Is an action taken with the intention of exploitation that unintentionally ends up being beneficial ultimately a good action?
Good in what sense? ‘Good’ as in ‘virtuous’ would be debatable, but ‘good’ as in ‘a positive benefit’ is pretty inarguable, and furthermore disputing would suggest that very little has happened that is beneficial in human history outside of the individual level. Except, perhaps ironically, some of the most minor alleviations of suffering.
Roman rule (let’s not get into conquest for now) was ‘good’ insofar as it had serious, tangible, and accessible benefits to the vast majority of the population compared to what came before and after.
Or, in the words of the Emperor Tiberius, “A good shepherd shears his sheep; he does not slaughter them.”
Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?
It might be, but if you take that stance then I’d ask you to take the argument to its logical end point. Was American manifest destinty acceptable because it technically put a stop to tribal warfare? Was the British colonization of India ok because it unified waring states? Or, on the flip side, is Rome morally exceptional amoung aggressive conquerer states? And why?
I would argue that in the case of both America and Britain, the downsides of the racist regimes which they brought far outweighed the benefit of ending internecine warfare. If those regimes were, at that time, less horrifically racist, I might be inclined to regard it as neither positive nor negative; just another instance of conquest and warfare as is common before the 20th century. I don’t regard the Sioux as inherently immoral for making war on the Pawnee; nor would I regard the Prussians as inherently immoral for making war on the Austrians. It was a different time.
If anything, I would regard European colonizers as morally exceptional amongst aggressive conqueror states - exceptional in a negative way, insofar as their conduct was significantly worse than the conduct of their contemporaries and even of themselves in non-colonial wars.
The question of Roman conquest is far from the question of the benefits of Roman civilization - regardless of the opinion of the conquest, that Roman civilization came with significant benefits to those who were conquered is pretty undeniable. My opinion of Roman conquest is simple - that it was aggressive in a time of unchecked aggression; that it brought death in a time of death; that it was murder in a time of murder. If you’re asking if I think there are going to be many Roman conquerors at the pearly gates, my answer is no; if you’re asking if I think that Rome’s behavior in conquest was worse than their contemporaries, my answer is likewise no, and I don’t intend to condemn Rome for unexceptional behavior any more than I intend to condemn the Gauls or the Persians for unexceptional behavior.
This is a… Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated? And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated? And furthermore, you don’t see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?
This is a… Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated?
Not in the sense of race as we would recognize it, a product of the rationalist leanings of the 18th and 19th centuries coinciding with a period of domination by Europeans sharing a certain subset of phenotypes.
And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated?
Before the modern era, I would not regard wars over resources, which is what land is, as inherently immoral. Unless you think the Sioux and the Pawnee warring is proof that the Sioux were immoral.
And furthermore, you don’t see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?
I’m saying that to expect a modern moral code from people who lived long before the development of modern morals is an absurdity. Considering this whole argument opened up with you making a comparison of Roman rule to the rule of elites in pre-Roman Britain, perhaps you should be asking yourself that question as well. I gave an answer - do you have one?
Very interesting, I’m curious now as to where your historical studies are focused. What is your primary area of study? I promise you that my morals are by no means modern in any sense of the word, in fact questions like these were being discussed long before Rome even existed. As to your question, i would say yes, war is inherently a moral negative even in times when war is commonplace.
I’m having a lot of fun with this by the way 😄I never thought I’d be in an argument defending the position that war is bad haha
Very interesting, I’m curious now as to where your historical studies are focused. What is your primary area of study?
Classical history.
I promise you that my morals are by no means modern in any sense of the word, in fact questions like these were being discussed long before Rome even existed
Your questions are very much couched in a Christian/humanist/Enlightenment spirit of nonviolence and a 19th century presumption of popular sovereignty and the importance of preservation of native traditions that became universalist and particular (ie applying to other cultures and not just one’s own) during the process of decolonization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They are very much modern moral positions.
As to your question, i would say yes, war is inherently a moral negative even in times when war is commonplace.
Then your condemnations are meaningless. You’re looking at two polities (consolidating the British polities for the sake of simplicity) which were equally warlike and vicious, and condemning only the one who was victorious - in which case your condemnation is not of violence, but of success.
Good in what sense? ‘Good’ as in ‘virtuous’ would be debatable, but ‘good’ as in ‘a positive benefit’ is pretty inarguable, and furthermore disputing would suggest that very little has happened that is beneficial in human history outside of the individual level. Except, perhaps ironically, some of the most minor alleviations of suffering.
Roman rule (let’s not get into conquest for now) was ‘good’ insofar as it had serious, tangible, and accessible benefits to the vast majority of the population compared to what came before and after.
Or, in the words of the Emperor Tiberius, “A good shepherd shears his sheep; he does not slaughter them.”
Hmm, personally I dont think you can so casually brush off the conquest part. How many people would you accept being murdered, raped, and enlaved in order to justify this positive benifit? Is there a specific number? If the supposed benifit was greater, would you accept more people being killed? How big does a benefit to future generations need to be to justify killing and enslaving the current population?
It’s not ‘brushing off’, it’s a different question/discussion entirely.
Would ‘equal or less than the amount caused by native warfare in the same period’ be an acceptable response?
It might be, but if you take that stance then I’d ask you to take the argument to its logical end point. Was American manifest destinty acceptable because it technically put a stop to tribal warfare? Was the British colonization of India ok because it unified waring states? Or, on the flip side, is Rome morally exceptional amoung aggressive conquerer states? And why?
I would argue that in the case of both America and Britain, the downsides of the racist regimes which they brought far outweighed the benefit of ending internecine warfare. If those regimes were, at that time, less horrifically racist, I might be inclined to regard it as neither positive nor negative; just another instance of conquest and warfare as is common before the 20th century. I don’t regard the Sioux as inherently immoral for making war on the Pawnee; nor would I regard the Prussians as inherently immoral for making war on the Austrians. It was a different time.
If anything, I would regard European colonizers as morally exceptional amongst aggressive conqueror states - exceptional in a negative way, insofar as their conduct was significantly worse than the conduct of their contemporaries and even of themselves in non-colonial wars.
The question of Roman conquest is far from the question of the benefits of Roman civilization - regardless of the opinion of the conquest, that Roman civilization came with significant benefits to those who were conquered is pretty undeniable. My opinion of Roman conquest is simple - that it was aggressive in a time of unchecked aggression; that it brought death in a time of death; that it was murder in a time of murder. If you’re asking if I think there are going to be many Roman conquerors at the pearly gates, my answer is no; if you’re asking if I think that Rome’s behavior in conquest was worse than their contemporaries, my answer is likewise no, and I don’t intend to condemn Rome for unexceptional behavior any more than I intend to condemn the Gauls or the Persians for unexceptional behavior.
This is a… Confusing comment. Im not sure how to respond. Just to clarify, you dont see Roman conquest as racially motivated? And, are you saying that the act of conquest via force is morally neutral so long as its not racially motivated? And furthermore, you don’t see acts of violence as morally negative so long as others are committing the same acts of violence?
Not in the sense of race as we would recognize it, a product of the rationalist leanings of the 18th and 19th centuries coinciding with a period of domination by Europeans sharing a certain subset of phenotypes.
Before the modern era, I would not regard wars over resources, which is what land is, as inherently immoral. Unless you think the Sioux and the Pawnee warring is proof that the Sioux were immoral.
I’m saying that to expect a modern moral code from people who lived long before the development of modern morals is an absurdity. Considering this whole argument opened up with you making a comparison of Roman rule to the rule of elites in pre-Roman Britain, perhaps you should be asking yourself that question as well. I gave an answer - do you have one?
Very interesting, I’m curious now as to where your historical studies are focused. What is your primary area of study? I promise you that my morals are by no means modern in any sense of the word, in fact questions like these were being discussed long before Rome even existed. As to your question, i would say yes, war is inherently a moral negative even in times when war is commonplace.
I’m having a lot of fun with this by the way 😄I never thought I’d be in an argument defending the position that war is bad haha
Classical history.
Your questions are very much couched in a Christian/humanist/Enlightenment spirit of nonviolence and a 19th century presumption of popular sovereignty and the importance of preservation of native traditions that became universalist and particular (ie applying to other cultures and not just one’s own) during the process of decolonization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They are very much modern moral positions.
Then your condemnations are meaningless. You’re looking at two polities (consolidating the British polities for the sake of simplicity) which were equally warlike and vicious, and condemning only the one who was victorious - in which case your condemnation is not of violence, but of success.