Originally Posted by existentialist
Good, evil, it doesnt exist in an individuals mind, it is merley the play rules, of the colective, that wich seperates what we aught to do, with what we augh not, yes, it should garantee safe play, in this wonderfull game called colective life, (or sociable life whatever) but the thuth is something is good or wrong, only when the most powerfull person at the time being says it is *eck* ghenghis kan said raping wives and doughters was cool, and all of his folowers said YIPEE! bet ya he had hanged anyone who did it, it would be considered wrong, so actually good and bad is the perception of the colective torward the individual, BUT, sometimes( most of the time) its the perception of the individual torwards the colective, a guy kills a girl, he says he is ill, i say kill him, BUT , as Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind", so just give him life sentence, so he can have enough time to think about it... Isnt it cool (actually it aint cool) to think that humans are the only animals that can choose to be evil, or bad, our blessing, wich is our concience, is our curse, damn that apple. I say respect life, murder is truly EVIL look it how you look at it.
[/b]
You have no insight at all into Evil or into Barbarism. Gheghis Khan would not have relied upon Moral Constraints to keep his subordinates in line.. from raping his own wives and daughters. Barbarians rely entirely upon Dominance. Leaders must exert enough personal power over their immediate subordinates so that they will not rebel, but they must also be given enough lattitude so that they will assume they have a free hand in cruelty and ruthlessness themselves. After all, the Power of any Tyrant, Dictator or Barbarian Chieftan rests upon his ability to exert ruthless cruelty through his subordinates. While he sleeps or while he is elsewhere, his Subordinates must act in his place, being just as intimidating and dreadful as the Boss himself. They could not do this if they themselves were whipped like little puppies. To some extent their Loyalty and Enthusiasm must be purchased with some degree of indulgence. A good example of this is Hitler, who was moderate and even abstemious himself, but tolerated the most grotesque behaviors in his subordinates -- a Leader is nobody unless he has a core group ruthless henchmen willing to obey any order, and perhaps more importantly, to use their own witts and influences to establish a Reign of Terror.
So Ghenghis would have been permitted his men to do anything they wanted, wherever they wanted, but just not against Ghengis's himself and his own stuff. You must consider WHY was Ghenghis Khan able to assemble complete armies of over a half a million men, who were obviously enthusiastic about conquering the World. These were no reluctant draftees. They all 'joined up' so that they could share in the 'fun'. Ghenghis Khan was their Mocho Ideal, and it would have been silly for him to discourage such transference. What did Ghenghis Khan care that his men should rape and pillage as long as he himself would eventually get his percentage in the traditional tributes of War. It was conducted much like Captitalism -- Greed where everybody gets their cut except for the primary victims that nobody needs to concern themselves about.
And as for your dismissing evil. Well, I hope you become well acquainted with Evil, and that Evil will not leave you alone until you finally choose to acknowledge its Reality.
|
|
Bookmarks