Degree in Despotism.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-17 02:47pm

Beginning Cults of Personality: as applied to high school (DES 220)
Advanced Cults of Personality: As Applied to Nations (DES 221)

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-02-18 01:35am

Authoritarian Theory - History and application; what has worked in the past and what hasn't?
Reasonable Paranoia - How to detect threats before they become one.
Political Manipulation - Learn to play rivals against each other, seize power, and retain it.
Fear and Love - A critical analysis of the benefits as well as the disadvantages of each, and a guest commentary by Machiavelli.
Public Speaking - Control mobs and persuade your country.
Scapegoating - How to successfully place the blame on a minority and unite a country in the process.
Public Displays of Power - Create shock and awe for the power of the State, as well as attract young people into the military.
Establishing a Place in History Books - A close examination of the most popular dictators and how to be like them.
Economics of Mass Execution - Why waste bullets when you can use an axe? Learn how to manage transferring prisoners while retaining the capability to keep troops fighting. Zombie Hitler lectures on his lessons learned in his ultimately failed war.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-18 07:29am

Cornelius wrote:
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.

I am not a relativist, I said what I said within the context of the claim that there is only one set of morals.
There are certainly questions for which there is no objective answer, because they are linked to very subjective beliefs of what is wrong or right, or personal priorities. With killing, things are often very clear, but that is a very simplistic approach. Two examples come to mind.
(1) I was discussing a hypothetical scenario with a friend: You (an atheist) ran over an elderly woman with your car. You get out to help, but she is clearly dying. She looks at you and asks you "Do you think I will see heaven now?"
Do you answer
(a) No, I don't believe in heaven.
(b) Yes, I am sure you will.
Is telling the truth is more important than comforting the woman, since she will see that there is no heaven anyway in a short time? Kant always said that you always have to tell the truth, regardless of the circumstances. To him, truth was a moral absolute. To me it is not, but there is no objective way of deciding that.
(2) Uh, I forgot that one while typing away on the first one. Maybe it'll come back later.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-02-21 02:14am

Comosicus wrote:

You mean Vlad Tepes?

No no...the more recent one. The one y'all shot after the communists fell.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-02-21 03:00am

Fools you forget these vital classes:
Pointlessly depleting your Officer Corps by Comrade Zombie Josef Stalin
Pointlessly firing your best officers by Zombie Adolf Hitler
Pissing off America by Mr. Fidel Castro and Mr. Manuel Noriega