035. [ANON TEXT]

[explosivecombat]

[Well, good evening, network - it seems Seth's device is active again, though at the very least he's not inviting everyone to war like he's throwing the world's most unasked-for party this time around.]

You know, one of the things I've always found most fascinating about human morality is the idea that we're higher beings due to our natural inclination to put others before ourselves. It's generally accepted in society that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves before harming another; I've always found adhering to that sort of notion to both vaguely admirable and sickeningly saccharine. If you must kill one to save another, that's still a life that's lost; why shouldn't the reward go to the one who's willing to fight for it, rather than the one who did nothing to earn it but sit there in pious devotion to doing nothing wrong?

We claim superiority for suppressing our instincts to survive; if anything, I think that would put us lower than dogs, not above them. All this intelligence and no will to live; it's pitiful.

But then, I suppose my lack of understanding of these things is why I can't be considered one of you.

For the time being, however, say I were to humor you in discussion for a while. Do you think your will to fight to ensure your survival actually needs to be tested? Since I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be "No," I have another pre-emptive question for the heroic types.

Is there anything outside of arrogance and so-called moral superiority that makes you say so?

[...O...kay that's really not any better but apparently, it's just that kind of night.

You know, full of misanthropy.

Because some nights are like that.]

Comments

[doitrockapella]

On the other hand, it's hard to say I really mind when my own success in that respect makes me unique and special.

[text]

[lieutenantantichrist]

That's what you said, right? A challenge. You going to try to kill somebody?

[explosivecombat]

No, I'm not.

And while I'm sure you'll be quick to point out that it would be stupid for me to say "Yes" to something like that anyway so it's a bit of a pointless or untrustworthy answer, I'll ask you to keep in mind that I was perfectly straightforward and honest about what I did to Olivine a few months ago. I've no reason to lie.

[lieutenantantichrist]

Oh, you're that asshole. How did you like what I did to your little bomb?

See, that's why most people don't have to do that fighting for survival shit. There's us whose job it is to do the fighting for them.

[explosivecombat]

That particular bomb didn't go off. Two others did. At least one other could have, but someone decided to do something extremely stupid.

Don't try to pretend you're infallible. I know better than most that you aren't.

[lieutenantantichrist]

[Blake bristles. Taking care of that bomb is something he can be proud of. This son of a bitch doesn't get to tarnish that.]

Face it, asshole. You lost. And you'll always lose.

[He doesn't know what the last part is hinting at and a deep feeling in his gut tells him he doesn't want.]

You want to fight? Have the balls to come out and fight like a man.

[explosivecombat]

I'm not particularly interested in fighting today. Perhaps some other time.

Right now? This is just discussion. Perfectly rational at that, if one allows it to be.

[me_first]

of course! i've heard some people say that math and science aren't artistic - but if you can read the patterns in a line of code, or the way an equation seems to fit perfectly with everything else...

... well, i'd say it's the people who don't study those kinds of things who are missing out on an entirely different branch of art.

[lieutenantantichrist]

[Now you've poked the bear with a stick.]

I thought so.

See, there's that idea out there about mad bombers, guys in the movies who go around flinging sticks of dynamite. Reality is, you bomber types are all the same. Fucking cowards.

[explosivecombat]

[...Hmmm. Let's see.]

Funny, that's what my prison warden thought, too.

That's probably why he felt so comfortable talking about his kids so close to my cell.

[lieutenantantichrist]

[Blake does not fucking like the implication there. Kid-murderers happen to be a special issue of his. Fuck if he's going to let this asshole know that.]

It's a special kind of gutless pussy who goes after little kids. You're too fucking scared to deal with somebody who can fight back.

[See, you can't tell he's bothered at all.]

[berkthorn]

That's good to know.

And if it had been your job to use your words to try to create peace? Do you think you still would have enjoyed doing that kind of work?

[TEXT]

[glaciates]

[You know, he was having a nice day too until you showed up. Thanks, Seth.]

There's no way to "test" someone's will to fight. Either they survive or they don't. You can't test it, unless you're calling a life or death situation a test, and I'm not even going to bother trying to explain what's wrong with that.

It's not always possible to avoid situations like that, where ultimately you'll find out whether or not your "will to survive" is strong enough. You're overlooking something important though - some people will put their own survival above everything else, but there are other people who will look at a situation, see that they can save a life, and will do that instead of preserving themselves.

I think that's pretty impressive, if nothing else.

The way you've worded things implies that there's only people who fight for survival or people who die. There's a third class of people out there who will put others' safety before their own. It can be taken to extents where it's stupid and self-sacrificing, but that doesn't mean that everyone who would react that way is an idiot for attempting it.

So what is it you're really looking for? You didn't post this to the network just to hear everyone tell you how wrong you are for a variety of reasons, did you?

[anonymous text forever]

[explosivecombat]

[Yes, yes. You came out to have a good time and you're honestly feeling so attacked right now.]

The way I've worded things doesn't disallow for that third class of people - the reason for their death really doesn't matter, in the end. You're no less dead if you die in the name of trying to assert some sort of moral superiority. Maybe you'll get a nicer funeral, but it's a bit hard to appreciate that from six feet underground.

As for why I posted it, I don't know that that's any of your business. I like seeing people's reactions - I think that's enough for you.

[explosivecombat]

Maybe I just like the sound of screaming.

[explosivecombat]

Which is a valid point, but at the same time, power tends to create tyrants out of rational men.

[glaciates]

So the only thing that matters to you is the survival aspect, not what was done before the person's death. That's not to say survival isn't important, but you're painting everything in black and white when there's more to it than that.

Say a person knows they're going to die; they have a disease or something and there's no possible way to cure it. So they know they're going to die and there's nothing that can be done about it. Would you say that it's important for them to stay alive as long as possible?

These questions aren't sarcastic, I genuinely want to know how you think.

[It's not because he thinks he'll be able to figure out who Seth is, it's more because this is so ridiculous he wants to see what logic there is behind it.]

[explosivecombat]

Considering I deliberately sought out a job where I would be asked to do the opposite, probably not.

[explosivecombat]

[...that is a surprisingly good question, actually.]

You can ask me whatever questions you like. I don't mind them, and I wouldn't be here if I weren't prepared for my own viewpoint to be challenged along with yours.

In that case, I personally find it unacceptable to do otherwise.

[glaciates]

Okay, so I'm assuming if this hypothetical person was in a situation where they could save another person at the cost of their own life, you'd say that it's important for them to live, even if they will eventually die.

What if they know when they're going to die? What if it's in six months? What if it's in a day? Is it still important for them to live instead of someone else?

[explosivecombat]

It depends on the rationale behind the action.

[glaciates]

How so?

[explosivecombat]

There's a difference between throwing your life away in some way because you believe it would be futile to do otherwise, and saving someone at the expense of your own life because you believe that they will be more beneficial alive than dead.

The difference between recklessness and pragmatism matters in this sort of circumstance, as far as I'm concerned.

[glaciates]

Or they could be less of an asshole and genuinely want the person they're saving to keep living. But I'm guessing you wouldn't approve of the action then, would you?

[explosivecombat]

If they're more valuable to you alive than dead, then that's beneficial in your opinion. Just because I don't approve of it doesn't mean it's not a valid course of action.