Search results

Using 'reason' to help people causes deficiency, if you're siding with the morality of the person who's going to be hurt. It just gives the general morality another person to fight with.

You're taking into account your own morality, and saying that it's wrong to hurt somebody every year. To that society, it's fine. You and the society's people could argue endlessly about what's correct and what's wrong. What matters is how efficient they're being when carrying out their task...

The society is trying to hurt somebody every year. They're doing that exact thing, and they're doing it efficiently, until somebody comes along and says that hurting people is wrong. At that point it'll cause deficiency and the society's ritual of hurting somebody every year will be less efficient.

I can agree with you there on their morality being wrong. To do something wrong you have to stray from the general morality that most people follow and make up your own morality, which causes deficiency. If you're causing deficiency you're doing something stupid and idiotic, as your decision...

Indeed. I see you as a person who believes in the morality of cannibalism being wrong, but you see yourself believing in a correct morality of cannibalism being wrong.

There aren't many cannibals in the world, and there probably aren't any reading this forum, so you don't really need to worry about causing deficiency with your morality of cannibalism being wrong versus their morality of cannibalism being right.

Also, if you two were to just ignore each other and not complain about each other's moralities then there would be no deficiency. Deficiency can only appear if you put the spotlight on someone else's morality and start stating that your morality is better than theirs, or that theirs is wrong.

That's completely natural. You obviously believe in a morality that thinks that cannibalism is wrong. If a person who believes that cannibalism is right complained to you then they would cause near-100% deficiency, for believing in a morality that's the exact opposite of yours. Not to say...

If half of the world was war-hungry, and the other half was war-hungry but suddenly decided to have a pacifist morality to avoid war and destruction, they would create massive amounts of deficiency (as well as war and destruction, from the other war-hungry morality focusing all it's energy into...

If everyone were to go to war, then it would eliminate those who caused the deficiency and over time it would leave one morality. If people stayed war-hungry they would encourage people to stray and form their own moralities, in turn causing everyone who believed in the morality of war being...

War is deficiency. If everyone avoided war (even when there were conflicts) then overall the entire human race would be at peak efficiency.

If that society was to ease off a bit and not try to kill and eat people who strayed from them, they would be as efficient as can be. It would minimize the amount of people straying from the pack and getting eaten and it would maximize the amount of time that the society gets to do other, more...

It actually is. (Assuming that was sarcasm) The morality is too forced in that case, if you stray from the general morality of cannibalism you'll be killed and eaten. It'll make people want to stray from the general morality of cannibalism being fine, which is what they want to avoid funnily...

However, if somebody were to stray from the pack and think that murder isn't fine (highly deficient), or if they thought of others as being worse than them (somewhat deficient), then they would be opposing the general morality of murder being fine and everybody would want to murder them for...