Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9533436" data-attributes="member: 42856">There is no nonsense that an excess of altruism, respect of life and concern for the dignity of other could lead to outcome a muscular neutral would want to avoid. Especially if, like in the Circle of Eight reference, the MN are a very limited number of powerful people.1. They could simply have more information. If you know that 1,000 years down the line, an unknown invader will appear and get down from a ship, intent on destroying everything, and you let Good take over, it means that Good will have lost the habit of waging wars, and will have mellowed into being wiped -- especially if the structure value life so much that they can't decide that they'll fight back and kill the invader, especially when they learn that said invaders are just poor people drafted in an army. The invading army doesn't need to be a genociding one (because you could argue that the OP's definition of Good doesn't mean they would necessarily reject self-defense), but they could just invade the land and privatize for their own use key ressources (like herds of animal, the best pastures, the mines...), ending in a considerable detriment for everyone else. The MN would want some level of agression to subsist (prompting military technology/magic progress and standing armies) so when the invaders come, they see a world that would defend itself and move on. In a 100% worldwide peaceful world, you're less likely to develop a nuke, after all. The MN would be justified morally even if there is no real threat, but they couldn't prove its absence.2. Where in the nonsense in the idea that creativity and progress could be stiffled by an overabundance of respect? Developping cures necessitates testing. It will kill and harm people, and it will kill and harm animals. Muscular Neutral wants to prevent the halting of progress by maintaining societies that accept enough evil to continue animal testing, despite while being Evil-as-defined-in-the-OP, they think the global outcome is better than avoiding any individual action toward Evil.3. Where is the nonsense in saying that an excess of concern for life can't lead to a bad outcome? The immediate empathy for textile worker would have caused a ban of the industrial revolution, preventing all the immensely good outcome of it. Sure it sucked to be them, even if they benefitted in the long run, and society as a whole benefitted largely from progress. Preventing a victory of Good would allow some societies to at least try the industrial revolution.You could very well have a dedicated group of Neutrals acting to prevent the overdominance of Good-as-defined-by-the-OP as well as the overdominance of Evil, without a metaphysical element making the winning of one side ending the world.</blockquote>

Verification