How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[Yitzi]

Yitzi- I learned military theory so I could understand strategic importance. You learn a basic degree of it even as a conscript, and I was a university educated military man- so I understood premise of situations I was involved in.

And of course your superiors weren't substantially smarter than you, so anything they could understand, you generally could too.

But what would have happened if the policymaker were a supergenius whose strategies you were simply not capable of understanding?

If they can't explain it in terms I can understand, a relatively intelligent military man, then their credibility is questionable, don't you think?

Or it's just really, really complicated.

I never said I was a pure utilitarian. I just said I don't follow your logic when it comes to a god- my morality is based on a few basic concepts. How necessary it is to perform and action, and the consequences of it- sure the net benefit long term may be very good to eliminate an entire race, but the short term drawbacks would lead to massive problems and lashback, ones that I quite frankly may not be able to live with.

So you're concerned with the short as well as long term, and that's why you would refuse even if the net benefit long term were positive?  That, I don't understand; I don't see why the short term should be considered by morality.

Mathematics and calculations can change if the conditions of the equation change, Yitzi, and humans are not perfect and 2+2 does not always equal 4 in a sense. Sometimes it will equal 3 when you input human error, and said operation can horribly backfire too or fail. And then what are you left with? An outraged populace that is determined to destroy you, now.

Yes, human error is a factor, but let's assume in our scenario that the government is really good at predicting human error and has taken it into their calculations.

So, how necessary is something, the consequences, and also the amount of suffering it's going to inflict. And one of the other important things when it comes to my morality is, the utilitarian part- how much progress would such an action yield, and at what cost? If I were a businessman, I could say cut the wages of my employee's in half legally because they were at a different standard before, which would save me up a lot of money to spend on financing the company and buying new equipment, maybe even open up a new factory or something. But here's the thing- while its the most efficient option I am also thinking of the workers themselves and their families:

I am not going to cut their wages in half, even though they could potentially survive it, because that would horribly cut their morale and worsen their living conditions. Even though the long term profit I'd rake in would be fairly significant and in the eyes of the most cut throat capitalist, worth it.

That's not a result of long term vs. short term, so much as that you care about other people more than profits.  Which is a good thing, of course, but not really relevant to this discussion.

Yitzi- I learned military theory so I could understand strategic importance. You learn a basic degree of it even as a conscript, and I was a university educated military man- so I understood premise of situations I was involved in. And if I didn't understand them, no I wouldn't fight. I'm not going to fight for a cause I don't believe in- unless im forced. And then I really don't have much a choice then do I? If a nation invaded my country however, I'd already know, even if not educated in military matters- I am defending my country and those within it, including me, my family and everything I grew up with, love and cherish.

Even a grunt is educated to a point, and an educated military force, a smart military force- is much more valuable then just blind simpletons who can't read. Its why the Congolese movements against Mobutu failed due to the huge amount of superstition and lack of education- there was a lack of cohesion in their military, their troops did not understand the reasoning for their orders and they referred to age old practices that simply did NOT work when it came to modern warfare.

So you're a good soldier for a normal army, but not for one being managed or given directions by a supergenius (who will use strategies that you cannot understand.)

Which is a good thing, as I'm fairly certain that you were not fighting for a government with the capability to judge accurately that such an action is a net good.

And I doubt your god or this futuristic government is without flaw either- because as stated numerical calculations, even if you somehow factor in human error to a significant extent, things can still change and not EVERYTHING can be factored in.

For a normal government, this is a concern.  For a hypothetical case (government or theological) used to explore a point, though, we can just say that such is not the case and that you know it.

Even if the groups were in the right Yitzi and their answer was the most efficient one, I still wouldn't want to support them, and I would not go down without a fight. Just because Zeus favour the Greeks at Troy and Aphrodite caused the conflict to begin with does not mean the Trojans should've just laid down and died. Sometimes even when you are wrong, its better to go down admirably and fight for what you believe in, and only surrender when nothing good is going to come of it or you have a chance to save the lives of the people you were fighting for or with.

Even if that would come at the cost of lives of other people?

Let's say it's child sacrifice, i.e. the subject of sacrifice is the son or daughter of the person doing the sacrifice.

And what if there wasn't just one or two people doing it, but a whole civilization?  Would you be willing to destroy that civilization and its culture in order to put a stop to the practice?

Yes, I would destroy that civilization and break the back of its culture, I wouldn't kill everyone in it, but I would certainly assimilate them to a more hospitable cultural model. Because children, even though they are sentient living beings with their own thought processes are easily manipulated and cannot fully fend for themselves both physically and mentally. And it's abhorrid a society would do that. And on a more logic based point of view, morality aside, you are pointlessly and needlessly killing the next generation to appease a fictional god or gods. Killing someone for something that doesn't even exist- and if it boosts happiness of the populace- then that populace needs to be socially engineered because under my principles of morality, not only is it needless suffering, needless waste of resource, and a never ending spiral of unnecessary murder- its also morbid and disgusting in my eyes for the reason that you are killing something that came from your own flesh and blood. Different cultural mindset, sure- but I have my reasoning. Point is, I still wouldn't kill that populace outright.

Ok, I'll grant that I have no clue why that approach (kill enough that the rest can be assimilated without assimilating in turn) wasn't used in the case of the Canaanites (who did indeed do child sacrifice, and this is strongly implied to be the reason for being so extreme in their treatment).  Unless the concern was that giving orders of that sort would lead to their culture not being quashed enough, and thereby influencing the conquerers even more than it actually did...

[JarlWolf]

Or it's just really, really complicated.

If its that complicated the plan is bound to fail, its why the Germans lost the Patriotic war, Hitler constantly meddled in the straightforward plans of his generals, German engineering was overcomplicated and not understandable to repair by our average mechanic out in the field. Our army won in part due to the fact our machinery was easier to repair, our commanders weren't inhibited by foolish plans and meddling and the fact we actually had BETTER organization after the initial invasion of our country by the Axis.

So you're concerned with the short as well as long term, and that's why you would refuse even if the net benefit long term were positive?  That, I don't understand; I don't see why the short term should be considered by morality.

 Just because the net long term benefit is positive does not mean it will be positive enough to rectify the short term. And the short term can seriously effect the long term. Why should it be considered by morality? You are tasked with KILLING AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE. I don't know about you but that's not exactly easy to sit on one's conscience and im not sure I'd really want to go down in history as a mass murderer, even if the cause was apparently mathematically figured out to be positive. Or something. If this calculation was so enigmatic that not even I, a commander, could understand the reasoning its pointless and this super genius is a lot more stupid and incompetent then we think. Because a true genius can at least find someone to present their theory or application to other people, otherwise how would they even be perceived as a genius?

Yes, human error is a factor, but let's assume in our scenario that the government is really good at predicting human error and has taken it into their calculations.

The amount of compotence this government is showing is frightening, they must be an alien or something, has to be  or  and we know how much we can trust them...

That's not a result of long term vs. short term, so much as that you care about other people more than profits.  Which is a good thing, of course, but not really relevant to this discussion.

Actually I mentioned long term benefits- better profits both short term ad long term, more jobs could be opened with new factories and my business could expand. But because of how drastic it'd be for the short term (and long term due to the short term actions) I would decide against it. Its a totally relevant example of long term versus short term arguments.

For a normal government, this is a concern.  For a hypothetical case (government or theological) used to explore a point, though, we can just say that such is not the case and that you know it.

I don't know about that, the fact this government has somehow determined killing an entire race of people for some up till now even unmentioned benefit they won't even tell me, I think that this government you speak of is a monstrous creation and im not sure how benevolent they really are. What if they then determine, after this populace is dead, that another populace has to go? Then another, and another. Sure there'd be less friction and debate culturally but you are literally living in a Nazi superstate then. Not sure if I'd care for that to be honest.

Even if that would come at the cost of lives of other people?

My enemy is not a concern of me. And the people dying on my side are first going to be the defenders of the others- its better to go down with dignity as a soldier and buy time for the ones who can't defend themselves to escape. And thats exactly what the Trojans did- they fought to preserve their home, families and their respect to their gods, and even though everything in their city burned a decent number of Trojans escaped the city to live another day. So their sacrifice was not in vain.

Ok, I'll grant that I have no clue why that approach (kill enough that the rest can be assimilated without assimilating in turn) wasn't used in the case of the Canaanites (who did indeed do child sacrifice, and this is strongly implied to be the reason for being so extreme in their treatment).  Unless the concern was that giving orders of that sort would lead to their culture not being quashed enough, and thereby influencing the conquerers even more than it actually did...

It's because they blindly followed a God, if albeit intelligent, who was flawed and not as all knowledgeable as he seemed instead of evaluating their situation on the front themselves. Just because I am ordered to attack a terrifying fortification head on by my command does not mean im going to do it- im going to scout first, explore my options and only go through with that if I really have no choice. But first im going to look for a way to flank the bastards and unload a clip into their backsides, and take them by surprise.

That or if you actually want to be realistic- the Israelite were hardened, angry nomadic warrior people who did not have patience for trying to indoctrinate a populace they were looting, pillaging and aiming to destroy. They looked at the short term benefit of not bothering with trying to assimilate people and then had the long term benefit of.... oh wait there was still reports of worship of Baal and child sacrifice after. Which is another reason I don't support your former argument with that mathematical government.

[Yitzi]

Or it's just really, really complicated.

If its that complicated the plan is bound to fail

Again, depends on the intellect of the fabricator.

Yes, we're getting into cases that are highly unlikely without God existing...but they're still useful to explore these issues.  (Much like SMAC/X, actually.)

Just because the net long term benefit is positive does not mean it will be positive enough to rectify the short term. And the short term can seriously effect the long term. Why should it be considered by morality?

When I talk about long term, I'm including the short term in it, but only in proportion to its size.

You are tasked with KILLING AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE. I don't know about you but that's not exactly easy to sit on one's conscience and im not sure I'd really want to go down in history as a mass murderer, even if the cause was apparently mathematically figured out to be positive. Or something.

Ah, the question of "do you do something that seems reprehensible and go down in history as bad, if it's for the greater good".  A pure utilitarian would say "yes", but you said you're not a pure utilitarian.  However, you also said you don't consider deontological ethics to be relevant at all, so I'm still wondering what you include in your moral system besides utilitarianism.

If this calculation was so enigmatic that not even I, a commander, could understand the reasoning its pointless and this super genius is a lot more stupid and incompetent then we think. Because a true genius can at least find someone to present their theory or application to other people, otherwise how would they even be perceived as a genius?

Could be that they've produced enough things that are understandable to others, could be that the effects of their actions can be seen but until some time after they're done.

The amount of compotence this government is showing is frightening, they must be an alien or something, has to be  or  and we know how much we can trust them...

Cute, but remember that there are three alien characters in the story, two from the expansion and one from the original.  What if it were a post-Transcendence  or  ?

Actually I mentioned long term benefits- better profits both short term ad long term, more jobs could be opened with new factories and my business could expand. But because of how drastic it'd be for the short term (and long term due to the short term actions) I would decide against it. Its a totally relevant example of long term versus short term arguments.

What if the long term effects would be even more drastic (considered as the sum over all people affected of the effect on that person) than the short term effects?

I don't know about that, the fact this government has somehow determined killing an entire race of people for some up till now even unmentioned benefit they won't even tell me, I think that this government you speak of is a monstrous creation and im not sure how benevolent they really are.

And there is no set of hypothetical evidence that would overwhelmingly prove their benevolence despite such actions?

My enemy is not a concern of me. And the people dying on my side are first going to be the defenders of the others- its better to go down with dignity as a soldier and buy time for the ones who can't defend themselves to escape.

And what about third parties?

It's because they blindly followed a God, if albeit intelligent, who was flawed and not as all knowledgeable as he seemed instead of evaluating their situation on the front themselves.

That's not what I believe.  (And it's not what you believe either, because you don't believe that God exists at all.)

oh wait there was still reports of worship of Baal and child sacrifice after.

True; it took a second invasion (this time against the Israelites) to finally uproot it (largely because the Israelites did not do what they were told, and instead took Canaanites as slaves and ended up taking on part of their culture).  But it did happen eventually...

[JarlWolf]

As for what I include in my morality- I already mentioned whats important to me earlier. I am not native at English speaking so maybe im not expressing myself properly with it; but look to my former posts on what I value, and make your assessment there.

If you are suggesting transcendent or  I HIGHLY doubt either of them are going to suggest wiping out an entire race. If anything thats against everything what  believes in and  is not that violent, she would search more pacifist means. I doubt even more ruthless guys like  would do that- it'd have to be a  ,  or potentially  , and only  if it actually profits him, which it probably wouldn't if he' transcendent. And  and  , as well as  , and even  don't care about such things, they got their own agendas that if anything would incorporate everyone or simply not care. The only time  is going to care about wiping out a race is if its a direct threat to his research, which the Gaians and their mindworms were.

As for if the long term effects would be more drastic for the sum of everyone- you're really going to have to specify what those effects are and how they affect the larger sum of everyone, I know we being hypothetical at current moment, but you're going to have to be specific in what the issue they are causing is.

And as for genius's and appreciation of them- if they are asking me to kill an entire race, even if they are following Michelangelo syndrome like an artist ding and then all his art being worth something, I am still going to be rightfully skeptical of someone who can't explain themselves or their reasoning when its such a heavy matter as that. And you would be too.

And no, there is no set of hypothetical evidence that would prove benevolent intent. I need hard, rock solid evidence and I need a clear example of benevolence to believe someone is benevolent or even telling the truth. Just because someone might say they are a space wizard that can shoot fireballs out of their eye sockets does not mean I am going to believe them- until they prove me otherwise. Its another reason why I do not believe a god exists, one of the many. And even if there was a god I'd still not choose to worship them. Its in my firm belief that worshipping something is both arrogant, presumptuous and unhealthy.

And as for the worship of Baal and child sacrifice- they should've properly assimilated them, not just enslaved them. Slavery just increases the resilience of a people and their defiance, and it eventually boils to a point of revolt: and that revolt can occur in many different ways.

 

[Yitzi]

As for what I include in my morality- I already mentioned whats important to me earlier. I am not native at English speaking so maybe im not expressing myself properly with it; but look to my former posts on what I value, and make your assessment there.

So your morality is based on helping your fellows in arms and the like, without a major universal component?

If you are suggesting transcendent or  I HIGHLY doubt either of them are going to suggest wiping out an entire race. If anything thats against everything what  believes in and  is not that violent, she would search more pacifist means.

Well, unless it were really necessary.

  would be more likely to make that sort of calculation, though, except that as you say she doesn't really care about such things.  One could posit someone as rational as  but with 's goals...but there's no one in SMAC like that.

As for if the long term effects would be more drastic for the sum of everyone- you're really going to have to specify what those effects are and how they affect the larger sum of everyone, I know we being hypothetical at current moment, but you're going to have to be specific in what the issue they are causing is.

Let's go back to the case of human sacrifice, and say that there's danger of it spreading to where it could do more damage.

And as for genius's and appreciation of them- if they are asking me to kill an entire race, even if they are following Michelangelo syndrome like an artist ding and then all his art being worth something, I am still going to be rightfully skeptical of someone who can't explain themselves or their reasoning when its such a heavy matter as that. And you would be too.

Skepticism, pretty much by definition, can be overwhelmed by enough evidence, though.

And no, there is no set of hypothetical evidence that would prove benevolent intent.

Now that, I don't get.  The idea that there can be anything in the universe outside faith-based matters which cannot be proven by sufficient evidence just doesn't fit, to me.

I need hard, rock solid evidence and I need a clear example of benevolence to believe someone is benevolent or even telling the truth.

What would be a sufficient example* of benevolence for something like this?

*It could be a pattern of behavior, not just one thing.

And as for the worship of Baal and child sacrifice- they should've properly assimilated them, not just enslaved them.

Do you have any examples of "proper assimilation" actually working to the extent you'd trust it to prevent child sacrifice?

(That said, the rabbis do say that the Canaanites, in addition to leaving or staying and being killed, were given the option of accepting various rules and thereby being allowed to stay, though the vast majority did not take that path.)

[JarlWolf]

I wouldn't be skeptical if they provided me enough evidence.

As for evidence of someone being benevolent, they do a benevolent action. As in actually do it, not give me a hypothesis or just talk about it. Actions speak louder then words, and just because someone says they are good- doesn't mean they are. They have to prove it to me.

A sufficient example that you are benevolent? In the case of a ruler, supporting social security programs and actually taking care of your people. In the case of a person? Tolerating someone's opinion and helping them out if they need it, like if your neighbor had a robbery and their television was stolen, you invite them over to watch TV with you. It doesn't have to be a grandiose action, simple things can prove your rather benevolent too.

As for examples of assimilation? Religions are one of the best at assimilation- my own country turned from a predominantly polytheistic pagan worshipping populace to Orthodox Christians rapidly, the tsars and kings of Slavic kingdoms forcibly baptizing their populaces and crusaders from Prussia and Western Europe constantly looting and pillaging Slavic lands. Or the vast majority of native populations in many European empires being converted to Christianity by missionaries, residential schools in said colonies, indoctrination camps of various regimes and the United States for the longest time was fairly assimilative (and genocidal). Rome was a great example of assimilation, while they did tolerate different gods they completely instituted Roman culture onto their most well controlled provinces and essentially transformed the Gauls into Roman Celts, and its a similar story in Britain. That's just some among many examples of it, I could go on about how Islam also assimilated most of the Middle East and North Africa too.

[Yitzi]

I wouldn't be skeptical if they provided me enough evidence.

As for evidence of someone being benevolent, they do a benevolent action. As in actually do it, not give me a hypothesis or just talk about it. Actions speak louder then words, and just because someone says they are good- doesn't mean they are. They have to prove it to me.

A sufficient example that you are benevolent? In the case of a ruler, supporting social security programs and actually taking care of your people.

Would things like laws that mandate taking care of the poor count, even if the government doesn't handle the money directly?

As for examples of assimilation? Religions are one of the best at assimilation- my own country turned from a predominantly polytheistic pagan worshipping populace to Orthodox Christians rapidly, the tsars and kings of Slavic kingdoms forcibly baptizing their populaces and crusaders from Prussia and Western Europe constantly looting and pillaging Slavic lands. Or the vast majority of native populations in many European empires being converted to Christianity by missionaries, residential schools in said colonies, indoctrination camps of various regimes and the United States for the longest time was fairly assimilative (and genocidal). Rome was a great example of assimilation, while they did tolerate different gods they completely instituted Roman culture onto their most well controlled provinces and essentially transformed the Gauls into Roman Celts, and its a similar story in Britain. That's just some among many examples of it, I could go on about how Islam also assimilated most of the Middle East and North Africa too.

Although in those cases there have sometimes been holdouts (often the Jews).  More relevant to the point, those assimilations generally involved killing anyone who refused, so it's not exactly a viable means to avoid having to kill large numbers of people...

[JarlWolf]

There is also less violent examples too, such as the whole modern culture where everyone is becoming streamlined culturally through hegemonic influences in media today.

I never said assimilation was pretty. But neither is human sacrifice and killing children and babies, and I don't know, stopping a civilization that will literally sacrifice its own children as well as others is... worth the backlash and bloody actions of gunning down their priesthood and "re-educating" their populace. Call it arrogant, call it authoritative, but that's just counter productive and morally wrong- I stand by my principle that a religion that intends harm upon others deserves any backlash, hatred or reprisals against it. Its why I don't have sympathy for the Aztecs, for a lot of Islamic sects, Westboro Baptist Church and a lot of other religious sects across the board that promote hatred and violence.

[Yitzi]

There is also less violent examples too, such as the whole modern culture where everyone is becoming streamlined culturally through hegemonic influences in media today.

Yeah, but that's limited and probably not enough for this sort of task.

I never said assimilation was pretty. But neither is human sacrifice and killing children and babies, and I don't know, stopping a civilization that will literally sacrifice its own children as well as others is... worth the backlash and bloody actions of gunning down their priesthood and "re-educating" their populace.

I agree.

[JarlWolf]

As for a government that has laws of solidarity to take care of the poor- depends on how much its actually enforced. If its reliant on charity its not going to work, refer to my points on philanthropy a while back.

And assimilation of this group that sacrifices children en masse is going to require brutal tactics to subdue and subvert. I still would not agree to genocide mind you- and throwing back to that old subject of the futuristic government, it'd still need to clearly explain or at the very least give me a valid reason. Even as much as: This group has a specific gene that makes them a vulnerable ground of growth for a pandemic, and the infectious material is arriving via space and while it won't affect us initially, if they contract it the virus or contagion will mutate rapidly and then be highly transmittable to other humans beings. And quarantining them is going to be too risky due to factors x and y, and unsustainable to boot. If they proved that much to me or so then I'd definitely consider it, with a heavy heart but I'd definitely consider it.

But that's an incredible long shot, and again that's a matter of survival we were talking about here, otherwise its not worth the bloodshed.

[Yitzi]

As for a government that has laws of solidarity to take care of the poor- depends on how much its actually enforced. If its reliant on charity its not going to work, refer to my points on philanthropy a while back.

That might depend on the culture and the motivations for charity.  "Please be a good person and give" is very different than "you are required to give", which is in turn very different than "X percent of your income must be given to poor people".

And assimilation of this group that sacrifices children en masse is going to require brutal tactics to subdue and subvert. I still would not agree to genocide mind you

That sort of brutal tactics against an ethnic group will generally turn into de facto genocide, though, especially if you're taking care not to be subverted by them in turn.

and throwing back to that old subject of the futuristic government, it'd still need to clearly explain or at the very least give me a valid reason. Even as much as: This group has a specific gene that makes them a vulnerable ground of growth for a pandemic, and the infectious material is arriving via space and while it won't affect us initially, if they contract it the virus or contagion will mutate rapidly and then be highly transmittable to other humans beings. And quarantining them is going to be too risky due to factors x and y, and unsustainable to boot. If they proved that much to me or so then I'd definitely consider it, with a heavy heart but I'd definitely consider it.

Would they have to explain the nature of the contagion in depth, or would the fact of its existence be enough?

What if the contagion wouldn't kill, but would still be quite bad and nearly impossible to get rid of?  So not literally a matter of survival for the group, but the burden it would place on society would indirectly result in a lot of deaths.

[JarlWolf]

The thing is, while people might be a bit more grudging to follow "you are required to give," they are actually more inclined to do it because authority is telling them to. If it's "please be nice and give," sure it will receive warmer reception in terms of how the public might see it- but it may very well not do anything because again you're just leaving it up to charity.

Of course, cultural upbringing does help in this matter, if people are brought up to be supportive and helpful people they will likely be supportive, helpful adults. But that requires cultural environments to exist for that and/or government education to instill that sense. Which is still a means of enforcement mind you- enforcement does not mean to literally force them by threat of fines or repercussions from the law.

It can also be hard social stigmas for not doing it or it can be social expectations that are hardwired. Which is something that has gone the opposite way in China- due to the ultra capitalist mindset the people now have there, insurance fraud is horribly through the roof. If someone is injured on the road, even if a child, people typically do NOT help that person for fear that person will then sue them. There's been cases of people dragging others to court to get money this way, and its disgusting.



If the contagion was as bad as a serious disease, even if not fatal but inhibitive it'd still be a matter of survival because as a society you need healthy working people to be able to operate it. If everyone or the vast majority of people are afflicted with a terrible disease its going to make society fail, and in turn countless amounts are going to die of poverty due to there being no support system.

They don't have to go into great detail as to what the disease does beyond that it will render person like x and cause y, and is highly contagious; just a valid summary and if the more scientific among us had questions, they could certainly learn more of it. I'd still personally like to see alternative means to genocide, understandably- like a quarantining them and developing a vaccine, whose to say this disease might arrive and infect anyways, and now we don't have the most vulnerable people to study from and help develop a cure?

As for assimilation of that culture; not necessarily. It'd be cultural genocide, yes in the sense we WOULD be killing a culture. But eradicating the people themselves? And last I checked with enough of a cultural imprint you'd be fairly immune to them subverting you. You didn't see mass amounts of settlers in North America adopting native religions and cultural practices, sure you had the initial waves and some trappers and others. (Not that im comparing this culture to theirs, the treatment those people received by settlers, for a lot of it, was not warranted and the genocide of those peoples was abhorrid, in my eyes.) but for the most part, lots of them were subverted, not the other way round.

But if were talking of a culture that does mass sacrifice and goes about it like how the Ottoman Janissary corps "recruited," that's a culture that needs to be eliminated because its an inherit threat to the survival of its neighbours and your own state. It'd be the exact same if another nation followed a cult of nuclear Armageddon and was trying to develop nuclear weapons to realize their paradise. I'd want swift action to cut them down to prevent the destruction of other nations and the human race.

edit: What about you Yitzi? What is your thoughts on this, where do you stand on such hypothetical cases such as this. I've only been assuming your stance, I'd like to hear where you actually stand on these issues.

[Yitzi]

The thing is, while people might be a bit more grudging to follow "you are required to give," they are actually more inclined to do it because authority is telling them to. If it's "please be nice and give," sure it will receive warmer reception in terms of how the public might see it- but it may very well not do anything because again you're just leaving it up to charity.

That is the distinction I was making; even charity can be effective if it's "you are required to give" rather than "please be nice and give".  (And religious mandates of charity fall into the former category.)

If the contagion was as bad as a serious disease, even if not fatal but inhibitive it'd still be a matter of survival because as a society you need healthy working people to be able to operate it. If everyone or the vast majority of people are afflicted with a terrible disease its going to make society fail, and in turn countless amounts are going to die of poverty due to there being no support system.

Makes sense.

As for assimilation of that culture; not necessarily. It'd be cultural genocide, yes in the sense we WOULD be killing a culture. But eradicating the people themselves?

It wouldn't mean killing all of them, but it would mean killing a large number; if their group identity is bound up in those cultural aspects, it would also mean destroying them as a group.

And last I checked with enough of a cultural imprint you'd be fairly immune to them subverting you.

True, but that cultural imprint doesn't always exist, especially if their culture is considered more "the norm".

edit: What about you Yitzi? What is your thoughts on this, where do you stand on such hypothetical cases such as this. I've only been assuming your stance, I'd like to hear where you actually stand on these issues.

As I said before, I split between deontological ethics and utilitarian.

For the deontological side, I take a fairly strong "don't kill innocent people" view, and would be averse to doing the necessary actions to crush even child sacrifice.  However, as I said earlier in the thread, I believe that Creator's rights give God a free pass on the deontological side, meaning that His commands remove any issues from that side.

On the utilitarian side (for which I am pure utilitarian), I would definitely favor crushing human sacrifice by any means that are not worse in the long-term than allowing it to stay (and I think that most means can be prevented from having a major long-term effect.)

The idea of caring specifically for my own brothers in arms doesn't really enter into my morality; I see that as a selfish goal (though perhaps not as selfish as caring only for oneself) that is useful from a moral perspective but is not itself moral.

[JarlWolf]

In terms of  deontological (I have rarely heard that term mind outside this conversation) I am not entirely against it. I just have absolutely no religious relations or motifs when it comes to that end of my morality- and I think that not even a god is excused from it. I think it'd be hypocritical for a god to be actually, and it'd make me hateful towards said god because he ignored morality entirely.

And that mindset is blind in my eyes. To be unquestioning to a god or entity, and its dangerous. Whose to say your god isn't corrupt himself, maybe even bloodthirsty? He seems to command a lot of it, and he seems to refer to slaughtering humankind when they don't follow his specific ideas, even to the point of flooding the earth and out of the most irony, making the species he is trying to kill to preserve the rest of his work instead of doing it himself. Say what you will about Noah being the proving point of humanity, I think that if a god is that ruthless I certainly would not trust him, regardless of his intentions.

[Yitzi]

In terms of  deontological (I have rarely heard that term mind outside this conversation) I am not entirely against it. I just have absolutely no religious relations or motifs when it comes to that end of my morality- and I think that not even a god is excused from it.

A god in general wouldn't be, but as I said earlier, I believe a creator has a special status, because duties (the basis of deontological ethics) are the flip side of rights, and I believe that a being can be created with limitations on its rights.

I think it'd be hypocritical for a god to be actually, and it'd make me hateful towards said god because he ignored morality entirely.

Well, he wouldn't necessarily ignore utilitarian morality.

And that mindset is blind in my eyes. To be unquestioning to a god or entity, and its dangerous.

Being completely unquestioning is, but there's nothing wrong with questioning...

Whose to say your god isn't corrupt himself, maybe even bloodthirsty? He seems to command a lot of it

Not really; the only two major extra-national examples were one against a group that committed human sacrifice (plus a whole bunch of other stuff), and the other against a group that specifically targeted noncombatants.

and he seems to refer to slaughtering humankind when they don't follow his specific ideas, even to the point of flooding the earth

That was because things had reached a complete breakdown of society.  (Note that while there are some possible indications of other sins, the reason for the flood was one of what might be translated "extortion"; basically, the strong taking from the weak just because they could.)  What do you think God could have done instead?