Holder of the Heel
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,850
- Location
- Alabama
- NNID
- Roarfang
- 3DS FC
- 1332-7720-7283
- Switch FC
- 6734-2078-8990
False. A tribe trying to subjugate another tribe with **** and/or death is trying to involuntarily inflict harm upon a tribe. Therefore, said tribe will fight against the other tribe. Yeah you can try to have your way with others against their will, but they are going to fight back, which is going to provide trouble for you. Much the same way that treating others nicely is an obvious step in living an enjoyable life so as to not grate along others. Even if the immediate success of such exploits is guaranteed with no repercussions, the reputation and/or potential for vengeance and/or distrust is there, and therefore also not objectively optimal in that sense as well. In addition, the benefits of not murdering and instead having an alliance with the other tribe provides much more profit than killing or ****** would provide. You don't need selfless empathy to justify benefiting others, that is utter nonsense. We are adaptable and intelligent, and thus we are social creatures.
In addition, I'm not refuting this empathy that you are again trying to invoke. You're clearly misunderstanding my reiterated point all along in this, I've never had an issue with us extending empathy. Even if the above reasoning couldn't be provided, it still misses the point. Me saying that you are bringing a sense of right or wrong, and you responding by trying to justify it, simply shows that that is what you are doing for you wouldn't be defending the existence of something that isn't there. Whether I personally agree with you doing so or not is completely irrelevant, for as I just said, that isn't my intention to debate (also it's really not a debate, as I have also already mentioned).
In addition, I'm not refuting this empathy that you are again trying to invoke. You're clearly misunderstanding my reiterated point all along in this, I've never had an issue with us extending empathy. Even if the above reasoning couldn't be provided, it still misses the point. Me saying that you are bringing a sense of right or wrong, and you responding by trying to justify it, simply shows that that is what you are doing for you wouldn't be defending the existence of something that isn't there. Whether I personally agree with you doing so or not is completely irrelevant, for as I just said, that isn't my intention to debate (also it's really not a debate, as I have also already mentioned).