Yeah man you stick it to those immoral shoplifters. Better snitch to the pigs even though you oppose government but it’s fine cause of what? Boosting diapers from walmart is worse than state violence?
Where did I outline my own personal, subjective scale of what immoral acts were more or less heignous, exactly?
There is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. Murdering, stealing, raping and committing fraud is wrong. Everything else is some semblance of “right”. You and I might not agree on who you should be kind to and when, or who you should help and shouldn’t, or even how much an assailant should be punished, but that’s not the same thing as a fundamental understanding that theft is wrong.
Theft is always objectively wrong because you would never want to be robbed, ever. It is not logically possible for you to **WILL **to be robbed, because the second you hope someone will take something from you, the act of doing so no longer manifests as theft. If you **HAND **me $10, I did not steal it from you, but if you don’t WANT me to take that $10 from you and I do, that is theft.
This is higher level thinking (level 5), in psychology. Fundamentally, it is the concept of understanding that what’s ***subjectively ***right or wrong differs for different people, and in understanding that, we do not demand that you live the way I command or I live the way you command, instead, we both accept that you simply do not steal because IF either of us did not want to be assailed in that way, then we shouldn’t opt to wish it upon another.
Most people in the world exist at a lower level of thinking, usually around level 3. The first stages typically being pure selfishness, then an understanding that there are other people with wants and needs, then an awakened understanding that you can exert control over the wants and needs of others, and thinking that everyone is only self-interested and thus, you must be self-interested as well. This is why most third world countries exist in dictatorships, usually around the third or fourth level of thinking. The fourth level is when a general community all agrees on some set of rules. Think of a strictly religious state where the government created rules meant to prevent the bad, selfish behavior of people who only think at levels 2 and 3. This is level 4 thinking. Stealing is wrong and you won’t steal or else, and by the way, we get to decide what stealing is.
Level 5 starts to become more “enlightened” in a manner of speaking, where you begin understanding that your way of looking at the world isn’t the “only” way. Thinking continues evolving past this, mind you, and can still be dangerous at these upper levels, such as when you hit level 6, which is where wokeism/social justice tends to land. It’s the idea that since everyone has their own views, no views can be wrong, so for example, a woman could say that **men **are dangerous to woman, but because this level of thinking isn’t high enough yet to prevent conflict, will flat out refuse to say that illegal immigrants - who are often majority men - are dangerous to woman. If you point out the cognitive dissonance in that reasoning, it will usually lead directly to anger because it strikes a conflict within that individual’s ego that they cannot resolve. Usually they will just divert by making up some other nonsense claim that may not even be related to the original declarative.
But the highest tiers of thinking realize that while different subjects hold different values, that there is one fundamental cardinal attribute we all share: We do not want our wills violated. But conflict IS will violation. Maybe you and I both want the same thing but only one of us can have it. One of us has to get what they want and the other cannot. So the fundamental here is that the only “fair” way to discern conflicts of will is to do so logically. For example:
You already own that $10 and do not want me to take it so I should not take it.
Now if you take $10 from me and I take it back, you may not have wanted me to take it BUT logically, you originally violated my will to obtain that $10, so in already violating that logical enterprise of justice, I am entitled to right that wrong and recreate justice.
This is what self defense is, or when you imprison a murderer, rapist, robber, or fraudster.
Murder is wrong, KILLING, on its own, may not be. Understanding that if you try to kill my child and I try to stop you from doing so and in that attempt I kill you, I was just in killing you, even though your will was not aligned in that happening. But if your will is aligned in trying to kill my daughter, who did not want to be killed (a state set long before your desire to kill her), you are not just in committing the act.
This is actually fundamentally already how all societies on earth behave. In no culture ever has murder, rape, theft, or fraud been OK, but the “elite” (usually politicians) often still do these things - this is what we usually tie the word “corruption” to.
Corruption is a good word to use too, because it is the idea of “corrupting” the core principles of justice. You cannot murder. That is a core principle. If you find a loophole where you kill and are not punished, you are corrupting that system.
I hope some of this makes sense and is relative to your perspective of the conversation.
Yeah man you stick it to those immoral shoplifters. Better snitch to the pigs even though you oppose government but it’s fine cause of what? Boosting diapers from walmart is worse than state violence?
Where did I outline my own personal, subjective scale of what immoral acts were more or less heignous, exactly?
There is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. Murdering, stealing, raping and committing fraud is wrong. Everything else is some semblance of “right”. You and I might not agree on who you should be kind to and when, or who you should help and shouldn’t, or even how much an assailant should be punished, but that’s not the same thing as a fundamental understanding that theft is wrong.
Theft is always objectively wrong because you would never want to be robbed, ever. It is not logically possible for you to **WILL **to be robbed, because the second you hope someone will take something from you, the act of doing so no longer manifests as theft. If you **HAND **me $10, I did not steal it from you, but if you don’t WANT me to take that $10 from you and I do, that is theft.
This is higher level thinking (level 5), in psychology. Fundamentally, it is the concept of understanding that what’s ***subjectively ***right or wrong differs for different people, and in understanding that, we do not demand that you live the way I command or I live the way you command, instead, we both accept that you simply do not steal because IF either of us did not want to be assailed in that way, then we shouldn’t opt to wish it upon another.
Most people in the world exist at a lower level of thinking, usually around level 3. The first stages typically being pure selfishness, then an understanding that there are other people with wants and needs, then an awakened understanding that you can exert control over the wants and needs of others, and thinking that everyone is only self-interested and thus, you must be self-interested as well. This is why most third world countries exist in dictatorships, usually around the third or fourth level of thinking. The fourth level is when a general community all agrees on some set of rules. Think of a strictly religious state where the government created rules meant to prevent the bad, selfish behavior of people who only think at levels 2 and 3. This is level 4 thinking. Stealing is wrong and you won’t steal or else, and by the way, we get to decide what stealing is.
Level 5 starts to become more “enlightened” in a manner of speaking, where you begin understanding that your way of looking at the world isn’t the “only” way. Thinking continues evolving past this, mind you, and can still be dangerous at these upper levels, such as when you hit level 6, which is where wokeism/social justice tends to land. It’s the idea that since everyone has their own views, no views can be wrong, so for example, a woman could say that **men **are dangerous to woman, but because this level of thinking isn’t high enough yet to prevent conflict, will flat out refuse to say that illegal immigrants - who are often majority men - are dangerous to woman. If you point out the cognitive dissonance in that reasoning, it will usually lead directly to anger because it strikes a conflict within that individual’s ego that they cannot resolve. Usually they will just divert by making up some other nonsense claim that may not even be related to the original declarative.
But the highest tiers of thinking realize that while different subjects hold different values, that there is one fundamental cardinal attribute we all share: We do not want our wills violated. But conflict IS will violation. Maybe you and I both want the same thing but only one of us can have it. One of us has to get what they want and the other cannot. So the fundamental here is that the only “fair” way to discern conflicts of will is to do so logically. For example:
You already own that $10 and do not want me to take it so I should not take it.
Now if you take $10 from me and I take it back, you may not have wanted me to take it BUT logically, you originally violated my will to obtain that $10, so in already violating that logical enterprise of justice, I am entitled to right that wrong and recreate justice.
This is what self defense is, or when you imprison a murderer, rapist, robber, or fraudster.
Murder is wrong, KILLING, on its own, may not be. Understanding that if you try to kill my child and I try to stop you from doing so and in that attempt I kill you, I was just in killing you, even though your will was not aligned in that happening. But if your will is aligned in trying to kill my daughter, who did not want to be killed (a state set long before your desire to kill her), you are not just in committing the act.
This is actually fundamentally already how all societies on earth behave. In no culture ever has murder, rape, theft, or fraud been OK, but the “elite” (usually politicians) often still do these things - this is what we usually tie the word “corruption” to.
Corruption is a good word to use too, because it is the idea of “corrupting” the core principles of justice. You cannot murder. That is a core principle. If you find a loophole where you kill and are not punished, you are corrupting that system.
I hope some of this makes sense and is relative to your perspective of the conversation.
TL;DR: he loves the boot and savors the flavor every chance he gets.
You’re just a capitalist dog of the state, Javert, doesn’t matter how many feathers you shove up in there.