Which is more repugnant or reprehensible?
Tyranny which is expressed through lies and false pretenses of justice, divinity, honor, society, tradition, fairness. Forcing the world to kowtow to the lie.
Tyranny which is honest, preferring simple maxims and daring others to prove them wrong. "We are stronger than you. We can kill you. Obey or we shall inflict pain and death on you."
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
At that scale of injustice, the trappings are not relevant. You may as well ask which breed of elephant it is worst to be trampled by.
The former, but ultimately is right, frick tyranny. Death to Tyrants.
>You may as well ask which breed of elephant it is worst to be trampled by
The correct answer is African by the way since Indian elephants are smaller, less powerful, and less vindictive
>Which is more repugnant or reprehensible?
Making shit threads.
Best post
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
Without a shred of doubt the first one. At least in an open tyranny you know exactly who your victimizes are, they are open about it. Its easier and more straight forward to organize and overcome them. Its a whole other nightmare with tyranny by deceit
Not only this
But I most often find myself seething at the morally depraved for the sole reason that they're dishonest about their depravity. I can tolerate a lot if you just own up to it. Lies and copes are frustrating as hell.
Just because a dead guy says something and it sounds clever on a surface level doesn't make something true.
The benevolent dictator at least has to justify his actions in his own mind and to others who follow. There are natural limits to how cruel "ends justify the means" can go before the example becomes facetious. The robber baron is free to satiate the depths of his cruelty whatever those might be to whatever limit he wants.
You're missing the point.
Tyrant=bad
Lies=bad
Truth=good
Tyrant+lies=bad+bad
Tyrant+truth=bad+good
Always go with the honest villain over the liar. At least when you know when someone is a tyrant, you know you should do everything you can to resist. A tyrant who lies has you deeper under his thumb because you don't even know you should be resisting.
You seem to be a trifle confused there - the first scenario is not benevolent dictatorship, it is, as others have put it here, dishonest tyranny. A benevolent dictatorship is where the dictator is actually doing what is just, fair and right, but does so by ignoring any limits on power, such as a parliament.
The OP offers a choice between someone doing bad things and pretending they're good things, and someone doing bad things and admitting they're bad things. Neither is a benevolent dictator, and the former is definitely worse - basically you're being told that you being oppressed is good for you, so why wouldn't you want it?
>Tyranny which is expressed through lies and false pretenses of justice, divinity, honor, society, tradition, fairness. Forcing the world to kowtow to the lie.
This one. To oppose honest tyranny is obviously righteous. They are an easy enemy. Lose against them, and you die a hero. Win, and you live on as a legend. Tyranny that masks itself as virtue can and will trick those oppressed by it that it does so for their own good, that opposing them is stupid, weak and degenerate. These are the people who wrap up your entire identity into supporting them, and then tell you that the opposition is fighting to destroy your culture, your traditions, your way of life, even if it's only a culture that they're exploiting to maintain their power over you.
The former typically provides comforts to make the lie taste that much sweeter. The latter typically relies solely on the threat of punishment if you do not obey.
So if I have to choose between being the slave of an uncivilised savage who is stronger than me and being a part of a society that provides me with basic amenities to keep me in my place, I'd rather go with the latter, thanks.
I'd rather be told that I'm a slave than told that I'm free while I'm actually enslaved, but maybe that's just me.
I'd rather live comfortably with the knowledge that I'm a slave even if no one says it to my face, than live a painful and miserable life full of hardship as a slave for someone who says to my face that I'm a slave.
If I'm going to be a slave in both scenarios, I'd rather choose the scenario that benefits me the most and ultimately, I can't eat, drink or sleep beneath the truth.
A tyrant that fools people into thinking he's benevolent will never be overthrown. At least with an honest tyrant there's a chance to get rid of him.
Often to be replaced with someone equally tyrannical or worse and from the objectivist libertarian anarchist point of view that we're looking at this from, there has never been a point in recorded history where anyone could truly be considered "free."
So if tyranny is a requirement for society, one that tricks people into subservience with creature comforts is preferable to one that reigns through strength and cruelty.
That's because you have dignity, and that other guy doesn't.
Pretty easy to say that you would rather work in the salt mines with your “dignity” “intact” when you’re behind a computer screen.
Well, the topmost one is just the world everyone lives in as a result of human nature. Even if you had the second type of tyranny, you would still also have the first.
I'm a big fan of truth, so if I could have only the second, that would be nice.
Going by sheer narrative potential, the first one is far more interesting.
The first is better because it develops the pretense for people to believe the lie and make it true. Over time there will be more people who, upon learning the deception will say "Why can't it be that way?"
The straight forward tyranny will just indulge eternally in its cruelty until its destroyed.
Believing a lie does not turn it into the truth.
It simply makes the lie itself a truth, without giving it the qualities of a truth.
It's the same thing as firmly believing that wealth and societal status is a result of purely equal meritocracy, even if it is not actually meritocratic but more related to intergenerational wealth and birth lottery providing said opportunities. Just believing it to be true, and acting as if it were true, will not make it true.
The situation immediately invokes a sense of injustice to the one lied too. their reaction is to make the lie true, destroy the lie and replace it, convince themselves it's not actually lie, or that the lie is just as good as the truth, etc. It invokes the oppurtunity to change.
Meanwhile slaves are beaten down and forced to accept living in desolation because they can't even conceive a different truth. Even if they rise up their ideal will be to reverse situations not make something better.
>their reaction is to make the lie true,
Yeah, that's true. Which is why nobody ever tells lies, out of the clearly justified fear that this lie will eventually become reality.
By the way the two party system is better than proportional representation, there is no gap betw the electorate and the political class that on paper represents them, non-therapeutic circumcision is both medically and morally justifiable, the world is intrinsically just and everyone gets what they deserve in the end. Also I'm the pope, a Muslim and theocratic ruler of the Incas.
The former is clearly the more reprehensible, I'm not sure why you made this thread unless it was to feel better about having a functioning amount of testosterone.
The first one. There is nothing worst than hypocrisy.
The false one, of course. At least the truthful one is truthful.
I'd say the first one because I already live in it.
Is the concept of tyranny in any way implies an obligation to commit amoral or immoral behavior?
Kind of, because conflicts between different interest groups are inevitable and being a tyrant means that interests that aren't your own stop being acceptable very quickly and those supporting them tend to stop having interests.
Of course this is only a moral problem for the sort of people that haven't realized that hypocrisy is only bad when other people are doing it.
Which is offering the highest material quality of life in exchange for loyalty or at least nonresistance?
The Tyranny the keeps Gamers down.
So... the US or Russia? (In the context of foreign policy, i mean) I'd say it's more morally repugnant to contribute to the later, but it is also less humiliating to be opressed by it than by the former.
Ahh yes, the self-serving maxim.
The ignoble man claims "Might always makes Right," for it allows him to do ignoble things and sleep at night. For regardless of his actions, so long as he had the strength to enforce them, in a manner he of course decides is honest, he can claim some kind of ethical righteousness.
But Might does not make Right, for that is merely a logic fallacy. A bias of observation.
Might, enforces Right.
And if the wielder of that might is a good man, that might will enforce as many rights as is able. For without might to enforce right, the world is rife to ignoble men. Men who would use their might for selfish and basal ends alone, in whatever way their low cunning can muster, uncaring of any consequence outside themselves. Such men would doom the world, for a bag of gold. Lesser men.
But no might is mighty enough to enforce every right, and not all wielders of might are good men, so we see rulerships, kingdoms, and laws that are not right. And yet deep in our cores, we can still point to them in the moment and say "that rule, that law, is not right" for how else are they toppled?
In much the same way, the ignoble man rallies against authority, for that authority is what stops him from so easily manifesting his own might in the most immediately self-serving ways. Authority, is a might that quite simply, bests theirs. And yet such men, who claim such an axiom of Might makes Right, will jeer at authority such as this or think themselves enlightened above it.
So too, does the kindness, the application of right, enforced by might, enrage men like this, for it demonstrates their ignobility, their lesser status, that a man can be above a beast and see beyond base desires of coin, flesh, or life. That one can be an uncontested might, and yet enforce a rightness that actively harms themselves to give the weak a chance to become strong, as a father raises a son.
It is Duty. It is Honour, Dignity, Passion. Things that a man would sacrifice himself for.
The ignoble man has no Duty, no Honour, or Dignity, or Passion. His life has no meaning, nothing of worth.
Now men claim that all these concepts, these rules and codes and duties and honours, that they are all bonds, all lies. The former, is true in some senses, but the latter is laughable. They are all fabrications of human design, but that does not make them somehow less real, or less honest then the most primordial rules of nature. For in effect, these are no different.
We choose to have honour, duty, passion. We choose to sacrifice our freedoms, our potential, for something we believe in.
Take love, for instance, for there is no greater shackle then love. Nothing can make a man weak like love, just as nothing can empower a man like love. Would you cast love aside, simply for the sake of ridding yourself of bonds? In this you only add more to yourself as you limit your freedom, your ability to feel.
Man is by nature chained in this way. But it is our greatest blessing to be able to choose to what we are chained.
The Tyrant who champions justice, divinity, honour, society, tradition, fairness. For all any claims of morals or ethics either way, he provides choices, passions, roles and is kind enough to let you choose, grow, and become strong yourself.
The Tyrant who simply enforces obedience by strength of arms, who claims to honesty but speaks lies just as much as the former for his own ends, does not. It does not serve him to let others become powerful, or give them freedom to choose their bonds. For once he does, he is no longer the latter, but becomes the former.
Though not incorrect, this is a rather reductive take, and "greater men" or "lesser men" reasoning is a slippery slope.
A.
If all you're saying is that you're the biggest crab, somebody will very quickly get a hankering for some seafood.
The worst part was the hypocrisy!
Second one is the worst, especially if you're one of the slaves getting kicked around and mining rocks. First one has ideals that might be justly enforced when you get rid of the current leader(s) but there's no room for maneuver under the "honest" tyranny of some barbarian slaver-warlord.
The second, but since we no longer conceive it as possible every single plebeian will say the first is worse because they lack imagination and empathy.
Outside of fantasy there isn't an example of a tyranny that isn't mixed anyways.