Machiavelli was right

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
AnOminous

AnOminous

Any road will take you there.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Registrado
28 de Dic, 2014
Change my mind.

PROTIP: You can't because Machiavelli was completely right. About everything.
 
Wake me up dijo:
Wiining Chris is never worth it, regardless of the fact that once in a blue moon it can lead to entertaining content. The ends do not justify the means.

Easy thread.
Presiona para expandir...

The ends do justify the means in all situations, the end goal is always the most important...and it doesn't matter how you get there to do something.
 
The warring Italian city states was a very cutthroat world to live in, so living in the midst of all that, he probably had a chance to see every possible angle and scenario played out IRL just beyond his window.
 
The Pink Panther dijo:
The ends do justify the means in all situations, the end goal is always the most important...and it doesn't matter how you get there to do something.
Presiona para expandir...

So when someone harms you it's okay as long as they have a positive end goal in mind?
This is like something you'd see people type when they try to justify genocide because they ran out of legitimate arguments lmao
 
saisegeha dijo:
So when someone harms you it's okay as long as they have a positive end goal in mind?
Presiona para expandir...

No.

I'm talking in terms of self-interest here. If someone harms me, and I harm them back, it's justified because they harmed me first. Eye for an eye. I should've clarified. The ends justify the means in all situations as long as its within your own self-interest. And self-interest doesn't always have to benefit everyone either...
 
Última edición:
The Pink Panther dijo:
No.

I'm talking in terms of self-interest here. If someone harms me, and I harm them back, it's justified because they harmed me first. Eye for an eye. I should've clarified. The ends justify the means in all situations as long as its within your own self-interest.
Presiona para expandir...
But then you're stuck in an endless cycle, if means constantly justify other means you'll always have someone to take after them and an endless conflict will be created. That's why there's such a thing as a justice system in the first place. If someone killed your, I don't know, uncle or something and you'd kill his murderer in return, someone from his family would come to get you and so on and so forth. There's a reason why eye for an eye doesn't work out unless it's something really subliminal like "Hey, I paid dinner last time so I'd like you to pay for it this time".

We're talking about an ideology here, Machiavelli's ideas were meant to be applied to a large population, not a simple conflict that may happen between you and your buddy.
 
saisegeha dijo:
But then you're stuck in an endless cycle, if means constantly justify other means you'll always have someone to take after them and an endless conflict will be created. That's why there's such a thing as a justice system in the first place. If someone killed your, I don't know, uncle or something and you'd kill his murderer in return, someone from his family would come to get you and so on and so forth. There's a reason why eye for an eye doesn't work out unless it's something really subliminal like "Hey, I paid dinner last time so I'd like you to pay it this time"
Presiona para expandir...

But it can work. The idea of an eye for an eye lies on the strategic aim that the cycle wouldn't start or on the reliance that someone won't continue the cycle. When a certain ideology is imposed is common that not all people will fall to that ideology. I know you're posing a hypothetical, but that hypothetical is quite unlikely. Usually when someone has an end goal that justifies the means, usually there would be a restraining factor to prevent it from being a cycle.

And even then when it is a cycle, the cycle will eventually stop...but then it could be argued that in your hypothetical that if both families keep killing each other, until there's only one family member left..even if it's not ethical, wouldn't the ends of that scenario be justifiable considering that said family had the likely chance of not sustaining each other through harmony, so in a sadistic way, there was a justifiable reason for killing the rest of the family and being the only one left that would probably not kill another family member, so that means the murdering would stop anyways, or am I just an asshole that is ignoring ethics just to justify Machiavelli's argument in social situation rather than just political and militaristic ones?
 
It's not about East or West. It's about niggas and bitches, power and money, ridaz and punks. Which side are you on? These niggas is still fuckin' talkin'? You niggas still breathin'? Fuckin' roaches.
 
Well his expansionist views are unsustainable and self destructive that's one of the few things I remember from IR theory, if I'm to take you seriously. On another note there was this cool newgrounds philosophy flash game where you pplay as a philosophy teacher who dies, debating with various philosophers from history about morals, and the objective is to find the answer to morality so you can be revived, machiavelli was one of them, pretty good game, it was kinda Pheonix Wright style with you pointing out contradictions in their statements.
 
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo