Do you take advantage of those who have less power or who are weaker? Honestly? Why or why not?
Oh of course, in the differant senses of the word “weaker”, yes.
I really need to edit this, but here’s the raw version 0.8:
Anyone or anything less powerful then me, which wanted to submit to my true-will, I would take it all into my body and set it under my true will, to submit to my will.
All things less powerful them me – which have no will to submit to me: I will not touch these with any commandment.
Yes, everybody does this though. It’s a natural part of the human condition. Some people might find that odd seeing as I have rather egalitarian politics; my motivation is Darwinian not an idealistic moral theory.
Darwinian? Since when was he a cannibal? Or did he just believe in morphology?
who said anything about comparative anatomy?
I have to, theres not enough cake for everyone at the table. Or chips…
If you define the whole system of cooperating and interaction between humans into ‘taking advantage’ and ‘not being able to take advantage’ then I would say yes, all humans are compelled to take advantage of those whom are not capable of refuting your own supremacy. I know that by even using highly explosive words in this post-war society like “supremacy” is as good as suicide in any civilized conversation, but you must understand that I take into consideration the simplistic question that has been posted.
And of course the ‘why’ is the most interesting part of any scientific question, ergo this part will explain, perhaps not, the reason for my quite usual but often misunderstood answer. The why is simple, it feels good. As it feels good to win a football game, it feels good to mark one’s superiority in relativity to another. All competitive situations have the same underlying agenda: the will to win (to be superior). And to ever consider the Will to strive higher and read further, to take an ambitious person for an unscrupulous evil or even view it as a vice is to me unhuman. For it is human to be greedy, to watch out for oneself and to ensure your own survival. It happens on a personal level, and it happens subconsciously on a mass-scale community level - for example: if a group of humans need a specific natural resource to survive, and the cost of which means the potential extinction of another weaker species (a species with no culture and no means to defend itself) the question of whether or not to use this natural resource won’t even, if rarely, ever be considered. Why? Because, in relativity to the weaker species, we stand stronger, more intelligent and thus more ‘important’ at which point we realize that weak and strong, ‘taking advantage’ or not is not a question of morality; it is a question of survival.
Hence, there shouldn’t even be a question like this. I think that the only situation in which we find ‘taking advantage’ is a wrong thing, is when it moves from the agenda of survival to personal satisfaction. For instance, a pedophile takes advantage of a child. In a survival sense, the child is weaker, less intelligent and thus the pedophile acts according to the natural law. But, because we are human and more than often have other agendas than survival in our minds, we can quickly determine the fact that the fuckbag is not acting to survive, but to defile something that he is not permitted by our morality to do. Hence, the question should be: ‘Do you ever take advantage of weaker people to satisfy a need which does not serve a constructive purpose?’ Or something like that…
In any case, that was my opinion.
Well…thats…obviously what i meant…
This is impossible, PG.
The phrase “pick on someone your own size” can be an applied ontological axiom. A power cannot absorb or exploit something which is weaker than it. Is not using something as an advantage an implication that one was previously lacking? What would I want with something that was weaker than myself? Indeed, why would I get something if I already had it?
Perhaps it’s the doubt inside the person that creates the need to confirm one’s superiority. Maybe it’s even a challenge to the superiority that creates this need to demonstrate it.
However, as always, generalization is pretty dangerous when it comes down to a world of people with incredibly diverse backgrounds.
Senator of Trapezus: Your argument was very well-written, and I enjoyed reading it. I would wonder, though, how you would explain Adler’s inferiority complex, in which an individual who is disadvantaged withdraws and stops trying to demonstrate their superiority.
[/quote]
Well it would be clearly idiotic of me to think that my argument would apply like a physical law. Of course, if a person is disadvantaged, bullied or treated badly over an extented period of time, the result would clearly be negative on the mind. A psyche only survives when it is in belief of it’s own importance, it’s own right to exist. When for instance an individual shows his/hers quality, rises to a challenge, stands victorious in the face of adversity, this is when our confidence is strengthened - this is where we consciously mark our right to be. We mark our point of importance in relativity to others.
Hence, if an individual never has the opportunity to mark his/hers right to exist, was never strong enough to rise to a challenge, failed to stand victorious in the face of adversity, in short; a misery of a man - would it be so hard to think that this person would ultimately give up? Stop believing in his/hers right to be? To lose its own point of relativity? This is a person who is lost, faithless and severely depressed. It would be only logical for a mind to eventually reach a breaking point.
So how would I explain this theory? I would only enforce its importance and relevance. However tragic, objectivity cannot be jugded. The weak perish to the strong. And it is only right of the strong to utilize and take advantage of their priviledge to survive. (I take it goes without saying that I do NOT exclude philanthropy as a means to utilize strength).
Senator has forced his motion.
Of course I have taken advantage but, more often then not, no. I prefer to protect or help. the explainations why are pretty well coverd in the previous posts. I think a follow up question would be Are you proud of it and do you think you were ethically and morally justified. I would have to say no to all three. The end does not justify the means most of the time only a small part of the time does it. That no harm came from me taking advantage does not negate that I bear moral and ethical responsibilty for such an action even if it was to the positive for most involved. Sometimes bad must be done though in order to preserve good.
Well, PG, you’ve manipulated me for starters. The mental lexicon was there, the PG tips had dried, i laughed - you cried - then we all died. You cant stir a flower without upsetting a star.
I can honestly say, yes I do.
Why? Because its fun.
There’s nothing more exhilerating then that mental dance, of step and counter…and if you play it on enough levels at once, your whole life gets caught up in it…the constant mandate of learn and grow, step and parry.
On top of that, there’s a thrill in trying to find an equal…someone who takes talent to meld to your standards, and at the same time melds you to hers…where the chemistry is so good you can’t help but meet at the middle, with neither actually controlling the other completely, but with some measure of mixed influence.
No it isnt.
There are plenty of instances which contradict this statement.
It does make such an implication. However, I dont see how that is an argument against the fact that we do take advantage of those in less privledged positions.
One might want something from someone less privleged than oneself because he stands to gain something which he did not have before. That isn’t a nice idea, but it is reality.
You may already have something that the less privleged has, but you want more of it. For instance, you can only drive one car at a time. However, you may want 10 identical cars. Just because something doesn’t have alot of utility, that doesn’t mean that you won’t necessarily take advantage of an individual if given the chance.
I trust that you wouldnt take advantage of others in such a way. Nevertheless, the reality is that humans in general have a tendency to do take advantage of others.