Yes it is since anything man made is inherently flawed.
Again, this is irrelevant. We all have to work on the assumption that we are always only every employing our best guess. If you want to go full into the philosophical route of it all in this manner then conversation itself is meaningless because neither of us can prove with 100% certainty that we are in fact communicating and not simply hitting random keys that only give an appearance of communication.
Youâre attempting to draw the argument into an abstract completely away from the actual facts of the case, a direct, single, case. If you wish to be this abstract about it then you have to simply exist that nothing can be said at all and thus the entire conversation has no meaning.
And those questions i brought up are relevant since we are talking about morality around killing, because if there is a situation where a killing can be considered then the moral puritan view falls apart which forces us to view the events through a more relative lense.Â
No, weâre talking about a specific situation of killing. If you discuss killing in one circumstance and sense you are not discussing it in all.
Again that is like saying that you cannot call someone evil for murdering a baby because of the fact that someone could kill an evil person at another point in time or place. It is literally nonsensical.
Furthermore, killing be not immoral in some cases but moral in others just means one has a rational framework for morality one uses to determine in different cases when it is or isnât moral. Thatâs simply normal philosophy of ethics, there is absolutely no need for a moral relativist angle at all.
Moral relativism holds that all moral principles are culturally dependent, and that we should not impose our morality on others. However, the principle âwe should not impose our morality on othersâ is not culturally dependent, on the moral relativistâs view. So there is a contradiction. Moreover, if all moral principles are culturally relative, then we should impose our morality on others if it is moral in our culture to do so. That is a consequence not many moral relativists wish to accept.
Even at itâs core your conception of moral relativism is self-contradictory, youâ re arguing:Â there are no objective [moral] truths, and that is an absolute fact, which is inherently contradictory.
If you wont let their good negate their evil then you should, for the sake of consistency, not let their evil negate their good which brings your previous assertion of Edelgard being a tyrannt into question does it not?
I donât let their evil negate their good. I am more than happy to admit to things they did right or good. But I value human life lost far more than anything else as it cannot be undone in anyway. Hence they are still evil.
Also it doesnât bring the assertion of Edelgard being a tyrant into question at all. It just means as a tyrant she did some good. The same can be said of every tyrant in history. That does not stop them being tyrants.
And for humanityâs place in nature is a whole other discussion, my point here was that, outside of human civilisation such as cities and villages, morality does not exist in the wilderness. As such morality are based on two things, what principles people try and uphold aswell as how benevolent their enviroment allow them to be.
And, again, that has no bearing on whether or not a thing is right or subjective at all. They are simply not related.
Furthermore, again, I ask, so why did you protest to me describing your position as âwhatever is palatable to a majority of humans at the timeâ when that is then clearly what your position is?
Also you keep professing that Edelgard killed innocents, yet you then admit that it was only your assumption. Itâs clear that in this Fire Emblem installment all the factions are at fault in one way or the other.
Huh? No I didnât. It was my assumption that youâd understand thatâs what I meant. Please read what I write. I wrote:Â âI thought it obvious that implied in my statement was the slaughtered hundreds are explicitly innocent as Edelgard and Ieyasu murdered hundreds of innocents.â This does not mean I assumed something about Edelgardâs actions, it means I assumed I didnât need to clarify to you that I was stating Edelgard murdered innocents.Â
Edelgard kills hundreds of innocents, thousands likely. Ieyasu as well. They do so without provocation and with intent. They are evil. That is a fact.
Also; yes, neither Claude or Dimitri are perfect, both do immoral actions as well. I never asserted my argument here is âEdelgard is evil Dimitri and Claude are not,â thatâs just a gross misinterpretation of my point. They are simply considerably more moral than Edelgard.
For instance what other options did Edelgard have? She couldnt reform the church, she couldnt ignore it either so what other options did she have other than a military one?
She could have told Rhea about TWSITD. She could have communicated with Claude and Dimitri peacefully rather than begin the game trying to murder them. She could have continued to rule the Adrestian Empire which, under her father already, had removed all influence of the Church to such an extent that Rhea literally wasnât even aware of what happened at the Empireâs court, and simply promulgated her position through communication as opposed to war, she could have not invaded the Leicester Alliance for no reason other than conquering it etc. etc.
If you literally think that in something with as many variables as the geopolitical situation of an entire continent there existed no more than a single route towards any outcome then I canât say much because that is simply an incredibly poor understanding of the complexity of geopolitics.
âAs for killing tyrants and their lackies: it all depends on circumstanceâ
Sounds like moral relativism to me~
Then you apparently donât know what moral relativism is if youâre conflating it with the idea of circumstances.
As for supplanting a tyrannt it raises an interesting question. Whats more moral, tear down a tyrant and fill the power vaccuum  yourself? Or tear down the tyrant and let the world be consumed in the chaos of said power vaccuum?
But there isnât a need for chaos. The Leicester Alliance has an able, competent, stable ruler. Without Edelgard invading and conquering it there would be no power vacuum. Similarly Dimitri himself states to Edelgard he is fighting her only because she is actively invading his home and murdering her people. If Edelgard were to cease constant military invasion of both nations then there would be no power vacuum.
Youâre statement, again, just isnât relevant to the situation actually being discussed.
As for the âmission to saveâ thing, iâve been down the rabbit hole of blowing groupâs out of proportion, and if i can help one soul avoid that by pointing it out to them then i believe things is atleast a little bit better.
No, youâre just being arrogant in assuming you can somehow diagnose me with a severe mental problem over the internet.
Indeed youâre not leading armies and that wasnt the main point. The resemblance i see is someone who has deemed their own worldview to be the correct and refusal to consider all angles.
Again, no, you donât even read what I type. To repeat: I am discussing a single thing, a single point and asserting something on that one point. That in no way is indicative or representative of my entire world view, to imply it is, is simply completely false.
Furthermore, this accusation is literally meaningless since you can throw at anyone always. For example;
Why have you deemed your worldview correct? Why are you refusing to consider all the angles?
