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

[explosivecombat]

Either way, morality is always a moot point in the first place, or at least to some extent it should be. There's no universal standard for it, and so it shouldn't even be brought into any sort of rational argument to begin with.

Most moral points are entirely self-centered, anyway.

[ossifragant]

You're right, of course.

In my experience, people aren't very good at being rational when it comes to having deeply held beliefs challenged.

[explosivecombat]

No, they aren't.

At the same time, some of them deserve to be challenged, and I see no reason to not do so.

[ossifragant]

Of course not.

You're doing a good job of it from what I can see.

If the belief is strong enough, it'll hold up. If not it wasn't a strong enough belief, was it?

[explosivecombat]

I've never been too interested in changing people's minds and beliefs. If anything, I admire the conviction held by those whose beliefs I can't change.

Their thoughts are mine to influence, but not mine to change. It's an important distinction.

[ossifragant]

I've always found those exact convictions to be the most interesting of all of them.

There's something to be said about a person who is strong enough not to be shaken.

[explosivecombat]

Not always good things, of course, as some beliefs are very, very stupid no matter how you look at them.

But the conviction itself is admirable.

[ossifragant]

It certainly is.