Morality and the pragmatic approach to statesmanship

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

Besides that, most governments try to stick to a pragmatic approach while staying true to the commonly shared values. You can get those values by religion, tradition, philosophy, mithology and many more, but those are still ideological in nature.

Now I'm going to guess, but since you are not the first I saw lately pushing this pragmatist agenda, and since this is usually linked to a very pro Russia stance, I think that this derives from the fact that United Russia as a party has pragmatism in his platform. But United Russia is based on the assumption of Russian imperialism (greater Russia), orthodox Christianity and patriotism as commonly shared values that are not worth to be discussed. If you try to apply this pragmatic approach in the West, the commonly shared values will be those of liberalism.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

The issue I'd argue is that there is a universal trend for things that are maladaptive and adaptive aka dharma or adharma. If different civilizations started with the objective that survival and improvement of the nation within was the greatest good, they'd all arrive more or less at the same solutions. Just like how all liberal regimes have arrived at the same policies: hate speech laws, media gaslighting, LGBT indoctrination at school, and feminist laws that penalize men and masculine behavior.

I'd argue that this objective is the obvious goal for any civilization or group as groups that don't prioritize such goals will be defeated in competition with groups that do. A type of natural selection of ideologies.

Religions went through this natural selection already. Islam, Christianity and the other great faiths survived for thosuands of years because they promoted good outcomes for their adherent populations: high fertility, modesty, chastity, love of kin, sacrifice for the community etc.

Religions that did not produce good outcome died off. For example, in Russia, there was a cult in which men chopped off their balls. This cult didn't survive as it produced eunuchs and did not increase in numbers or strength.