Tsuki ga Michibiku Isekai Douchuu - Vol. 4 Ch. 28

[pigeons]

This isn't a Japanese or western moral thing, if you ever work in finance everyone thinks like this. The government thinks like this. It's all about self-interest.

 

[MelonReads]

@Lukaskyboss Rembrant "Jeff Bezos" and Mr. Butler "CIA" are scum precisely because they had to be scum and do shady shit to get to where they currently are in the first place. If you look at an objective historical analysis of not just so called "successful" merchants but aristocrats in medieval countries, youll see that they themselves had to do shady and scummy shit to be successful. Heirs to thrones having to murder relatives, the Wars of the Roses in England where aristocrats butchered themselves GoT style.
The safety nets and human rights that modern society created just offset these atrocities, though the rich and powerful still get off with a slap on the wrist nonetheless (Jeff Bezos and his shady dealings and monopolies, the CIA overthrowing governments and installing puppet dictators, etc.)
Rembrandt and Butler are no different from people in our world. If anything, what they're doing is expected of the elite in medieval society.
There are no "human rights" or fair "due process of law" or institutions that uphold transparency through democratic accountability and fair law enforcement regardless of social class in a medieval society. Medieval institutions are prone to corruption, bribery, and coverups. To be "successful" in medieval society, one has to take advantage of these.
@Noboru gets it.

 

[Lukaskyboss]

@MelonReads Of course, but even in a medieval society, it's often a master at arms, a Lord who has control over a town with his castle. No matter how you normalize bad deeds (and I'm not talking about law because the Lord is the law) in order to be successful, that's degradation (like how a young orphan has to steal in the streets to survive, which is different from someone who can live life decently but instead has ambition and seek power no matter the means used=greed/ambition). There is bound to be someone that is superior to others without the need of such low acts so it's logically wrong to excuse, justify their actions.

I'm talking about morals or virtue. He could be said to be interesting because he helps the MC achieve it without the need of being a murderer, a lier, a scoundrel. I won't excuse them.

 

[LordRimaru]

Me: Reading all these long comments
Also Me: 🧘‍♂️*Trying to digest everything I red*

 

[Logic]

Look at the people here telling that Rembrant was an evil guy. but imagine if the MC was a guy that killed a thousand of people in the past and the story focused on how he didn’t want to kill anymore.... everyone (particularly guys) would probably say that he’s a badass

 

[AzureDragonLord]

I dunno, feel like rembrant is just a no hearted businessman. Not exactly evil

 

[fran13r]

@Logic

You know what? Thanks for reminding me of that. Here I was feeling weird about Rembrant killing off maybe a dozen people for being his competition, but the protagonist is unphased by genocide.

I'll give rembrant a chance.

 

[reychar13]

rembrant character sure intresting

 

[AhhUzumluKekim]

Dude mc is being pushed back too far in my opinion. I mean we can't even see him fighting plus he is too naive. He's just like any other side character now.

 

[androgynous]

Cmon, it's not so complicated! Everyone has their own agendas while believing in "morals"! But those are their own morals, not ours! And probably even deluding themselves, or just don't caring a about anyone except their inner circle or convenient partners! Rembrandt is a Machiavellian character, our MC a happy-go-lucky sociopath, while Mio and Tomoe are each for their own reasons following a super strong interesting person after centuries of basically boredom, in new exiting bodies!
I could continue to psychoanalize them but what's the point, it's not Kant

 

[Pallington]

Cmon, it's not so complicated! Everyone has their own agendas while believing in "morals"! But those are their own morals, not ours! And probably even deluding themselves, or just don't caring a about anyone except their inner circle or convenient partners! Rembrandt is a Machiavellian character, our MC a happy-go-lucky sociopath, while Mio and Tomoe are each for their own reasons following a super strong interesting person after centuries of basically boredom, in new exiting bodies!
I could continue to psychoanalize them but what's the point, it's not Kant

hegel > kant

@Lukaskyboss
to the general conversation:
anyways, people are logical, but social-logical. It is logic with a few biases and premises towards social life, most likely biologically wired from our time as more monkey (well, gorilla? chimpanzee?) than man, otherwise a combo of biological and memetic/sociological.

There's this line that gets drawn in western discourse between "necessary to survive" and "extraneous greed" that I find odd if not appalling (depending on the day and my mood). I can only assume it's a cultural relic of christianity and christian asceticism, given several anti-wealth passages and discussions by Christ himself, let alone the disciples and what not, and the overwhelming dominance of christianity and christian theology and practice (they take great pains to split the two) in politics and philosophy. As Marx (or was it Engels?) put it, there's nothing easier than to give christian asceticism a socialist coat of paint.

The first and primary objection I have to this, is on the practical-logic front.
We all know that life sometimes decides to fuck you over. This isn't because life has it out for you (well, believe that if it makes you feel better), but because the situation is generally kinda shit and random chance has free reign in a lot of aspects. Roll a d20 enough times and eventually you'll get three 1s in a row.
Given that, we plan. We prepare. We want to hoard, we want emergency stock. We feel insecure, and we cannot feel secure until we have a buffer such that even if nature fucks us a little we can take it.
So, from this alone, for anything that produces or is widely consumed, we immediately can blur the line.

An empirical demonstration, the second front: We don't need toothpaste. Sure, bad breath and tooth decay are bad, but you don't strictly need toothpaste to live, especially if you only plan to live until 50 or so, and especially especially not modern fluoride toothpastes. Is jostling over and busying yourself with toothpaste production and distribution "greed" then?
Well, you say, "what about extra dresses! fashion trends! how do you explain those!?" To which I say, "then surely, you've never worn formal wear to any occasion? You've never heard of a person with many watches, or many cars?" It is the manifestation of social class in our clothing. To continue to live securely in that position and in that manner, they must meet the social and material expectations.
A particularly pressing example: Why do capitalists only care about profit?
Because, in a variety of ways, capital is their ammunition and their armor. Direct economic war. Currency Manipulation (asian financial crisis 1997, that one sole capitalist of the bunch who happens to be jewish that some neonazis now hold up to pretend they're anticapitalist when they're really antisemitic). Invasion and encroachment upon new markets. Political manipulation, including bribery or simply holding a country/city's production facilities hostage, or the funding of militant groups ('terrorists'). Continued moneyflow so that the exploitation rig, much like a money washing machine, can run smoothly, a well-oiled machine. So they care about profit, and they care about their ability to accept debt, and so they care about ROI.
The things they do to achieve max profit? That includes things we typically regard as evil, like assassination, framing, racketeering, coercion and exploitation, and straight up de facto slavery.
In the face of this shit, even the UN's pitiful and paltry enforcement of "human rights" (see: Hague Invasion Act) is a complete and utter joke.

The third: The moral-logic front.
One of the two is sin, the other is natural, we say. But what is real is actual, and what is actual is real. So, is this actual?
We say, "desire is what makes people do bad things." But without desire, whence technology? Whence innovation?
More fundamentally, what is desire but a manifestation of need? Without desire, are you even alive? You need food and drink and entertainment and social stimulation, and thus, you desire, and thus, you act. Does this always mean you act in the best interest of the whole?
Fuck no. You often don't even know what that would look like.
Does that mean you are evil?
A meaningless question.
A need for future life to be more likely, that generates desire for produced items and guaranteed conditions. In the same vein, a desire left unattended to (whether by compensating elsewhere or by satisfying it directly) warps the person and generates more and more new and pressing needs (see: homelessness and drug abuse).
Need is desire. Desire is need. One is natural, and the other is sin. So Need is Sin, and Desire is natural, in the same way that Need is natural, and Desire is sin. To live is to need. Thus, to live is to sin, and at the same time to give up life is a sin. The only conclusion borne from splitting one to sin and the other to nature is that suicide is roughly as valid and that all people are evil, therefore evil as a separator is meaningless.