After the war for the silver throne had ended and Prince Wacoca had left Yakuallpa for his home on the Verdant Isles, he had never thought he would return to Medala this soon. Yet here he was, once more in the presence of their strange eastern neighbors. Led by a servant, both he and his sister crossed the gateway which would lead them inside Rapra Castle, a beautiful construction full of classic Yaku charm. The first time he had seen this marvel of old Yaku craftsmanship, he had assessed its security, as he had been taught by his father. However, all he realized was that it would be impossible to capture by any method Wacoca he could think of.
However, he wasn't here to take over the lands, or plunder them. Not this time at least. This time, he had come on a very convenient invitation. Thus, he obediently followed the servant into the large, central yard of Rapra Castle. Inside, on the far end of the open space, among a picturesque stone garden, the servants of Rapra had set up a number of tables and comfortable seats, which were already laden with all kinds of fruit, no more than appetizers for what would surely be a lavish feast as only the Medalans could stomach. In the corner, a group of local musicians played soft songs on their kotos and flutes, no more than a rivulet of murmurs to accompany the southern lords who were already present.
“Prince Wacoca of the Verdant Isles! How nice of you to join us!” With an overly dramatic greeting, one loud enough to make all the guests hear, King Corcopaca Titu Pluritac marched towards him, his arms spread wide. After the second burial of his father, the young king had exchanged his blue robes for subdued green and red colors had uncovered his arms to prove his Sachay heritage. Apart from these simple differences, nothing else had changed. He wouldn't even wear his bronze crown, the symbol of the triumvirate kings. Even so, the verdant prince could feel the difference in Corco's demeanor, how he carried himself with far more gravitas than before, despite the man's best attempts to pretend his usual relaxed attitude.
“King Corcopaca, the Verdant Isles have been more than honored to receive your invitation,” Wacoca replied to the king.
“Good, that's good. Princess Sumaci as well. What brings you here?” Although common courtesy dictated his actions, Corco was markedly less warm when talking to Wacoca's sister. Throughout the journey, the girl had barely said a word, mostly cooped up in her cabin with quill and paper. Even so, she had been even more insistent than usual on coming along for their diplomatic mission. As fast as he could, Wacoca answered for his sister, before she could display any of the unusual rudeness she had shown the king before. Even though it might have been less of a problem in Arguna, back when he had only been a prince, by now Corco was a king, no less in his own home and in front of his subjects. Considering the reason for their visit, he would have to make sure to make a good first impression.
“King Corco, my sister has insisted that she be brought along. It seems she has much interest in the teachings we have been presented last time. She has spent much time with the books and must have many questions.”
One eyebrow raised, the king looked over Wacoca's sister, who retained her plain smile from before, as dry as an old riverbed.
“Yes, King Corco. There are many matters I would like to discuss in relation to the books we were presented.”
“That so, huh?” His voice filled with suspicion, Corco gave Sumaci a second once-over, before he clapped his hands and returned to his customary smile.
“Ah, where are my manners? How's about an aperitif?” Enthusiasm bursting from his ears, the king waved one of his servants over, who came ready with several small goblets, their bottoms covered by an amber liquid and decorated with a slice of a yellow fruit.
“This is?” Overwhelmed by the spectacle before him, Wacoca took the drink from the servant's hand. With a shout of confusion, he almost let it drop when his hands touched the ice-cold surface. “Ice?” he stared in marvel at the translucent goblet. Through the clear material, Wacoca could see a sly grin form on Corco's face.
“Ah, yeah, we chilled the cocktail a bit. I hope you don't mind, but it's still pretty hot out, so I thought it would be an appropriate start.” Together with his answer, the king took another two glasses, and handed one of them to Sumaci. Too bothered by the wonder before him, Wacoca even forgot to check his sister's reaction, against their father's instructions.
“No, not the drink! The cup, the goblet!” His voice rang out again again as his fingers turned numb around the strange material. As preposterous as it seemed to serve a drink in a goblet made of paper-thin sheets ice, it was the only explanation Wacoca could come up with to explain this wonder, this inexplicable clarity.
“It is called crystal glass, Prince Wacoca,” a voice came from the side to save him from his confusion. When Wacoca turned, he saw an old acquaintance come towards them, dressed in red and white just as he remembered. The verdant prince still stunned by his drink, Corco spoke up before Wacoca could greet the new arrival.
“Ah yeah, let's do introductions. Prince Wacoca, this is my cousin, Governor Mayu Sonco Saqartu.”
“Yes,” the verdant prince gave a stiff nod, still shaken by the freezing sensation in his hand. Even then, his education saved him and forced out the words his mind was too stiff to remember. “We are well acquainted. Lord Saqartu, the Verdant King was deeply distraught at your father's demise. The Verdant Isles wish the hero of the south a safe journey through the underworld.”
“Thank you for your condolences, Prince Wacoca. I hear the axe among the funerary boons was yours,” Mayu answered with a smile.
“So you know each other already?” Corco asked. However, Wacoca only replied with a nod, before he moved on to a topic he was much more interested in.
“Lord Mayu, what is this crystal glass you have spoken of?”
“It is the newest achievement of the great men of Sachay, nothing less!” Mayu answered with pride in his voice.
“Weeeell...” Compared to his cousin, King Corco didn't appear too enthusiastic, but at least it seemed as if he hadn't been offended by Mayu's answer. Angry at the way he had neglected his host, Wacoca scolded himself in secret, determined to be more careful in the future.
“...it's not really an invention of Sachay, per say. Over in the east, on the Arcavian continent, they have much more accomplished glass makers than we do here. One of their most impressive products is clear glass. Our crystal glass is only a slight improvement on their basic formula, nothing more.”
“Still, in the end the improvement is an accomplishment of the Sachay people. There is no reason to be humble, cousin.”
Somehow, Wacoca could feel an unusual tension between the two men. Even though they seemed very intimate on the surface, conflict only hid skin deep. At least his sister had the good sense to interrupt the proceedings before a proper disagreement could develop.
“Hmmm, what is this delicious drink?” she asked, the only one not so preoccupied with the crystal glass, or politics, that she had managed to focus on the contents of the cup instead. Even though her actions seemed willful and selfish on the surface, Wacoca was sure that his smart sister had read the room and decided to defuse the problems between the cousins. As if on command, the king left his politician's face behind and lit up, happy to talk about his favorite new thing.
“It's a cocktail. Our Fastgrade brand brandy has been mixed together with some syrup and a dash or two of nice bitters. The lemon wedge gives it a bit of extra zing, and freshness of course. It is a good drink to start a banquet with, perfect to whet one's appetite.”
“In any case, it is delicious,” the princess smiled back as she took another sip. Maybe she had only been willful after all.
“I didn't notice before that the fruit in the drink was a lemon,” Wacoca realized. “I was sure they were only grown in the north-western corners of Chutwa. Strange how such an exotic fruit would make its way all the way here to Saniya.”
“They're not Chutwa lemons. I brought them with me, when I came back from Arcavia. Though by now, Medala has started to grow its own as well. We've already begun our first lemon orchards in the east and north.” Once more, pride dripped from the king's voice. Unlike most monarchs he knew, Corco seemed more concerned with growth and improvement of his lands, rather than with fights for power against equals and subordinates. Wacoca wasn't sure how well it would serve the young king. If nothing else, at least his sister's interest had been piqued by Corco's attitude.
“Is that also where the king's knowledge has come from? Arcavia of the east?” Her grip tightened around the drink in her hand as Sumaci's mind turned to the questions she had mulled over ever since she had started to read King Corco's books.
“Uh, sure.” The king replied while he scratched his temple, much less enthusiastic than Wacoca had expected.
“There is no reason to be coy, King Corco. Neither me nor my brother would be here if we considered the knowledge worthless.”
“In that case all of it was thought up by me,” Corco replied with a crooked grin, though he still seemed uncomfortable somehow.
“However, no matter how good the books are, there are still many matters I'm unsure about.”
“Oh, what can I help you with?” At once, the king's grin turned into a mild smile, like an old teacher observing a willing young student.
“Well, first, in the matters of ethics. I wonder whether or not the book's method, this 'categorical imperative' described in the book, is the only way to identify correct moral action.”
Almost immediately, the king's benevolent smile was blown away and replaced with a frown. It seemed like the teacher was already disappointed by his student.
“Why wouldn't it be? It's a perfectly logical method to define morality in an objective manner. It's the only method, in fact.”
Unperturbed by the king's reprimand, Sumaci still continued.
“Yes, sure, but there is no guarantee that this method can identify all moral actions, can it? There are a good number of examples for stuff I would say is moral, but they can't be considered moral under the book's model.”
“...so they're subjective,” Corco answered, his voice now flat, without emotion. Even Sumaci's smile had become a bit stiff at this point.
“...no, I'm sure any reasonable person would agree with my assessment. If only such a person was here in this yard with me.”
Although she had just defused one conflict, now Sumaci was already in the process of causing another. To Wacoca's own great fortune however, he wouldn't have to mediate between the two terrifying forces. Just in time, another member of the Saqartu family, Captain Atau di Pluritac, came over and spoke to his king.
“King Corco, the first representative from House Villca is here. According to the guards, Lord Villca's second son Khune is on his way towards the yard.”
With a nod towards his servant and a quick “if you'd excuse me,” Corco followed the warrior towards the front of the yard to greet his newest guest.
“So it seems as if the south will have the support of the Verdant Isles. Fantastic news, and surely an alliance to stand the test of time,” Mayu restarted the conversation. “Maybe this lord should make another visit to the isles, to strengthen the bonds between our people.”
“Ahaha, for now father doesn't plan to get involved in the matters of Medala,” Wacoca replied. Since both had similar cultures, the verdant folk were naturally inclined towards the south in Medala's power struggle, but they were not silly enough to get involved in a civil war based on their personal feelings.
“However,” Sumaci added, “father has sent me and brother to Saniya for further studies. There will always be a chance to find more common ground between one another so long as we stay here.”
“You are not Khune Villca! Who are you, impostor!” An angry shout was followed by the sound of drawn metal to interrupt their conversation. Confused by the commotion, the three people turned to look towards the entrance. There, a mass of people had formed around a single man. Even though he had been called an impostor, with his massive size and sparse hair, he very much looked like the old Lord Villca. However, the newcomer's unusual, gray dresswear made him seem more like a commoner rather than a noble.
In front of the intruder, shielding his king behind his back, stood Atau, a giant mace in his hand.
“You are not Khune Villca! Identify yourself or taste my mace!”
Unfazed by the Saqartu warrior's threat, the newcomer spoke up in a clear voice.
“No need to fret, king's dog. I'll tell you my name. I am Uchu, lord of the great Tunki river, fourth son of the late Lord Villca, and soon ruler over all of Cashan! Pleased to meet you, noble masters.”
And thus, armed only with a toothy grin, the most notorious bandit of Sachay and bastard son of Lord Villca, the infamous bandit Uchu Villca, had burst into the middle of high society and staked his claim to his father's lands.
Kant? Seriously? Not like there were a few centuries of philosophy after. And judging by the princesses questions, it is the only take on the ethics in the books at all. Such progress, much objectivity.
Well, she only got the cliff notes version.
And honestly, most ideas on ethics are... more feelings-based and hardly objective or grounded in reality. Out of all the ones I've read, the cathegorical imperative was the only one I found convincing from an objective and an intuitive standpoint. You're free to convince me otherwise though. Which moral view would you prefer?
@SociableHermit eh, I am as utilitarian as they go. The trick is in defining what "value" is, which is highly subjective. But in short, I believe that our only real freedom and the right, although they are neither, is to chose the goal you strive to. That is my take on ethics. It is focused on a goal, rather than an act, which means that everything (even genocide) is a go if it brings more consequent value than the alternatives. Which means lies and honesty are defined through their effectiveness in a partical situation rather than some inherent properties. It means morality is relative, since it depends on a goal of a particular agent, which is shaped by their psychology, genetics and life experience. So everyone is morally right, and probably wrong, but it is ultimately irrelevant, because it doesn't matter whether their actions are right or wrong, as long as they align with your goal, they are right, as long as they do not, they are wrong. But from greater perspective, they are all ultimately irrelevant.
The problematic point is twofold however - first of all, morality as a guidelines of conduct lose their meaning, since the only real guideline is such "do what will be most beneficial to your goal". So there are no real rules that are mandatory to anyone, much less yourself, especially since point two: where it differs from cathegorical imperative is that your beliefs, your own goal, changes through an act of achieving that goal so much that in the end you may no longer wish to attain your goal, after attaining it. That is because, we are very, very short-sighted creatures of limited intelligence, so I feel that using any absolutes is a wrong in and of itself. Not moral wrong, but more a logical "incorrect" type of wrong (actually a moral wrong as well, because it is meaningless and useless). We cannot possibly predict the consequences of our actions, we cannot possibly conceive the "bigger picture" so all our guidlines to our actions must denote this fact: what you act right now based on what is true to you right now is not an absolute. You will make mistakes. That is a cornerstone of my moral system. You will make mistakes and you will be morally wrong. And every single other being will be morally wrong, either in the past or in the future (nobody can be morally wrong in the present, since if they did not believe that something is the best choice, they would not have acted on it. And if they believe that they believe it is not the best choice but act on it anyway, they must review their selfimage, for it is where the real inconguance lies. So if we can't even be moral in any observable timeframe, what can morality do to us?
It gives our actions meaning - that is what morality is for. It declares: I act as such because I can change something through it. It is a willful self-delusion of importance, but one we must allow to exist or we couldn't function. It is highly idealistic, since it ultimately rejects any other inherent value than whatever your goal is (right now) - which could be installing some particular morality as a common code if you want it. We all act upon achieving that subjective value. And neither our actions nor our goals are chosen by us. So where can we hide from that awful truth?
Only creating a system that denotes the existence of said goal, an act as an attempt to acheive said goal. And if the goal is yours (which it is) and the action is the best one possible (which it is or you indentified the goal incorrectly) than it must be that there was someone who acted upon the belief in that value and acted out of that. It is, essentially, a proof that you exist through observance of our actions.
It is not so much a real guideline as much as an post-factum explanation from a deterministic point of view. Every human has a goal, every action of human is aimed at that goal. The goals are predefined, the choices are predefined as well, through the combination of perspective, some degree of intelligence and the environment. Which means, that, in the end, my morality serves only the purpose of installing the meaning in our actions - one that, as I believe, they sorely lack.
In the end, morality is not only subjective from other's perspective, but from your own as well. As such it can't really serve it's intended purpose, but must instead be either illiminated or repurposed.
In the end it comes down to the principle of personal responsibility. As long as you have a clear goal and accept all consequences of your actions as acceptable for reaching said goal, you are ok in my book. I may disagree with you, either on your methods or your goal, and do a necessary actions to stop you if they run contrary to my values and goals, but I don't think you to be immoral no matter what you do. However, if you do not have a clearly stated purpose in mind and blindly wandering about, or worse, do not wish to accept the consequences of your actions as your, than you are a bad person.
I hope I could explain myself correctly.
P.S.
I think it bears mention that people sometimes mix together what is, for the lack of the better word, "personal" ethic and "judicionary" ethic. Best seen in difference between the words criminal and moral. What is not criminal is not always moral and vice versa, I think we would agree on that. And I would be the first to say that my personal ethic DOES NOT make for a good judicionary one, at all. It is pretty horrible even as a personal ethic, really. If we a re talking about judicionary ethic, than I would probably agree on cathegorical principle as a necessary thing. Linguistics, eh?
@Pezt See, that's how I feel about utilitarianism. I think it too easily leads to actions most people would intuitively consider 'imoral'. It also feels impractical, since defining value is as dificult as predicting an increase or decrease in it from your actions.
Whether or not you're Utilitarian though, I think we can agree that it's not a great way to run a country, which is ultimately what these philosophy chapters are aimed at: Preparation for some slow cultural shift way down the line.
@SociableHermit "I think it too easily leads to actions most people would intuitively consider 'imoral'"
Yeah, well, it kinda depends on what exact moral code is indocrinated from birth in the society. Also, "what would people think" is not much of an argument for me to not do things, unless they are capable to undermine me in a way that would be detrimental to my goals. And then it is not a necessarily an argument to not do things, but rather to make them seem like something moral, or to not be seemed at all.
"It also feels impractical, since defining value is as dificult as predicting an increase or decrease in it from your actions."
With that I disagree. It feels as if it is the most practical of al ethics, really. Unlike most, which are idealistic through and through, utilitariasm practical in every sense. It is literally "what is a best course of action for me and a society as a whole". While value is difficult to define, some things are valuable for us all: warmth, food, sex, etc. I think your feeling stems from the fact that you think that utilitarianism is not "thinking long term" while I think that utilitarianism is exactly that. It is disciplining yourself in your behaviour, while not exploiting yourself too. It, however, suffers from oversimplification. While gedonism, especially certain forms of such are impractical to say the least, it is not a utilitarianism. While similar in many postulates, utilitarianisms consernes itself with a well-being of major population, while hedonism with the happyness of oneself. I had strained from that point in my explanation because I kinda assumed you'd know. However I personally maintain that every hedonism, if taken to it's logical conclusion should result in utilitarianism in it's original form, i.e. "working for a good of all", because only in society does humanity have strength to bring on meaningful change. If it is not, than it is not really hedonsim, it is just stupidity and fabrication of explanation for ones own impulsiveness.
"Whether or not you're Utilitarian though, I think we can agree that it's not a great way to run a country"
That is actually really debatable, and still there is no consesus on the matter. While most succesful judicionary ethic system (anglo-saxon) is heavily based upon things like of free will, individuality, freedom of choice, cathegorical imperative and indeterminism, half of those somewhat contradict set of things that science is based upon though, determinism being the biggest, in so far as it is merely an assumption that things follow the cause-effect chain. It is a hot mess, if look at current philosophical basis of most of humanities systems. Everyday life requires one set of presuppositions, scientific discovery - another, judicionary system - third, than there is fourth one that governs making laws, a fifth one for a religion of your choice (even if you are an atheist or agnosticist), sixth one for economics and more esoteric brances of social sciences and so on and so forth.
But I assume that arguing about which ethic would make the best ground for judicionary system would be a little pointless. Like being utilitarian is actually a good for "running a country" especially when you need a decisions not governed by laws, while everything that is controlled by laws is better to be cathegorically imperative, otherwise sh*t will go down, crime and all. And the entire existence of punitive justice predicated on an idea of free will. Which is a thorny subject and my main object of contention with Kant.
@Pezt I'm not sure you can put basics like 'don't kill people' down to indoctrination alone. There are a lot of behavioral structures which seem to be hardwired into our DNA, which is why a lot of the most basic moral rules look similar across cultures (with few freak exceptions like psychopaths). That's independent of upbringing, and mostly stuff that lets a population survive longer.
Also again, my problem is that it's impossible to predict the effect of any action within a society. An action might seem Utilitarian at first, but will have ripple effects which will end up with a net negative. It's impossible to tell. Humans are messy and complicated, which is why social sciences can be lucky if they manage to predict something with 70% accuracy.
There is still a lot more we don't understand about society than what we do, so how would you define value? And even if you could, how would you measure one value, let's say money, against another, let's say something as fleeting as warmth? And if you could do that as well, how do you measure short-term value against long-term value?
Utilitarianism makes a lot of sense to me in theory, but I can't even fathom how it would work in the real world if you were serious about it. I for one couldn't decide the inherent value of even the simplest actions, not without omniscience, which I unfortunately lack.
As for running a country on it, to me the logic chain always seems to go towards some crazy dystopia. 'This group of people provides less value than they cost, let's get rid of them'. 'Now there are fewer people and now suddenly, this group is net-negative too.' Long-term, people just aren't okay with genocide for the greater good, plus it invites curruption and exploitation.
That's what I meant by it being impractical. I don't think your comment has convinced me otherwise on any of these points.
@SociableHermit "I'm not sure you can put basics like 'don't kill people' down to indoctrination alone"
Funny story - some species have biological defences against killing it's own kind. Those are species that evolved over millions of years with a enough weaponry to be able to kill each other with ease. Predators, some herbivores like mooses, deers, elephants, you named it. Primates though? Those furry creatures until very recently had to REALLY TRY to kill each other. So our own defences are much more loose than those of wolves for example. When a wolf shows another a throat, it WILL never kill him. When a man shows another a throat (obviously after a vicious fight) well... It kinda really depends. One of theories as to why neanderthals conviniently dissapeared after homo sapiens had migrated near them is because, being naturally much more bigger, sturdier and stronger, they developed some of those defences, so when fights developed, those neanderthals who gave up on a mercy of the victor found none, while the reverse was very much true. We came unto ability to reliably kill each other with a discovery of a proper stone tools. It is not enough time to evolve ourselves some concience. PLUS, the whole "mind" thing (also concience but in another meaning) means getting rid of many "innate" biological instincts (which humanity does not have in fact) in favor of being born as tabula rasa. Which, again, puts even more importance on education.
Second point is that: yes, killing someone inside a tribe, lessens the tribe. However, since it was not until agroculture that we were able to create more or less massive and settled societies, we were nomads and we lived in small groups. There was no option to "sit it out" because you had to scavenge. And the more population grew, the less resources were for everyone. You said about "stuff that lets a population survive longer", well, it is true in reverse, and there is also stuff that keeps population in CHECK. The point I am trying to make is that due to some biological (Dunbar's number) and environmental (nomadicity, lack of resources), our sociality had evolved in a way that allows us too split a world in US and OTHERS. And with USA we have to keep civil, OTHERS are a fair game. So "don't kill people" can be only somewhat indocrinated insofar as you able to see someone as people. And the particulars of whom you can see as people are rather... diverse. And certainly not defined biologically.
I hoped I made a point I wanted to make - we don't have breaks on most of our basic actions, instead we have two things - societal rejection equals physical pain and we have imaginary friends that are part of our society. It allows for more adaptability too. Today - if you kill, your tribe die. Tommorow though, if you hesitate to kill, your tribe die. Did I make my case clear?
"Also again, my problem is that it's impossible to predict the effect of any action within a society. An action might seem Utilitarian at first, but will have ripple effects which will end up with a net negative. It's impossible to tell. Humans are messy and complicated, which is why social sciences can be lucky if they manage to predict something with 70% accuracy."
That is weird. That means that... You effectively can't pursue any goals, cause all moral systems are equally ineffective. So all your actions are equal, since if you follow that statement to it's logical conclusion, that means that since you CAN'T predict the relatively best course of action, why try? So all goals go out the window, since we can only achieve them by chance, so we got basic instincts left. No long term, no nothing, just a bunch of animals clawing at each other, because as I mentioned previously, we are really lacking in "biologically inherent behavior". We sacrificed it for adaptability. This is why our childhood is so long, this is why we have a thing called a teenager. Because we HAVE to learn how to behave. But if we assume that all our aimed actions are basically just as effective as our random actions, any planning lose any purpose.
"There is still a lot more we don't understand about society than what we do, so how would you define value? And even if you could, how would you measure one value, let's say money, against another, let's say something as fleeting as warmth? And if you could do that as well, how do you measure short-term value against long-term value?"
That is why there are many schools of consequentionalism. But for me... WE define value in terms of our wants. Egoistically, but that is the best we can. You don't have to justify your value. You have it - by default. There are grades of values. Some are only valuable for a things they give, some are valuable in itself. Warmth, company, lack of pain, sleep, food, drink. Those are not needed to be justified. Everything else just scales from those - and few others. Curiosity for one. Money are valuable in so far as they provide value. In another words, they are not value, they are a tool. You measure short-term value over a long-term value the same way we measure everything. WE imagine it in our head based on previous experience. WE adjust our measurements based on new experience. [I swear I didn't mean to write WE so much with caps, it some WEird thing my keyboard sometimes does, and I am tired of deleting it.] Basically, we compare imagined pleasure from short-term value versus expected pain from not sticking to a long-term value.
The need of society, of laws, everything flows naturally and perfectly logically from those precepes. WE can't know for sure, but we CAN guess. And if it works, it is good. Now, how do we decide what would be best for the whole? Well, the method is imperfect as any. We emphatise. We ask, what would we want if we were that exact person in that exact place? Expand it, what do I want from society? How do I have to act to get it done? So you start with small, you start with yourself. Before helping others, I need to be in position to help. Before helping others, I need to help myself. So you help yourself. OK, done, should I go save the world? No. You got a family, perhaps small, perhaps it is one person. If non, then you should get one. Then help them. Others, forget about them, it is not best way of spending your resources. You are weak, meager creature, what can your efforts afford? Only so much. Share it between a million, and it is dust. Give it to three people, and it is everything. Continue to do that. As your abilities grow, so does your reach. Friends, acquaintances, finally, the world. And that way, you continue to patiently labor steadily increasing your reach, not forgetting to raise a next generation that will do the same. And then you die.
"As for running a country on it, to me the logic chain always seems to go towards some crazy dystopia. 'This group of people provides less value than they cost, let's get rid of them'. 'Now there are fewer people and now suddenly, this group is net-negative too.' Long-term, people just aren't okay with genocide for the greater good, plus it invites curruption and exploitation."
Running a country requires make exactly those hard choices. You have food for ten, and you have twenty. Give it to all equally, and all will starve. Give it to five brightest and share the rest between ten ablest and youngest, cast frail, ill and elderly out (or eat them). Now scale that to millions. Your methods are imprecise, but at least the allow you to act, instead of, what, mucking around in indecision? You will make mistake, accept it before making a decision, and then do the best your can, analize the result and DO BETTER. Rinse, repeat. No absolutes. Our morals can only be forged by ourselves, while we strive to help ourselves and those we care about.
"Long-term, people just aren't okay with genocide for the greater good"
WEll it depends on what people you are talking about. Obviously those whom I want to genocide aren't okay with that - that's why I genocide them in the first place! But seriously, there is a lot of sh*t people are willing to close eyes on if you give them good life in return. Morals don't fill an empty stomach.
Effectiveness of those dystopias can be vigorously debated. Do we need it?
"I don't think your comment has convinced me otherwise on any of these points."
I never argue to convince someone, I am yearning to be conviced. I am assured that I am wrong, so by showing others my thoughts I can have an indepedent and critical eye checking my homework so to speak. YEah, I'll fail, I wish for that. So that I can be better.
@Pezt I'd like to rebutt quite a bit here, but it's late and I'm tired. I'll work through this tomorrow or so.