rich would be in danger.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal", quoth the slave owners to white workers in order to get the white workers to help them avoid taxation on their slave plantations.

    It is no accident that the moral progress of civilization goes in lockstep with the power of workers. Decolonization happened when the colonies could produce their own revolutionary militias. Feminism happened as abundant machines made muscle strength obsolete. Labor rights increased with ease of communication between laborers across wide regions so they could organize strikes. And now with automation the power of workers is receding, and therefore the privileges are getting rescinded.


    When a farmer stops two roosters from fighting and puts them in separate pens, is that because the farmer is so civilized that he can't stand violence being done to animals? Or is it because the farmer wants the roosters to be in good condition so he can exploit them for greater profit?

    Hint: how does the farmer feel about the butcher that slaughters his hens?

  • source
  • parent