NationStates Jolt Archive

I think you can, harsh, and firm angaist evil, but honest, and kind, and just. What's YOUR opinion?

Depends upon what "morality" to which you subscribe.

For me, yes you can be.

I think it would be better to say that one can be moral and appear ruthless.

If your morality consists of ruthlessly killing people, why not?

The Nazis said they were doing a moral thing when they murdered jews and others.

I think you need to explain what you mean by moral to answer this question. Of course, if you do that, you might answer your question yourself.

Personally I find pretty much everythread about morality to lack rigor because we don't really know what it is, or at least we don't have a clear understanding.

Can you moral AND ruthless?

This thread title no verb.

Ayn Rand says you can...actually she says you must be.

This thread title no verb.

*Morals* *Ruthlesses* Turns out you can do both at the same time. Silly BWO - they are the verbs :p :D

Morality is subjective. Hmm, isn't everything.

Morality is subjective. Hmm, isn't everything.

Maths? That seems fairly objective.

Maths? That seems fairly objective.

Yeah, but it is just an axiomatic system and we have no firm evidence that it actually represents anything in the 'real' world.

Yeah, but it is just an axiomatic system and we have no firm evidence that it actually represents anything in the 'real' world.

Well? Does that matter? It's still an objective system of knowledge surely?

Well? Does that matter? It's still an objective system of knowledge surely?

Yeah, but knowledge about what? Just itself? If that is all we can be sure it is about then it has the same objectivty as if we were to just make some random declaration and describe it as knowledge about itself.


In other words - I declare "All X's are Y", but do not define what the X or the Y refer to, but would still describe the assertion as a case of objective knowledge about the statement "All X's are Y". Hardly satisfactory.

Depends on what you think moral is.

If you think kindness, charity, and that sorta thing are moral, it would seem diffiecult to be ruthless.

IF you beleive in "Tough Love" then ruthlessness would be quite moral.

For a more defined argument:

[1] ruth·less Audio pronunciation of "ruthless" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rthls)
adj.

Having no compassion or pity; merciless: ruthless cruelty; ruthless opportunism.

[2] mor·al Audio pronunciation of "moral" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.

n.

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


Now, you can take morality as many different things. It's most commonly accepted as what you feel is right and wrong. Another word for conscience, it seems - or what you believe society conforms to make you believe in. However, if you strip apart society and its bare essentials, you see that humans are festering upon this planet, burning, stripping and consuming it by the millions of tonnes every day in many of the world's resources, almost ruthless, without stopping despite the soft-spoken words of others (whom are also consuming quite unnoticeably). That leads to another subject.

If you are ruthless, that could mean you would lack a certain compassion, and hence you could have no morality, yet this is different once more on society. For example, from today's view, moral is what is considered right. However, take for example the Huns, the Mongols or the Vikings. Their moral values are preached around loyalty, strength, fervour and power, yet they were by today's standards incredibly ruthless. Genghis Khan created and strengthened the silk road to Bukhara and made it so safe that even a woman could walk alone on the trail without being scared of rape, assault or any form of degeneration, yet Baghdad was also burned to the ground.

Erik the Red slaughtered countless numbers of innocent native English inhabitants, yet he looked for more land and places to settle for his people.

The Nazis committed the famous Holocaust, yet they were also responsible to bring Germany out of economic depression so well that Hitler was featured on Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

Even Knight chivalry casts a thin light over the fact that they were legendary killing machines.

It's what you have cascaded yourself to believe is your society's 'right' and 'wrong', which is what decides whether you are ruthless. In today's standards, most likely not (that you can be successfully completely moral and completely ruthless).

Its simple, you can be moral when the time calls for it, and be ruthless when the time calls for it. e.g. be moral with a mis-aligned kid criminal, but be ruthless witha senior Neo-Nazi.

This thread title no verb.
Lol, yes, sorry.

Genghis Khan created and strengthened the silk road to Bukhara and made it so safe that even a woman could walk alone on the trail without being scared of rape, assault or any form of degeneration, yet Baghdad was also burned to the ground.

Genghis? Aren't you refering to KUBLAI Khan?.

The Nazis committed the famous Holocaust, yet they were also responsible to bring Germany out of economic depression so well that Hitler was featured on Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

The "famous" Holocaust? I do hope you mean "infamous".

No. Evil is human. Dismissing human life because you regard it as "evil" is immoral, as the protection and preservation of human life and freedom is the best basis for a decent morality.