D
Deleted member 46979
Educator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2023
- Posts
- 5,118
- Reputation
- 6,210
you know how soldiers justify taking part in killing large numbers of people by claiming moral superiority? why can't regular people do the same? i know the government gives soldiers legal right to conduct warfare, but that's just to legitimize their own actions. ultimately the individual soldier has to sign up and agree to it, and they agree to kill, including civilian collateral because they feel moral superiority over the enemy. however since the state is imperfect and often has immoral ulterior motives for war, there is no objective moral legitimacy to their decisions, therefore why is it wrong for regular people to kill and steal from people they have moral superiority over? why must they obtain authorization from the state to do so?
granted i understand why the state has to vet people and adhere to procedure, rules of engagement, etc. but i'm talking about the individual motivation. why aren't there a bunch of vigilantes running around killing people? is it due to a lack of this kind of psychological profile in the population? there does not appear to be a shortage of people willing to kill inferior subhumans when you see how many join the police and military. are people just not able to justify to themselves or maybe they don't feel adequate to make life or death decisions without state approval? is this maybe a new blackpill that needs to be explored, ie the blackpill that individual decisions can have equal weight as those made by the state? to me an individual has all the necessary equipment to justifiably condemn someone to death as the state. and often the state relies on individual decisions to kill people like in police shootings. so that's really all there needs for a killing to be completely rational and justified.
to fbi and all relevant authorities, this is just a philosophical thought experiment. i do not advocate or condone violence nor do i plan to commit violence of any kind.
granted i understand why the state has to vet people and adhere to procedure, rules of engagement, etc. but i'm talking about the individual motivation. why aren't there a bunch of vigilantes running around killing people? is it due to a lack of this kind of psychological profile in the population? there does not appear to be a shortage of people willing to kill inferior subhumans when you see how many join the police and military. are people just not able to justify to themselves or maybe they don't feel adequate to make life or death decisions without state approval? is this maybe a new blackpill that needs to be explored, ie the blackpill that individual decisions can have equal weight as those made by the state? to me an individual has all the necessary equipment to justifiably condemn someone to death as the state. and often the state relies on individual decisions to kill people like in police shootings. so that's really all there needs for a killing to be completely rational and justified.
to fbi and all relevant authorities, this is just a philosophical thought experiment. i do not advocate or condone violence nor do i plan to commit violence of any kind.
