[Discussion] "reality = doing inhumane" things?

[KingHashirama]

So is using the phrase "Its the reality of things" or phrases similar to that, good enough to justify doing inhumane things?

Or is inhumane shit , inhumane.



Do you get sick of people trying to justify "inhumane" things with the whole "its reality, stop being naive" talk?


"Reality" seems to be used as an excuse to say "**** you" to morals, many times.

Here is a little scenario from a manga:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Who would you be with on this, the soldiers or homeboy Shin?




Song for while replying.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;feAANF9QVt0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feAANF9QVt0[/video]

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

reality is subjective to one's perceptions and personal experiences

 

[KingHashirama]

reality is subjective to one's perceptions and personal experiences

hence why I asked who you would specifically stand with in that scenario. XD

 

[Sir Francis Drake]

I've never seen anyone try to brush off a topic with "Thats reality". And no, it doesn't justify people doing cruel shit .That panel is really just the author trying to make a edgy character.

 

[Frankenstein]

No I am not getting sick of it. The "real world" is not a wold of angels so stop being naive and accept that it is closer to a jungle. Humans are usually not nice beings apparently, deal with it.

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

hence why I asked who you would specifically stand with in that scenario. XD

neither. One's reality is a radical "survival of the fittest" maniac. The other is an unstable "I must kill to protect my ideals" fanatic. Really both of them are just two sides of the same coin. Violence begets violence, you must kill those that oppose your ideals and try to infringe on said ideals. how it's carried about are just details. In the end violence begets violence and you only solve violence with violence. Morality is neither good nor wrong it's subjective to the person. The connotation of "morals" is "It's good" but really it can be quite the opposite. both of them live by the philosophy that the solution to violence to violence is violence. So I choose neither, now if you rephrased the question to say "if you were in their shoes" obviously my morality would change because of the situation because morals in essence are malleable.

 

[awesomeseimei]

Justifying doing inhumane things as "this is reality" is simply illogical. All humane things are just as real.

 

[KingHashirama]

No I am not getting sick of it. The "real world" is not a wold of angels so stop being naive and accept that it is closer to a jungle. Humans are usually not nice beings apparently, deal with it.

And it never will be with that thinking.

Justifying doing inhumane things as "this is reality" is simply illogical. All humane things are just as real.

But sadly those who work to apply those "humane" things on a wider scale, are sometimes considered "naive".

neither. One's reality is a radical "survival of the fittest" maniac. The other is an unstable "I must kill to protect my ideals" fanatic. Really both of them are just two sides of the same coin. Violence begets violence, you must kill those that oppose your ideals and try to infringe on said ideals. how it's carried about are just details. In the end violence begets violence and you only solve violence with violence. Morality is neither good nor wrong it's subjective to the person. The connotation of "morals" is "It's good" but really it can be quite the opposite. both of them live by the philosophy that the solution to violence to violence is violence. So I choose neither, now if you rephrased the question to say "if you were in their shoes" obviously my morality would change because of the situation because morals in essence are malleable.

violence, won't be going out of "humans", however, that doesn't mean all violence is bad. As people enjoy combat for fun, there are sports based on "violence". The issue, isn't violence, its having ill feelings towards people.

In that scenario, you have a soldier who believes he has the right to pillage /loot and rape and kill war prisoners. While the other soldier believes its inhumane. 1 uses "violence" in order to win battles for his country, other uses violence to battle for his country + to do inhumane things.

Reason, why i didn't say "if you were in their shoes", is because i didn't want you to be in their shoes.

 

[YowYan]

I remember that chapter very well.

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

No I am not getting sick of it. The "real world" is not a wold of angels so stop being naive and accept that it is closer to a jungle. Humans are usually not nice beings apparently, deal with it.

Nothing to do with atrocious acts
What if someone buttraped you and said"bro wtf u mad 4 dats reality lel get booty rekt"

neither. One's reality is a radical "survival of the fittest" maniac. The other is an unstable "I must kill to protect my ideals" fanatic. Really both of them are just two sides of the same coin. Violence begets violence, you must kill those that oppose your ideals and try to infringe on said ideals. how it's carried about are just details. In the end violence begets violence and you only solve violence with violence. Morality is neither good nor wrong it's subjective to the person. The connotation of "morals" is "It's good" but really it can be quite the opposite. both of them live by the philosophy that the solution to violence to violence is violence. So I choose neither, now if you rephrased the question to say "if you were in their shoes" obviously my morality would change because of the situation because morals in essence are malleable.

But when youre commiting violence in defense of yourself or others its different
Unless you think we should let isis keep killing us nd shit

 

[awesomeseimei]

But sadly those who work to apply those "humane" things on a wider scale, are sometimes considered "naive".

To be fair, not many people would support mass murderers or tyrannical leaders (well, the general public, I mean, not fanatical followers or oppressed people), while those who do good things get support and praise. I try my best to do good as much as I can, little by little (though I always put my family/friends' needs first, but that's a whole another topic), and nobody calls me naive. People are usually thankful.

And it is sad when someone's heroic deeds go unappreciated, but they usually still get support from the public, even if it's just verbal.

 

[Alfred Pennyworth]

it might be in the human nature to be selfish and do inhumane things to others, but with morality it is possible to suppress that urge and do the better deed. Hence that phrase is just an excuse for indifferent bystanders or bad guys to rationalize their behavior.

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

But when youre commiting violence in defense of yourself or others its different
Unless you think we should let isis keep killing us nd shit

It's a back and forth thing. unless you think all debates must be solved with violence something i've already addressed in my latter post

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

It's a back and forth thing. unless you think all debates must be solved with violence something i've already addressed in my latter post

Not debates but the lives of people must be defended when they're being attacked

 

[Punk Hazard]

reality is subjective to one's perceptions and personal experiences

No it's not. Perception of reality is subjective, but reality itself cannot be.

 

[Frankenstein]

Nothing to do with atrocious acts
What if someone buttraped you and said"bro wtf u mad 4 dats reality lel get booty rekt"

There is the law in the real world too, fegit. Plus when did I say not to defend yourself. Next time tip your fedora harder when you try to meme.

And it never will be with that thinking.

Being a realist and understanding how people are is a wrong way of thinking. You are too naive mate.

 

[awesomeseimei]

Being a realist and understanding how people are is a wrong way of thinking. You are too naive mate.

Yeah, well, thinking that you can change human nature and eliminate all "evil" in the world is naive; choosing to not be an a-hole, however, is not.

 

[Wabbit]

The reality guy is just using some excuse to justify his acts, to make sense for himself.
If you are weak you get rekt and he got rekt.

 

[Mikeuhsomething36]

No it's not. Perception of reality is subjective, but reality itself cannot be.

How we define "reality" in the context of the OP is the subjectivity of reality, what defines reality is how we perceive it. There is no truthful perception because it's all perceptions, humans don't see many of the things in the universe either because it's too small or we can't percieve it. How we define reality is what we can see or what we know of nit some fixed constant. For examples humans can't oercieve the color of ultraviolet light we see it as blue but some organisms probably could, who's reality is right? Whose reality is wrong? No one cares because how you see something must be true if a consensus agrees with you. A tree is always a tree no matter how you look at it but some other organism can perceive it differently but still achieve similar results we can't comprehend that because we can't see through their eyes on an everyday basis there is technology that allows you too of course. So what is reality? Some fixed constant? Obviously not, perception of reality and reality itself are basically the same thing if everyone perceives the reality to be true then said reality must be true. Therefore reality in itself is subjective to whom is perceiving it.

 

[Anorien16]

The Reality = Shin dying with in Chapter 5, due to lack of plot armor.