Today’s world of beliefs centering around morality or ethics makes any form of disobedience seem incomprehensible for any person to do.
Today’s world of beliefs centering around social morality or ethics almost express a sort of submissive pacifist dimension of obedience at all costs even when it comes to destroy a person’s character, honor, or integrity in obeying.
Today’s world of beliefs centering around social morality or ethics makes it where all persons should never disobey anything that is commanded and told to them.
At what point does total unflinching obedience to morals or ethics become detrimental to a person’s survival especially when it is expressed at all costs to the individuals themselves?
If a person doesn’t benefit from being moral or ethical why follow morals and ethics in the first place?
This reminds of the time I was going to the University Library and some ghey little anarchist protest was on at the entrance and some John Lennon newb barred my access and said: ‘You are not permitted to enter the library’, and I said, ‘Get the the fuck out of the way you spotty little nerd or I’ll mash your face in.’
He then decided he wouldn’t get out of my way, and then actually pushed me, so I took the seat and U-lock off my bike, and beat him and two of his friends around the head until they were on the floor, and then walked into the library.
In moral philosophy this is a standard by which a moral system is judged. When a moral system states that one ought to act in ways which doesn’t benefit the actor, it is said that that moral system/person abiding by the moral system is irrational.
Strain on the system produces disobedience. So suffering under strain, it makes sense to be disobedient. However, disobedience qua disobedience is retreatism and ultimately unproductive. Those who adhere to the system will crush those who do not. That is, unless the form of non-adherence strikes a cord in many people and they manage to create a different, new system which manages to supplant the old system.
Either way, the mass line holds.
You ask “What would Temujin do?” but he embodied the excellences of his culture. He was far from disobedient.
Yet when people refuse to follow a moral and ethical system that doesn’t benefit themselves in any sort of way they are called criminals where they are imprisoned or executed as enemies of the state.
Society with it’s impossible expectations on many people to obey at all costs to themselves I believe is entirely irrational for this.
I meant ‘productivity’ as ‘achieving the desired goals and/or effecting the desired ends’. Retreatism is a self-defeating narrative because it cannot achieve this. That was my point. So I was providing an open definition of productivity.
I agree on both accounts. However, you yourself recognized that retreatism is only useful if there is a re-grouping wherein new goals and new means are established to set themselves onto the new system. As for productivity, in your haste to make your point you seemed to have missed mine . . .
