It can’t be fixed because violent aggressors are always willing to use more violence than everyone else.
I’d love to say yes, but ironically changing that state of affairs is going to require a lot of violence
We already restrain them more than at any other point in history, and I think that is likely to keep improving.
It’s not because the majority “lets” violent aggressors get what they want, it’s because capitalism as a system selects for those most willing to do whatever it takes to gain the most profit. It’s a control system that selects for profit, if a capitalist is unwilling to do whatever it takes then another overtakes them. Socialist countries don’t have these same problems to nearly the same extent.
Not sure what you mean exactly. Typically in the US, people using violence get put in jail/prison.
As guards?
I would argue it’s not only engrained in society, or even ingrained in the human psyche, it’s engrained in nature itself. Violence in nature is often rewarded with subordinance, and our evolutionary lineage has certainly continued it.
Overcoming that instinct globally is going to require a huge cultural shift, but we will be much better off if we do.
Yes, a better world IS possible
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
“Man will never be free until the last politician (mayhap capitalist) is hung with the entrails of the last lawyer.”
As long as moral constraint is prominent, there will always be an eternal struggle with peace and violence.
Someone who wants to do good, will fear of doing what’s necessary, even if it includes violence.
And authority is another constraint, we can’t just simply dispose of those who we absolutely know for certain, are irredeemable that resolves things through violence. Because justice, due process, yadda yadda
Case and point, some people censor and block others people when they express disdain for the offending abusers with rudeness. For example calling conservative voters retarded will often get censored. Meanwhile abusers constantly have their vile hatred posted all over multiple sources of media
Because that’s slur on the mentally disabled, not to protect the feeling of those voters.
Violent aggression per se (carrying around a big club and using it to bonk anyone who put up resistance) hasn’t worked in quite a while. These days it’s more about propaganda.
It still works fine if you have a big enough cult behind you.
It still works quite well, but it has been complemented by economic violence
Isn’t that arguably only because modern governments maintain a “monopoly on violence,” essentially?
Also that monopoly has been somewhat eliminated with the increasing development of technology that allows for killing without consequences. Drones, rigged explosives, remote detonation, incendiary devices, autonomous firearms, so on. (Developments of improvised firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices with common materials has also contributed to this, along with DIY drone construction).
At this point the correcting factor is if a state is able to control the collective perception or will of a population to a point where pacification is possible (China or UK’s surveillance states, for instance). But that is not a viable long term solution due to it simply bottling the frustrations of the populace rather than extinguishing them.
After all, in JFK’s famous words, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. With ideas able to be spread anywhere, no ideal can be stamped out for good, on any segment of the ideological spectrum.
Sucks for those who wish for a cooperative world, I suppose.
Not for a while.
Maybe if people understood morality as part of the universe and human experience and not just an invention, and then kept themselves righteously in check as they should which would naturally follow (through belief in a higher power and His judgement, for instance, or simply because they take pride in being correct human beings), we could all live under the same paradigm, trust each other more easily, and work together to make our world better for us all.
While I respect your devotion to your faith as a means of promoting goodwill, I vehemently disagree that faith should serve as any integral component for a just society. Theocracies allow for plenty of corruption, manipulation of history and academia, sanctioned death, and abuse of their populations simply under other names and with varying methods.
Religion can be an accepted component of one’s society. It should never serve as the bedrock of a society, lest it be seized and contorted by the next aspirational oligarchs seeking to write themselves in as “more equal than the others”.
A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted, but yeah any human institution will allow for human mistakes. Having said that, there’s no Christian religion in let’s say Trump’s America or Islam in the upper echelons of Emirati society, since they think and behave in ways that are diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus and Muhammad, and the prophets they referred to. These people believe in A, as evidenced by their actions, but say they believe in B. One can lie about their beliefs, but it cannot be used as a condemnation of the belief they’re lying about, right?
Not true christians!
A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted
I could hardly find a text that went through more and bigger revisions than bible.
That’s difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don’t undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader’s ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion’s “purity” among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
I really enjoyed your post and have little to add, so thanks and sorry. And dang, indeed! 😅
yes, but only in some cases, while not in others.
I feel like evil and stupid people is nature’s way to regulate humans’ overpopulation
Overpopulation means more poor and desperate people to exploit. They want overpopulation.
I guess if you want to live in a world where the evil people run things. Also, stupid people statistically have more kids.
