I am a moral subjectivist, one who takes an evolution based view of morality as a tool of the powerful to control the behavior of their subjects.
I reject morality and instead view the world in terms of personal benefit vs personal detriment.
The demons as presented are a threat to humanity, they present to humanity suffering or death or destruction or stagnation or a loss of identity, and the angels are a means for humans to survive.
It makes sense therefore for humans to ally with the angels, at least until the demons and their threat are eradicated.
Humans can then consider the risk vs benefit of going to war with the angels after the demons are gone.
If war with heaven seems a bad idea for their well-being, they should instead work to improve upon their alliance with heaven.
Hell, of course, remains an enemy until the circumstances warrant a change.
The point is that all that matters here is what produces the most preferred/satisfactory/desirable outcome for humanity.
Assuming I am humanity, if I were the angels or demons my thought process remains unchanged, just the PoV shifts.
I have no problem with genocide, the annihilation of a group is entirely justified if it improves the circumstances for the group who perpetrated it.
This is why I am a white nationalist white supremacist or whatever else I get called.
I am not like most of my kind.
I stand against other races not because I see them as inferior or different from me.
Quite the opposite, I see the members of other races as very similar to my own, and in a few cases as superior.
Which is what makes them a threat to my race, a threat which must be dealt with.
As a moral subjectivist / moral relativist, I view the conflicting morals of the ethical landscape as a darwiniam battlefield fighting for the title of "most fit to survive".
I this have an obligation to put up the very best fight I could in the name of my own preferences.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 1 point 3 weeksApr 4, 2025 21:29:17 ago (+1/-0)*
I reject morality and instead view the world in terms of personal benefit vs personal detriment.
The demons as presented are a threat to humanity, they present to humanity suffering or death or destruction or stagnation or a loss of identity, and the angels are a means for humans to survive.
It makes sense therefore for humans to ally with the angels, at least until the demons and their threat are eradicated.
Humans can then consider the risk vs benefit of going to war with the angels after the demons are gone.
If war with heaven seems a bad idea for their well-being, they should instead work to improve upon their alliance with heaven.
Hell, of course, remains an enemy until the circumstances warrant a change.
The point is that all that matters here is what produces the most preferred/satisfactory/desirable outcome for humanity.
Assuming I am humanity, if I were the angels or demons my thought process remains unchanged, just the PoV shifts.
I have no problem with genocide, the annihilation of a group is entirely justified if it improves the circumstances for the group who perpetrated it.
This is why I am a white nationalist white supremacist or whatever else I get called.
I am not like most of my kind.
I stand against other races not because I see them as inferior or different from me.
Quite the opposite, I see the members of other races as very similar to my own, and in a few cases as superior.
Which is what makes them a threat to my race, a threat which must be dealt with.
As a moral subjectivist / moral relativist, I view the conflicting morals of the ethical landscape as a darwiniam battlefield fighting for the title of "most fit to survive".
I this have an obligation to put up the very best fight I could in the name of my own preferences.
Hence why I am on here. In sum, I am 14 > 88.
[ + ] Cantaloupe
[ - ] Cantaloupe 1 point 3 weeksApr 4, 2025 15:10:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 0 points 3 weeksApr 4, 2025 16:27:14 ago (+0/-0)
Moral equivocation is accepting evil is a just response to stop evil.