@Koninos

I started with listing the advantages and disadvantages of Imperialism earlier in the conversation, and explained that, putting morality aside, the countless disadvantages of killing a certain number of people, overshadows the few advantages that this action might have. Then, I explained why my moral code sees it as wrong.

In your example, what bothers you, personally, is the existence of the people. But the existence of the people is literally no obstacle, and does not stop you from claiming the resources you want. So basically, killing them is unnecessary. But let's, for one second, suppose that killing people for no reason is good, ignoring all the disadvantages that go with it. You can even suppose that there are no disadvantages at all. These advantages, are temporary. Some may be permanent, like the resource - which could be temporary as well. This action of Imperialism, can trigger reactions from other nations, other people, who are located both outside and inside your land. Therefore, it's very likely that these nations/people condemn you for your action, and this reaction could hurt your state and your people.

Hence, imperialism is a circle. As I said, every action has a reaction. You invade a country, you might invade another, and another and another, and these reactions finally bring you to the breaking point, which will come, sooner or later. This breaking point, will be (a) state(s) invading you, or a people opposing you by revolting or rebelling. You might defeat these threats, but new ones, in their very form, will return. And you will collapse to them if you keep being an Imperialist.

I also never said that Imperialism has no advantages at all. I said that killing in the name of Imperialism has no advantages. But Imperialism's advantages are temporary, and therefore Imperialism is a bad foreign affairs policy.

@Oboe

I mean I see your point that imperialism as a long term policy isn't sustainable and I agree. However I still don't see how you can insist that in every instance that killing a people group would always bring more disadvantages than advantages, there's just no way you can reasonably assert this in my opinion. I think I mostly understand what your moral standard is and I would say it is generally reasonable but I'd have to disagree on what kind of exceptions could be made in certain circumstances.

Could you give me an example of such exception?

Well it would circle back to the resource example, you believe firmly that there would never be a situation where imperialistic killing works to your ultimate advantage and I disagree.

Could you tell me why you disagree? And how is killing these people in your example beneficial?

Because it would remove a potential obstacle to my groups acquisition of a resource. If at some point my people desperately needed the resource for one reason or another, the opposing group could potentially exploit that desperate need and raise whatever price they ask for it in trade. Or perhaps they enter into an alliance of sorts with an enemy group and remove my group's access all together.

Hi

Henlo

And why kill them, when you can literally take many other prohibitive measures to stop that? You can't make absolute decisions on a mere hypothesis.

Because why wouldn't I kill them? Unless killing is inherently wrong the only reason I wouldn't is because it wouldn't work to my advantage but in this case, it would.

Control of resources ensures that my position is strong relative to other groups

Because killing them would be unnecessary. Your hypothesis can be reversed very easily, and their existence not only shouldn't inhibit you from claiming the resource, but they could actually work to your advantage if you take the right measures.

Ok but what if they don't want to cooperate?

What if, as I said, a third group is pushing them to oppose my group?

Your standard relies on the idea that there is *always* an alternative.

There is always an alternative indeed, but the thing is that this alternative might actually be hard to achieve. And that's the case here. It's pretty easy to kill them, but there is an alternative, no matter how hard it is. I believe that there are ways to both make them cooperate and cut them from the third group. And killing them in the modern world, but in the older one as well, would trigger the reaction of third groups, which could be fatal for the nation and its people.

Ok but you again assuming that the alternative would work and that the imperialistic killing couldn't ensure safety.

You surely can't believe that dominating an opposing group has never brought safety through out all of history.

I can believe that very well, but I can also believe even better the fact that there was always a better alternative, but it was invisible due to the old "trend" also known as Imperialism.

And Imperialistic killing could ensure temporary safety. It would trigger third party reactions, which could be fatal for the Imperialists.

And again, there could be a better alternative.

Well yeah, presently war is more costly than manipulation but that wasn't always the case and that could (however unlikely) change in the future. I would agree that imperialism isn't ideal today but that doesn't mean it is inherently immoral.

And manipulating other nations can cause a negative reaction as well whether that reaction is counter-manipulation or a conventional war, which one is ideal is a situational issue.

That's true. Manipulating other nations doesn't exactly equate to Imperialism though. Anyhow, today's QOTD will happen in a few hours, so we could end the conversation here, since I see that we have reached a conclusion, and since I have to go to class now. It was a very interesting conversation mate. Cya around (if you want to continue it, we could do it in <#587028275918929925>, but you'll have to wait a little bit for my response).

Alright, I don't think we'll get much further and I'm pretty satisfied, nice talk.

👍

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Scarface#4323 has been warned., Rule 7.***

seems like you don't want that question to be asked interesting*

**Question of the Day.** 🔖
-*Authoritarianism or Libertarianism? Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism?*

@everyone

Libertarianism all day

Government is gay

Hey hey hey

Seriously libertarianism is better

Bars.

Why must you ping everyone

No

Libertarianism has the tools to its own destruction in it.
There is no libertarian argument against people organizing to implement tyranny.
There is also no libertarian argument against say child transgenders.

Why is libertarianism better?