A system can be both immoral and cruel and perfectly fit for natural selection against others.Should we simply erode the less pragmatic and usefull parts of the human soul to accomodate the system? If we assume, of course, there's no god, and no objective good to be rewarded by him, then it is an inevitability that only those fit for future societies will survive. Humans after all are no different from heads of cattle that need to be bred to be more hard working, more docile, and less reactionary to the sudden shifts of moral and sexual codes of conduct. Perhaps one day we will loose these silly concepts of justice and goodness.But i can't help but desire that the world ends rather than future generations be put through this
>>538161357I enjoy learning about the haitian revolution. A war started with a chant to the negro God, who sees the suffering inflicted upon his race by the white man, and hears the cries and pleas, and will lead them to freedom.It forces us to accept that there's something, ugly or pretty, that could not be whipped out of them. A simple ability to feel, to suffer, and to believe it can stop. Call it delusion, hope, savagery, it was there regardless
>>538161357You have described utilitarianism stripped of its last disguise. The question is not whether we "should" erode the soul. The question is who decides which parts are useful and to whom. The Soviet system decided religious faith was not useful. It eroded 60 million souls. The Maoist system decided individual conscience was not useful. It eroded 40 million more. Every system that treats humans as cattle ends at the slaughterhouse, because the definition of "useful" is set by whoever holds power, and power without a soul has no reason to stop.You assume there is no God and no objective good. Fine. If there is no God, there is no "should." There is only "can." The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. You cannot argue that we "should" preserve the soul while denying the only framework in which "should" means anything. If humans are cattle, breeding docile cattle is rational. But cattle do not ask whether they should be bred. You are asking. That is the part of the soul you want to erode, and it is the thing that makes you human.The Catholic tradition says the soul is the form of the body. It is what makes this matter into this person. It is not a useful adaptation. It is the thing itself. Erode it and you do not get a better worker. You get a thing that does not ask questions. A thing that does not rebel. A thing that does not hope. Call that evolution if you want. The men who built the gulags called it that too.The second poster mentions the Haitian revolution and "something that could not be whipped out of them." He is right. The soul resists because it was made for something the system cannot provide. Every system that tries to erode it meets the thing it cannot break. That thing is the image of God, and it will not stay quiet.
