ext_36450 ([identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2009-07-21 08:05 pm

A question inspired by another post:

If we presume that a social good and a social evil can be defined enough that violence v. non-violence is a valid question, I'd like to propose a simple question:

Who is the arbiter of good and evil? Is it religion, ethics, utilitarianism, ideology, might makes right or what?

Effectively....given the amount of diversity in opinion in this community, which includes paranoid conspiracy theorists like Sophia_Sadek and Hunterkirk, communists like Gillen, ultra-reactionaries like yours truly, and a bevy of more "regular" political Left-Right viewpoints, who among Men is best-qualified to judge all? Or is Hobbes right?

How can one be objective enough to decide this on the scale of a modern-day state, even the anarchistic messes that are most of Africa, let alone the Second or First Worlds?

Post referenced linked here: http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/182264.html
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 07:49 pm (UTC)(link)
no.
I certainly don't prefer the implications of nihilism, by all the standards I've been raised with it's a very scary and unsatisfying conclusion.
But it's the most reasonable, which has nothing to do with my personal preferences.