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

text forever

[islandshore]

If there's nothing to test us, how are we supposed to get stronger? Yeah, you could argue I'm one of those "heroic types," but I'd have to be crazy to think I'm invincible. A strong will can go a long way, but you need more than that if you're gonna survive.

As for sacrifice, I'd say it hinges on wanting to protect the people who matter. Still, why pick between one life or the other? I'd argue there's always a third option.

anonymous text forever

[explosivecombat]

That last point interests me simply because it implies that you think there are others that "matter" more than you do. Which is a rather modest standpoint, at least, but it strikes me as ultimately self-defeating.

[islandshore]

Hey, what can I say? My friends mean a lot to me. Wouldn't call it self-defeating, but you can bet I'd do whatever it takes to keep them safe.

[explosivecombat]

It begs the question of what you expect them to do without you, if you have to die to save them.

[islandshore]

And that's why I'd go with plan C and try to find a way to save us both.

[Because the alternatives aren't too pretty. In either case, one of them would have to deal with the loss and the mourning, whether it's him or a friend.]

[explosivecombat]

You must be dealing with people who are particularly stupid, then, if you have a third option to take.

[islandshore]

What, because the real threats will eliminate that option?

[Hah. He'd still like to think it's possible to make that third route... but then, that's Riku being his stubborn self.]

[explosivecombat]

That is the implication, yes.

[islandshore]

And what about taking them out instead? Or are they just too tough for that?

[explosivecombat]

Well, according to our original premise, they can kill you.

[islandshore]

So what's stopping them from killing us both? If you're gonna make it sound so futile, then would that sacrifice make a difference?

Personally, I'd still rather take the chance to kill them before they kill anyone else. To actually fight to protect my friends instead of just throwing myself out into the crossfire.

[explosivecombat]

The thing people like you don't understand is that a true threat will kill you both, and they'll do it without warning and without giving you any sort of chance to defend yourself. The true threats are the ones you don't see coming; they're the ones that blindside you on some idle Tuesday while you're trying to figure out which of your Pokémon you want to train with today and what you should do with your evening if it rains you out.

You assume the true threats will be like I have been for the time I've been here. The true threats won't give you a chance to fight.

[islandshore]

So what, they're unstoppable? Here you are, talking about fighting for survival, and then you go and say that fighting's useless. So how would you deal with that kinda threat?

I'll admit, this world's too complacent. If people could die here, there'd probably be a body count racking up in no time flat. And maybe you're right-- maybe a true threat could take me down before I even got a chance to draw a weapon, but until that happens, you can bet I'll keep on fighting.

[explosivecombat]

Oh, don't misunderstand me - I find your stance honorable.

As for myself, I've been in that situation, actually. And I do the only thing a rational person would do, in that circumstance: namely, I side with whomever I think is going to win. Matters of morality have never mattered to me, and if someone is posing a completely unbeatable threat - at least, unbeatable as far as I can discern - then I would quite prefer to inherit the earth than die on some hill I don't even believe exists.

[islandshore]

And are you really okay with that? Sure, picking the winning side's fine in theory, but you'd basically be stuck following orders, unless you backstabbed them later on.