Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[CrownySuccubus]

The point of the example was to show that we can reasonably expect action in order to prevent a future outcome despite not being prophets. If we want a closer analogy to the Sundering, then we would need to change the analogy to include the fact that many humans would act to ensure nuclear Armageddon, and would likely be able to succeed.

No, if we wanted a "closer analogy", then we'd have to basically assume that somewhere, at some time, some human MAY ensure nuclear armageddon or some other type of apocalypse. And frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to to the "many humans" argument -- again, the Ancients didn't destroy themselves. They were murdered.

1. That democracies and dictatorships have important differences that make democracies the objectively more moral system of government
2. However, those differences does not include avoiding entrusting individuals to make decisions that effect billions globally
3. I do not believe this because I live in a representative democracy that could, on the decision of an individual, begin a nuclear conflict that could kill humanity.
4. This would be a decision made by an individual that would effect billions globally.
5. Thus on this particular axis dictatorships and democracies are the same

Is that clear?

No.

Because the difference still remains that there are a number of massive steps that need to be undergone before any of those persons in democratic countries could actually start nuclear annihilation. Your belief still makes the assumption that a President or Prime Minister with the ability to launch nuclear weapons could do so just as easy as a literal dictator. That argument is defeated by the existence of America's previous president who, according to the ex-Defense Secretary, mentioned that said President wanted to launch missile strikes against a particular country, but was stopped and talked down from that action by other people in his administration. Imagine, if you will, that said leader was a dictator who never need to tell anyone anything before he just pressed the button.

Again, the problem with your argument is that it's reductive to an actually DANGEROUS level.

Do you believe that me saying that a person can be morally right in deciding something unilaterally if its done for the right reasons, is equivalent to me saying any unilateral decision is justified? I support Venats actions because I believe the reasons for doing so are right. If they weren't then I wouldn't support them. Now we can move on to discuss those reasons with more focus, but I do want to make clear that just because I support a specific action in certain cases, doesn't mean I'd do so in other ones. I don't support unjust wars, but I can support a just one.

Again, that isn't how it works. "I support a dictatorship when it agrees with me" is exactly HOW you get dictators that you don't agree with.

Sure, and they made the right call to do so.

Not sure what they has to do with anything.

It's not "something like that." It's stated, directly and clearly, that the Grebuloff polluted their own seas in the construction of weapons to invade the surface. You can go look at the logs and dialogue in the Dead Ends if you want to see it for yourself.

Okay, sure.

I think believing life to be meaningless and purposeless is a bit more than boredom.

Their reason for why believing was meaningless was because they had nothing left to achieve. Therefore, boredom.

Sure but the societies that had no answer do not invalidate the conclusion that Meteion comes to.

Only if you assume Meteion's conclusion was correct -- which even the PLOT of Endwalker doesn't do.

So Meteion agrees the Plenty achieve meaning 1 of perfection, ok.

Again, the story actually tries to muddle the argument to make it seem like BOTH meanings.

I don't believe the Plenty eliminated sorrow for the record, as I said before. Meteion states they eliminated strife, but sorrow remained.

Nope.

Meteion: One race had discarded all things that gave rise to sorrow, hoping to have only joy. They found joy lost its savor in the absence of sorrow, and lost their will to live.

I don't hold that what is good is subjective and I think that believing so makes one incapable of making any moral judgement at all.

That sounds like a Fallacy of the Beard, to me.

Cool, why bring up changing the language then if you actually don't care. You might just as well tell me to cope and seethe.

Whether or not you seethe is on you. For the record, I was perfectly willing to call it something other than a dictatorship if you had suggested anything, but now I'm forced to question exactly WHY it upsets you.

So my problem is not that its possible to gain the power to make unilateral decisions in a democracy, but that it is again built in to the system itself to allow for that. A President can again make decisions for people who do not have a voice in the discussion, and this is baked in. To a much lesser extent of course, but still there are clear examples of that happening and it being the right thing to do. Abraham Lincoln utilizing war powers to keep fighting in the Civil War was the right choice, even if it wasn't something that those living at the time agreed to in the majority.

See my response about the real-life missile scenario above, which outright disproves this argument.

But I don't think it requires corruption for a democratic leader to exercise unilateral power. Historically that's not necessary.

...Unilateral power is literally a corruption of democratic system. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here.

And in a democracy no one's opinion matter except for those who make up the majority. If the majority held that a human right is not actually so would you hold that they are more than within their rights to do so?

Again, there's a real life precedent for this: slavery. The reason why overt slavery was capable of being abolished in most democratic socities was because democratic systems literally INVENTED the concept of a "human right" to begin with. The idea that people fundamentally have inherent rights is actually relatively new to humankind; absolute authoritarian societies like dictatorships usually don't bother, because whatever the ruler says is law. It was democracy, in general, which created the Rule of Law rather than absolute law.

So your question is literally mooted by the fact that human rights as we understand and know them today, would not even EXIST without the establishment of democratic systems. No doubt -- as the existence of slavery and similar systems into 20th century North America proves, you can definitely still have people denied equal or even basic rights...but there would be no rights to give them under a system where one person has ALL the power. Under a dictatorship, everybody is literally the slave of the dictator.

[Silverbane]

So your question is literally mooted by the fact that human rights as we understand and know them today, would not even EXIST without the establishment of democratic systems.

That's not true. The idea of innate human rights predates any democracy that embraced the notion. In fact, pure democracy is contrary to the idea of innate human rights, per J.S. Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority."

And that's why the group of people that penned the US Declaration of Independence, one of the earliest declarations that people have "inalienable rights" and perhaps the first that wound up a foundational document of a nation, didn't even attempt to create a democracy.

Instead, they created (eventually) a democratic republic, in the hope that the worst features of pure democracy (oppression of minorities by the majority. a.k.a. mob rule) would be forestalled by the intermediation of representatives who would hopefully be a little wiser and little less viscerally motivated than the electorate. And then they created an unelected and insulated judicial branch -- hoping they'd be the next-best-thing to the ideal of the benevolent philosopher-king -- just in case the elected representatives didn't live up to that expectation.

I think they might be a bit disappointed by how it all turned out, but to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's still "the worst form of government, except for all the others."

[CrownySuccubus]

That's not true. The idea of innate human rights predates any democracy that embraced the notion. In fact, pure democracy is contrary to the idea of innate human rights, per J.S. Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority."

Basic, loose ideas of innate human rights existed prior to democratic states, but were usually superceded by the fact that the ruling class (especially any sitting tyrant) could literally just snap their fingers and override them. On that note, tyranny of the majority still requires giving voting and/or vetoing rights to a majority of people on a specific motion, which a dictatorship is antithetical to.

And that's why the group of people that penned the US Declaration of Independence, one of the earliest declarations that people have "inalienable rights" and perhaps the first that wound up a foundational document of a nation, didn't even attempt to create a democracy.

Instead, they created (eventually) a democratic republic, in the hope that the worst features of pure democracy (oppression of minorities by the majority. a.k.a. mob rule) would be forestalled by the intermediation of representatives who would hopefully be a little wiser and little less viscerally motivated than the electorate. And then they created an unelected and insulated judicial branch -- hoping they'd be the next-best-thing to the ideal of the benevolent philosopher-king -- just in case the elected representatives didn't live up to that expectation.

A democratic republic is still, ultimately, a "democratic system" of government -- as per the name. Yes, not an absolutely democracy, and the right to vote has never been completely universal, but the system of government still allows for some measure of democratic power, which rises and falls depending on how conservative or progressive the current era may be.

I think they might be a bit disappointed by how it all turned out, but to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's still "the worst form of government, except for all the others."

A good number of the Founding Fathers wanted commonfolk, women and certain ethnicities to be completely without any input into the democratic system, so what they would or wouldn't be disappointed with is rather "meh". However, I'm pretty sure that, say, a Black woman who is able to vote for or hold public office has a muted appreciation for how that system has expanded, even if imperfectly.

[EaraGrace]

No, if we wanted a "closer analogy", then we'd have to basically assume that somewhere, at some time, some human MAY ensure nuclear armageddon or some other type of apocalypse. And frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to to the "many humans" argument -- again, the Ancients didn't destroy themselves. They were murdered.

The “many humans” argument comes from Venats concern that allowing knowledge of Meteions become commonly known would lead to the situation “spiraling out of our control” and that she would “carefully consider who can be trusted, and bring them into the fold.” If you have another interpretation of what that was meant to convey I’d happily hear it.

No.

Because the difference still remains that there are a number of massive steps that need to be undergone before any of those persons in democratic countries could actually start nuclear annihilation. Your belief still makes the assumption that a President or Prime Minister with the ability to launch nuclear weapons could do so just as easy as a literal dictator. That argument is defeated by the existence of America's previous president who, according to the ex-Defense Secretary, mentioned that said President wanted to launch missile strikes against a particular country, but was stopped and talked down from that action by other people in his administration. Imagine, if you will, that said leader was a dictator who never need to tell anyone anything before he just pressed the button.

And you’ve completely misunderstood the danger of that particular exchange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-expert-says/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ority-do-this/

The President holds unilateral authority to order a nuclear exchange, with all other subject to the two man rule. What you are referring to was a discussion of its use, not an order, a discussion that convinced the former President not to use them (thank god). If an actual order was given, all who would have to obey or be considered mutinous. If a President would order a launch and his staff refused, legally they would be committing treason and subject to the punishments therein. That is unilateral.

Their reason for why believing was meaningless was because they had nothing left to achieve. Therefore, boredom.

Ennui is the term we are looking for, and while similar to boredom it’s not the same. Boredom sucks. Ennui kills. It’s a quibble I know but I think it important to distinguish.

Only if you assume Meteion's conclusion was correct -- which even the PLOT of Endwalker doesn't do.

Meteion comes to two conclusions actually, of different levels of truthfulness.

1. To Live is to Suffer
2. Thus it is better to be dead

Venat believes the first true, and the second wrong.

Again, the story actually tries to muddle the argument to make it seem like BOTH meanings.

I don’t agree. Characters repeatedly state that perfection is impossible.

Nope.

That sounds like a failure to me. A society losing its will to live would be in an “unhappy state” no?

That sounds like a Fallacy of the Beard, to me.

Do you think subjective morals means there’s no way to ascertain true moral value, or saying it’s on a continuum? Fallacy of the beard applies to the latter, not the former. If I said that morality exists on a continuum and thus right and wrong is arbitrary, then I would be committing that fallacy. Moral subjectivity, which I was disagreeing with, holds that morals have no objective truth value and thus every subjective view of morality is equally true.

Whether or not you seethe is on you. For the record, I was perfectly willing to call it something other than a dictatorship if you had suggested anything, but now I'm forced to question exactly WHY it upsets you.

…because it’s an obviously extreme descriptor that conjures up visions of real life figures that committed acts of violence that wouldn’t abide by my moral system, acts that I would violently oppose. Unilateral decision making or benevolent despotism or something similar would be fine.

...Unilateral power is literally a corruption of democratic system. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here.

No democratic system exists without some sort of unilateral power. The only question is who gets to use it and for how long.

Again, there's a real life precedent for this: slavery. The reason why overt slavery was capable of being abolished in most democratic socities was because democratic systems literally INVENTED the concept of a "human right" to begin with.

The idea that people fundamentally have inherent rights is actually relatively new to humankind; absolute authoritarian societies like dictatorships usually don't bother, because whatever the ruler says is law. It was democracy, in general, which created the Rule of Law rather than absolute law.

Do you think human rights exists independent of democracy or do you think that one gains human rights through democracy? This actually gets to the core of the disagreement.

So your question is literally mooted by the fact that human rights as we understand and know them today, would not even EXIST without the establishment of democratic systems. No doubt -- as the existence of slavery and similar systems into 20th century North America proves, you can definitely still have people denied equal or even basic rights...but there would be no rights to give them under a system where one person has ALL the power. Under a dictatorship, everybody is literally the slave of the dictator.

And it took unilateral decision making to change those systems. I’m not saying all unilateral decisions are better than democratic ones, or that centrazlied power structures are superior to decentralized ones, but that there are times when a unilateral decision can be just.