What's more important

The prince is the main work I've read by Machiavelli along with some of his letters from his retirement (exile) from Florence.

The state is responsible for the individual's sovereignty because the state is composed of individuals. Without the loyalty and good faith of the subjects, a governing body will collapse and be unable to maintain stability for any duration.

I also don't believe morality is intrinsic but the manifestation of lessons learned. Morally good lessons tend to be actions that contribute to the prosperity of a society (altruism) whereas morally bad actions tend to be damaging (murder).

so as I understand what youre saying you agree with the non aggression principle being a solid axiom for moral decisions?

>what's more important
>being blinded by conviction or being blinded by conviction
>what do you think Veeky Forums
They're both bad in my opinion, to be honest, if I say so myself.

also one last thing to say on the subject, everyone is inherently selfish, you gain something by sticking to your "values" whether it can be used for harm or good you always gain something in return. Feelings monetary gain anything really, depends on what you value.

The non aggression principle seems to imply that there is a fixated morality applicable to all populations. It's kinda like the death penalty, I don't believe it's as necessary in progressive countries as soon today but I believe that there were times when a more heavy handed approach to justice was appropriate due to the absence of strong moral education.

Is it wrong to be aggressive towards those who would damage the society? Isn't that hypocritical? Maybe there's a time and place for it. Maybe this is relativism.

if someone was damaging society then it would be in everyones best interest to act in self defense which is morally justifiable at basic levels, everyone will act in their own self interest whether its rational or not you do things to benefit yourself with every action whether youre aware or not.

Seems to be a narrow minded conclusion that completely ignores collectivist cultures. We are where we are because of human altruism and our ability to take care of others despite having no biologcal relation. One may be self interested but the self interested actions may be fiercely overshadowed by the contributions to society.

The killing of killer is a fairly basic logic, belonging to the times of Hammurabi. Crime is far more complicated and cutting off the infected finger may not cure the entire illness. In order to truly understand the reasoning behind morally bad behavior you need to go further than the most surface reasoning and figure out what basic human necessity the criminal is missing.

Op here
Let's say you have a principle of not killing humans and this is a thing you truly believe in and your dream is to be a millionaire and you get an offer to be a millionaire if you killed someone and let's assume no one finds out about the crime
What will you do will you kill to achieve your dream or refuse to stick with you values
That's what I was trying to say

Altruism gains you admiration or the sense you have contributed something greater than yourself. Whether it benefits society as a whole, I cant say. Someone will lose, ultimately whether it be the collective or not. Society dictates what we are conditioned to be acceptable but can never be in the best interest of everyone someone has to lose because to act in the interest of the whole is plausible but it takes everyone to agree to act in the interest of the other group, denying someone always of being able to gain the desired outcome. you are essentially saying that even though a group of individuals do not agree with another group everyone can win, I do ignore collectivist cultures by way of the prisoner dilemma. It can never truly be collectivist in the sense you mean. Im not trying to argue game theory with you because im not well versed on this but I think it is applicable to what im trying to say.

I dont think your analogy is applicable in the context we are using. I dont agree that my view is narrow minded, crime is complicated I agree. I look at what youre saying as a false analogy, of course cutting of the finger may not cure the illness, I think an acceptable analogy for what I mean is that you can prevent the illness through your self interest, by which I mean to act in self defense There doesnt need to be sound reasoning for an individual to act a certain way. While I dont agree with the killing of a killer after the fact, is ex post facto the correct term?, its a fallacy in itself to determine an individuals future actions based on the past, if caught in the act it would morally justifiable to prevent it from even happening, I know that it is not always possible but it will always be in someones best interest to act in a manner non hostile to another person not trying to harm yourself or what you hold dear. Am I making any sense at all or am I talking out of my ass? Sorry if so.

I believe you have a point but you're muddling your own work. I wouldn't mind trying to read it again if you would be as kind as to type it again.

Regarding self interest: it's an exceptionally broad term and any action could eventually be defined as self interested because even in giving away all our possessions we receive some sort of self satisfaction and therefore acted in self interest. I believe self interest is important and necessary but only when the result contributed more to the whole rather than the part.

For the millionaire situation, in achieving a personal dream one should avoid immoral acts for obvious reasons. The journey towards your dream will always be more important than the actual arrival. It's how one becomes a virtuous person.

yeah I was kinda rushing through it, I can take the time to form concise thoughts but I just might be unable to do so, I am guilty of arguing different points to support another, Im trying to work on that...lol. Yes I agree if everyone acted in the interest of the whole then everyone could "win" but someone will always come out with the upper hand through the loss of another, even if all parties agree that doesnt make it beneficial to the collective intentional or not. I agree with that last part though, even though death can be accepted as a game you cant win, you can win at life, and to win at any game is to have someone ultimately lose, unless like you said everyone could agree to do what was best for everyone and compromise you will always have someone giving up something that is in their best interest even then, only someone with irrational thinking will ever do. Who will do anything to gain nothing at all, that might be over simplifying it but isnt that the point in trying to understand these existential problems? Things grander than ourselves and attempting to understand them is just a part of the game. So I can never bring myself to believe there is a collective of any sort, I think therefore I am is what you can be sure to be truth, anything else is just attempting to understand why you are and applying subjective meaning to something you cant prove to ever be a universal truth. But to use the non agression principle is a step to at least living life in the most comfortable way achievable, through self sovereignty we can benefit ourselves and others by not trying to control what someone will feel or do. And for a collective to work we all have to agree we are not in control of anyone but ourselves really, but ignorance is prevalent and through philosophy we attempt to break free from ignorance. I dont fucking know man, I would never attempt to change how you interpret anything, that would be wrong of me to do so, but I can see what you have to say and either choose to disagree or agree

I wholeheartedly agree that life is what we can only look to for any hope of ever being happy, and I think everyone wants to be happy. what would be the point if you skip to the end of a book and miss everything in between. Like I said before Im not that well versed and will admit to what I cannot understand or have not attempted to yet, even then I cant see anything ever being a true collective, when I see that word I can only think to compare it to a hive mind sort of consciousness, why would I ever want to be anything but an individual, what would be the point to life being oppressed by another?

I dont know honestly I dont ever have anyone to bounce anything off but one person we generally agree on most subjects, so I apologize for my incoherent rambling I hopefully conveyed something worth reading

Regarding your comparison of life to a game I reference the Italian philosopher Luigi Pirandello who, in essence, puts that if life truly is a game and one has recognized this, the only appropriate response is not to play. There are those who play, win and or lose, but ultimately there is no truth behind any of it because these people cannot affect those who have decided not to play.

Trying to understand philosophy and the ideal collective society is obviously a pipe dream due to our innate observer bias (we are human and humans are flawed because we only see from the human perspective). It's difficult to understand how a collective society might exist since (and this may be a false assumption, if so, please excuse me) we are both born into western cultures that emphasize the potential and importance of individual existence. You feel that you and your individual presence is important because you have been taught that every person matters. The difference between a collective society and our is that in a collective society, the individual is less important than the whole. Through the establishment of such a culture, our entire perspectives would be transformed to reflect new emotions. Joy would no longer come from obtaining wealth and building your house in isolation to fend yourself. Instead, pleasure would come from your contribution to, as you mentioned, something "grander than ourselves". I believe it is so impossible to imagine such an existence because it is so far beyond our perspectives.

It stands to say that it may be near impossible to reverse the thousands of years of culture that has rendered possible western civilization, but such is the plight of human existence. We aren't here for a reason, we just are. Whatever system is suitably adapted to an environment is the system that will survive. With the progress of technology we have been able to force even weak systems to persist (weak being systems that benefit few and harm many).

I appreciate that you acknowledge that you would never try to change my interpretation and I grant you that same courtesy. After all, a discussion wouldn't be as interesting if it was only one view point. Knowledge isn't linear, but a tree branching off in a multitude of directions; each limb representing a line of thought, malleable and breakable. The more we learn from this thought, the thicker it grows and the more branches it can support.

I also apologize if I rambled a bit. Also, use fucking paragraphs man.

Dude I dropped out of high school

While I have a general grasp of this shit, writing in paragraphs is not a priority for me at this point lol.

Thanks for talking man its been decent.