@Tahitiii
Well I'm writing that stuff from a completely amoral POV -- it's not that I like it or agree --> I find it horrfying, but it helps me make some sense of why the world is the way it is. I.e. why, as the OP put it, do people react violently when it's suggested there be less corruption (i.e. no white lies)? I mean, that makes no sense. My hypothesis is that it's because it reprensents a loss of "freedom" or power (or a perception of it) in a certain way. And maybe it also says something about why corrpuption exists. (not approving of corruption here, just trying to understand it)
Tahitiii wrote:
Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
In a perfect meritocracy there is only one narrow path to success.
Um... No. For one thing, who asked for a perfect meritocrazy?
How about if you're just happy to get by financially, have a decent life... Competition dictates that there must be winners and losers. What if I don't want to play that way? When you cooperate, "a rising tide floats all boats." Competition just makes everything difficult and unpleasant. It doesn't create more tangible wealth; it only wastes it. "Success" is subjective. You don't have to be irrational to have a difference of opinion or a preference.
Well yeah, I agree with all that. But there are people in the world who do want play "zero-sum game" as hard as they can, and their take on cooperationists is "fresh meat." Doesn't mean you have to join them, but one does have to be wary. I have my little bit of peace carved out in the world lately (one that few would call successful in the usual sense (another reason I avoid talking to anybody IRL)), but I'm content to sit in it and watch them fight & kill & fling sh** at each other; it can be fascinating to watch people do horrible things. What cognitive dissonance allows doing some clearly awful thing? What is the mental construct in which doing that makes sense? I guess it's like having an interest in serial killers; wanting to know what makes them tick.