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.