Degree in Despotism.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-16 01:07pm

Just some course requirements I thought up, thought you may find them amusing.

Major Requirements

Introduction to Machiavellian Politics (DES 181)
Introduction to Machiavellian Politics Lab (DES 182)
Philosophy of Despotism (DES 202)
Intermediate Power Mongering(DES 210)
Violent Uprisings Lab(DES 240)
Guerilla Warfare(DES 243)
Subverting the Democratic Process(DES 300)

Any two of the following sequences

1. Playing on Xenophobia (ECL 401)
Internment Camp Design and Administration(HMC 404)
Workhouse Management(HMC 420)
Economics of the Forced Labor Camp(HMC 460)

2.Playing on Xenophobia (ECL 401)
Ethnic Cleansing for Beginners(ECL 403)
Death Camp Design with Lab(ECL 413)
Body Disposal For the Gifted(ECL 430)

3.Playing on Xenophobia (ECL 401)
Crimes Against Humanity for the Astute(HUM 405)
Beginning acts of Genocide(ECL 440)
Advanced Genocidal Tactics(ECL 450)

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-16 01:14pm

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-16 01:18pm

Electives:

Secret Police Management 01 (SPT 01)
Informant Networking 1 (SPT 03)
Advanced Reign of Terror Tactics (SPT 110)
Removing Rivals for Beginners (SPT 240)
Advanced Rival Removal (SPT 250)

Brainwashing and Indoctrination (DES 320)
Buying off Forgien Leaders (DES 400)
Megolmania Control 1&2 (DES 450 & 451)
Bread and Circuses: Controlling the Masses (DES 475)

The Ethics of WMDs (PHS 100)
The Ethics of Ethnic Cleansing (PHS 200)

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-16 02:06pm

Thoughts? Suggestions? Did Stormy or myself miss anything?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-16 02:15pm

Yes.

Evil Overlord List Studies (OVR 101)

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-16 02:19pm

Guest lecturers would include Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, and Zombie Joseph Stalin.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-02-16 02:25pm

Or any resurected Nazi leader.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-02-16 02:46pm

I assume that this will be instructed at the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-02-16 03:23pm

There's an arts minor offered by Zombie Hitler as well.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-16 03:28pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Yes.

Evil Overlord List Studies (OVR 101)

Dang! That was the first thing on my mind too.

Then there's always

Mass Media Manipulation with Lab (MMM 101)
Intimidation for the physically unimpressive (PHY 101)

Assassination - why, when and how? - Seminar
How to screw over the UN and get away with it - ring lecture

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-16 08:01pm

We could have poetry by Chairman Mao.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-16 08:23pm

Lonestar wrote:I assume that this will be instructed at the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University?

No no. Remember JawaWithAGun's old sig? The Darth Vader School of Personnel Management.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-02-16 08:36pm

Lonestar wrote:I assume that this will be instructed at the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University?

What's the thing with Carpathian?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-16 08:41pm

Comosicus wrote:
Lonestar wrote:I assume that this will be instructed at the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University?
What's the thing with Carpathian?

Vigo The Carpathian was the guy's name. He was the villain painting in Ghostbusters 2.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-02-16 08:56pm

Gandalf wrote:
Comosicus wrote:
Lonestar wrote:I assume that this will be instructed at the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University?
What's the thing with Carpathian?
Vigo The Carpathian was the guy's name. He was the villain painting in Ghostbusters 2.

I thought it had to do with the Carpathian Mountains.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-02-16 09:25pm

Stormbringer wrote:Electives:

The Ethics of WMDs (PHS 100)
The Ethics of Ethnic Cleansing (PHS 200)

Isn't ethics an oxymoron if you're a despot with no morals? I suggest changing the course titles to the following:

Methods and Usage of WMDs
Proper Usage of Ethnic Cleansing

As an evil despot you're going to be doing both of them anyways so ethics don't exactly come into it.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-02-16 09:27pm

Rogue 9 wrote: No no. Remember JawaWithAGun's old sig? The Darth Vader School of Personnel Management.

It seems to me that the Vigo The Carpathian School of Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University would be more appropriate to offer this degree than the Darth Vader School of Personnel Management. That one just screams "Middle Management", with Dean Lumberg presiding.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-16 09:28pm

aerius wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Electives:

The Ethics of WMDs (PHS 100)
The Ethics of Ethnic Cleansing (PHS 200)
Isn't ethics an oxymoron if you're a despot with no morals? I suggest changing the course titles to the following:

Methods and Usage of WMDs
Proper Usage of Ethnic Cleansing

As an evil despot you're going to be doing both of them anyways so ethics don't exactly come into it.

Maybe the ethics thing is dealing with any guilt.

"It's perfectly fine to gas them, they were infidels."

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-02-16 09:30pm

Comosicus wrote:
I thought it had to do with the Carpathian Mountains.

Don't worry, I have nothing against Romanians....except for that crazy guy. You know, the one who'd be a poster child for this degree.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-17 07:58am

aerius wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Electives:

The Ethics of WMDs (PHS 100)
The Ethics of Ethnic Cleansing (PHS 200)
Isn't ethics an oxymoron if you're a despot with no morals?

Ethics are relative, it always depends on what you consider to be right or wrong. You can construct an ethical system where the wellbeing of the state is more important than the wellbeing of a few individuals. Kinda like Spock did (or Machiavelli).

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-02-17 08:00am

Lonestar wrote:
Comosicus wrote:
I thought it had to do with the Carpathian Mountains.
Don't worry, I have nothing against Romanians....except for that crazy guy. You know, the one who'd be a poster child for this degree.

You mean Vlad Tepes?

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-17 08:16am

Vigo the Carpathian, from Ghost Busters.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-17 02:11pm

Ethics are relative, it always depends on what you consider to be right or wrong. You can construct an ethical system where the wellbeing of the state is more important than the wellbeing of a few individuals. Kinda like Spock did (or Machiavelli).
_________________

That is not necessarily correct. Ethics/morality cannot be subjective relativism, for it goes against the purpose and definition of morality. Limited Objectivism (not absolute) is the only right methodology. (This includes utilitarian aspects based on situation). Right and wrong are far from subjective. The idea of well-being for the state is very similiar to Conventional Ethical Relativism.

1 Morality is defined as what should be, and not what is. For something to be ethical, it must be a mix of total and limited objectivism, good both on its own, and due to circumstances. Subjectivism (relativism) in morality only focucuses on what 'is' and not what should be.
Ethics and Morality's purpose is to help society prosper and function for good, protection, and civilized survival.

Relativism in action:

General concept: Subjectivists would say, "What I believe to be moral is just as correct as what you believe is moral." This is incorrect because it can be broken by reductio ad absurdum. If you believe what I say is moral, and I believe what you say is immoral, and our moralities are "just the same" or "just as correct, right, or good" then you would ALSO have to agree with my morality...since it is just as correct.

I.E. My morality says it is ok to kill people for pleasure
Your morality says it is immoral to kill people for pleasure
Both of our systems are subjective and therefore just as good/correct.
Ergo, we both must believe it is both moral to kill people for pleasure and to not kill people for pleasure at the same time. That makes no sense.--Reduction ad aburdum

A I.E. Conventional Ethical Relativism:
You cannot judge my nation's actions because we believe it morally correct to slaughter millions of innocent people, steal from you, and bomb your cities. To us, it is ethically correct. Our ethics is just as good as yours. This follows the same logic.

1.. This creates a problem: First and foremost, it is horribly unproductive and produces needless pain, suffereing, and power over others. It is not acceptible to a healthy society or the definition of morality. As well, it forms the same contradiction listed above. If you believe it to be right, and i believe it to be wrong (morally) we must both accept each other's morality as correct.

- An example would be a small tribe discovered by Anthropologist Ruth Benedict. She noticed that memebers of the tribe would randomly go around killing people because 'someone' in the community had died. They believed, according to their culture, that it was morally right to slaughter one person for the death of another even though no one did anything wrong. This is harmful again to society because it causes fear, depression, unproductive natures, and sickly people who must watch their backs, lose family members, and even lose potential workers for the society.

- You would also have to agree then, that the nazis were morally correct in their actions for killing millions of individuals unjustly, stealing their wealth, and making war. After all, morality is subjective and we cannot do anything about it.

2. Another problem. Strick self-relativism:

- I believe it is morally right to punch my friend, and he believes it is morally wrong to do the same thing to me. In addition to the mutual unproductivity caused by the matter, it is contradictory on one level. One cannot have two equally correct moralities subjective to societies and people. If I hit him I am breaking his moral code, and if he hits me, he is breaking my moral code. That effectively makes the codes useless.

Now, I am not advocating complete and blind adherence to Absolute Objectivism, because that too is wrong. The situation which forces upon individuals cercumstances is the key factor many times--that is an element of objectivism, not subjectivism. It may seem subjective, but they follow "subjective" practices in the pursuit of the same goals as other societies.

Inuit ( in the past) frequently kill off babies that are not very healthy, sickly, or cannot be taken care of. They also get rid of the elderly. One might use Objective morality to say this is wrong, but that would be incorrect. One would also be incorrect to say that what they do is conventionally relative--its not.

The Inuit use this practice of selective survival to ensure the survival of the entire tribe. People whom cannot be cared for do not belong in a society subjected to such harsh environments/circumstances. The elderly and the very sick--in some instances too many young, are burdon on society. (Note: the problem of too many young is easily solvable and is therefore now considered immoral due to contraception techniques).

Objectively, they are only doing what their environment allows. As well, they are still trying to attain the same basic principles

1. Survival of the society
2. Love for family (young and elderly) and the self

Another example would be the two individuals on a boat. If one doesn't eat the other, they both will die. In response, the man hits the guy over the head and eats him. Is it moral? Yes. The circumstances would have caused them both to die. They did not have enough food, no adequate shelter, and not enough time to survive. It was moral to wait till the food ran out, then kill the person as a last resort due to circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

That is the product of subjectivism. Do YOU want to live in that society?

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-17 02:18pm

Edit: double post

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-02-17 02:19pm

Where's the class on how to erect a cult of personality religion around oneself?