Debate Everything

[Kat]

It's just a cheap cliche.

This was actually written by a philosopher:

"Man is evil"—so said to me for consolation, all the wisest ones. Ah, if only it be
still true today! For the evil is man's best force. "

[lantzblades]

That's not at all what I meant. And seriously Man is not evil, not inherently.

[KAIZA]

To be fair, "good" and "evil" are not things that actually exist; they are things that are defined.

In fact, you could say they are defined by each individual (one might see an action as morally right, other as horrible, other as questionable, and so on, and so on...), but for the most part, society as a whole helps to give them a "global definition", you could say.

It still varies from culture to culture, but for the most part the same basic views tend to be shared by the majority (like killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc).

And this is still not taking into account people's tendency to try to validate/justify their actions regardless of what they are or how they are seen morally.

[Kat]

I interpret this Nietzsche's statement as the fact that the conflict is drawing the best out of humans.

Bonobos are still climbing trees, humans are the highest primates. Being a pacifist does not make you thrive.

[Cherry Lover]

To be fair, "good" and "evil" are not things that actually exist; they are things that are defined.

In fact, you could say they are defined by each individual (one might see an action as morally right, other as horrible, other as questionable, and so on, and so on...), but for the most part, society as a whole helps to give them a "global definition", you could say.

It still varies from culture to culture, but for the most part the same basic views tend to be shared by the majority (like killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc).

And this is still not taking into account people's tendency to try to validate/justify their actions regardless of what they are or how they are seen morally.

I think that, to some extent, good and evil are a matter of definition, but I do also think that there is a fundamental psychological basis for the divide. It is true that someone from 500 years ago would consider different things to be evil from me, but at the core there is some basis of caring for others vs. not caring for others. Even 15th Century people would consider acts done for your own selfish gain at the expense of others to be "evil", and acts done for the benefit of others at your own expense to be "good". The exact definition of that is very open to interpretation (they thought that burning witches was "saving their souls"), but the basic principle does still hold (and is the fundamental psychological underpinning of the whole human concept of good and evil, I think).

I interpret this Nietzsche's statement as the fact that the conflict is drawing the best out of humans.

Bonobos are still climbing trees, humans are the highest primates. Being a pacifist does not make you thrive.

I don't think that's entirely true. All animals have some sort of conflict, whether it be direct fighting or indirect competition for food and territory. It's the fundamental driving force of all evolution.

Actual military conflict, though, is only good at making us better at fighting, at least in concept. I think that, because we have evolved to be war-like creatures, we do focus a lot on war and achieve a lot through it, but I don't think that is necessarily a fundamentally "better" strategy than other sorts of "conflict" (such as finding ways to obtain more food).

[Kat]

Actual military conflict, though, is only good at making us better at fighting, at least in concept. I think that, because we have evolved to be war-like creatures, we do focus a lot on war and achieve a lot through it, but I don't think that is necessarily a fundamentally "better" strategy than other sorts of "conflict" (such as finding ways to obtain more food).

Military conflicts have hastened our technological progress.

[Cherry Lover]

They have, yes, but that's not an inherent property of military conflicts. It's a property of human nature being so military-biased. We don't fund science and technological development properly until we want to kill someone with it....

A pacifistic society could still have technological development, it would just happen in a different way. Rather than waiting for wars to provide the need, some other challenge would provide that need instead (which is what happens now, mostly, especially in terms of healthcare).

[Kat]

World peace and lack of conflict would make us stagnant as species. Nasu is right saying it is an horrible idea.

[Cherry Lover]

No, Nasu never said World Peace was a bad idea, what he said was that wishing for World Peace on a corrupted grail was a bad idea, because the only way the world is likely to ever have peace is if everyone is dead (or, at least, stripped of their free will)....

[Kat]

No, Nasu also expressed idea that world without conflict as envisioned by Harways would be a horrible thing. It has nothing to do with corrupted Grail. Rin also pointed out in FSN that world peace would be horrible because lack of conflict means stagnation.

[Umbra of Chaos]

There is also the fact that any type of world peace can only be achieved through morally questionable means.

[lantzblades]

Then humans are effectively worthless Umbra

[Umbra of Chaos]

Because we cannot achieve world peace? Calling all of humanity worthless because we cannot do the impossible? Do you really think that little of all that we've achieved?

[Knick]

The world itself is a system of conflicts. Things take from one another to survive. Things take from their own species to survive, to make sure their lineage continues.

Killing, living, survival, dieing.

The world functions on basic principle that make world peace impossible. Because conflict is something inherent when there are limited resources, space, water, food, energy, and so on and so forth.

Humans are animals, we cannot suddenly say we are going to change the fundamental way the world works, fundamental laws about how life works, just because it is "beautiful".

With world peace all you need is one person who refuses to follow it, then everyone else of completely unprepared and it will result in chaos.

Take and read some actual philosophy before arguing it Lantz.

[Cherry Lover]

No, Nasu also expressed idea that world without conflict as envisioned by Harways would be a horrible thing. It has nothing to do with corrupted Grail.

I don't think the problem with the world envisioned by the Harways is the lack of conflict....

Rin also pointed out in FSN that world peace would be horrible because lack of conflict means stagnation.

Isn't that Extra Rin?

Then humans are effectively worthless Umbra

As long as there are bad people in the world and people who are stupid enough to follow them, there will always be conflict. And even without that it's hard to avoid, as long as people are capable of disagreeing.

The world itself is a system of conflicts. Things take from one another to survive. Things take from their own species to survive, to make sure their lineage continues.

Killing, living, survival, dieing.

The world functions on basic principle that make world peace impossible. Because conflict is something inherent when there are limited resources, space, water, food, energy, and so on and so forth.

Humans are animals, we cannot suddenly say we are going to change the fundamental way the world works, fundamental laws about how life works, just because it is "beautiful".

That's true in a world where there isn't enough for everyone. Our current world is not like that, we can in theory provide for everyone. Further, war in the modern form is not beneficial to anyone (well, aside from arms companies...), even the winner. So, no, there is no inate reason why we must continue fighting, the only genuine reason left to fight is ideology.

With world peace all you need is one person who refuses to follow it, then everyone else of completely unprepared and it will result in chaos.

Take and read some actual philosophy before arguing it Lantz.

This, however, is true.

Personally, I believe that the necessity to fight is bad, but possessing the will to fight if necessary is definitely a good thing. If people won't stand up for what is right, then people will get away with great evil.