Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R
A system does not need to be ruthlessly utilitarian in order to be a good system.
|
The problem with your statement is the insinuation that a system like Sybil is ruthlessly utilitarian. I don't think it's inherently ruthless at all, and if it was really ruthless it wouldn't have worked, and it shows in many aspects of the system, as it weighs hue enforcement with some element of anarchy in the expression of what free will it allows members of its society (one might argue a truly ruthless system would simply lobotomize everyone into automatons).
Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is that whenever it may appear to be ruthless, the perceived action isn't done with being ruthless in mind. Any ruthlessness inherent in the system is a side effect, and not a driving force. TL;DR: Intent matters.
I do not believe a system with the goal of Sybil can be accomplished weighed down by individual-scale morality. I reject the premise that by not concentrating on individual-scale morality that the system has to be ruthless.
I will say that a system that is primarily concerned on individual-scale morality can not be a good system (on the scale we're talking about concerning this show; like physics, I think the rules change based on the scale
), with the understanding that the world isn't black and white and that alternatives to such an approach doesn't require being <insert any of the many extreme adjectives you can imagine>.
Does that mean I would like to live in such a system? No, of course not. But, I'm selfish.
In the more chaotic societies we live in in real life, I'm firm in the belief that I can (and do) better than in a society like one envisioned by Sybil, even if it means many others do worse.
