Just like beauty.

You can't say beauty doesn't exist.

You obviously believe that your morality is true enough that it ought to be followed

So I am simply asking why

I explained why.

No, you didn't.

> It's not obvious how killing other people, mentally hurting their society, friends, family, and causing negative feelings to another is a bad thing?

Stop playing the why game with me.

You think it's common sense but that doesn't explain why a certain act is "wrong"

But you said morality is subjective

Yes.

If I’m an imperialist

In my interpretation of morality, Imperialism is wrong.

So why then should I adopt your view on morality?

I think it’s okay to kill a group in a territory I control is ok

Now which interpretation morality is the best can be concluded by the benefits each one has.

And there’s nothing wrong with that

Because it has many benefits.

What are they?

Many, but the primary one, is a larger population of people, living peacefully, which can ensure social and economic development/assistance, and assistance/development in many other sectors. Imperialism straight up destroys this development in order for the state and the people living within the state before the expansions, to have a better quality of life, or for any other reason.

Ok but let's say that at some point it would be to my advantage to act in an imperialist manner, would you say that as long as I can assure my victory over an opposing group that it would be wrong to invade and overtake them?

Yes it would be wrong. You can antagonise that group in many other ways.

Why should I?

Because it won't hurt people, their communities and the societies they belong to.

Alright so why would hurting those people matter if I can destroy them?

Because their existence gives you more benefits than their absence.

If you don't want to go with what's moral and what's not (in my opinion)

Well I don't think that such a standard would really work in every case

Their existence would be detrimental to the state only of the state is incompetent.

I can understand why in most cases you wouldn't desire to destroy another country within our modern context but at some point in history and perhaps at some point in the future, this was/may not be the case. Would you say that in such situations then that killing them is permissible?

I would need you to further elaborate on these situations, to be 100% sure about the answer I give you.

Well let's say for example that a people group inhabits an area that has a particular resource and my nation needs that resource. Now if the only advantage of keeping this other group around is that they can give my people that resource, why would I not, once I am able, just seize that resource and eliminate any obstacle to my group's access to the resource?

The people who reside above -or on the same level as- the resource you need, wouldn't be an obstacle to you claiming it. Not to mention that trading, or manipulating the group to giving you the resources you need would be an ethically more acceptable way, yet still immoral.

Ok but if your justification for morality is that your views equate to my group or myself having an advantage, why wouldn't I then just do everything that is to my advantage or to the advantage of my group?

Including acts of imperialism

Am I the only person who thinks morality is a spook of an argument?

You know, killing another person and getting all of their money is an act to my advantage, considering I don't get caught. That doesn't mean that I should actually do it, however. If the people and their countries did all the things they could do, to take advantage of others or situations, then I'm not so sure about whether the world would be currently existing or not.

@Zoltanous Morality isn't the only argument, you may read the whole convo.

Seems like morality is the main focus of the conversation besides government mostly bad

A) Morality is a very good argument
B) I've listed certain benefits that come with my approach of anti-Imperialism.

Although I don’t get hiking call it incompetent when it’s merely a tool like a gun. Power is a position projected for many different goals. If I had a totalitarian state I would be trying to maintain a traditional social order but liberalism wants to maintain a global economy and gay prog values.

As for morality it is a bad argument because morality comes from the structures within the power centers of the society. Genealogy of morals essentially makes this argument that it’s projected from the high onto the low. The constructing of social norms is projected from the state typically into the economic sector besides that propaganda and lots of other culture changing methods are incorporated. I could only see you making this argument from a utilitarian one ie relativism because of subjective value or a religious one which I’m not religious so this argument doesn’t stick for me.