Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Annadog40]

Why would you condemn what is lawful?

[Accountant]

Yes, but not necessarily by YOUR standards. It could go entirely different from your standard of high intelligence.

You seem to be chronically unable to see things from any perspective other than yours. You're a bad intellectual.

The world has been steadily moving towards my definition of high intelligence for the past few centuries. I don't see why that should change.

[Accountant]

@Sesq: It is because I am unable to see things other than through the perspective of the correct path that I am the perfect intellectual. I actually literally cannot be wrong. I am physically unable to think a wrong moral thought. How amazing is that?

[Accountant]

Why would you condemn what is lawful?

Because it's wrong. It's wrong to kill lazy people.

[Annadog40]

What makes a lawful action wrong?

[Accountant]

That doesn't contradict what I said

No, ir does. The principle is consistent. Only the application of the principle changes, and nobody cares about that. The correct path is concerned with principles, not with how you execute them. For instance , a system that espouses the principle "always be kind" would be consistent, even if being kind is different at different times.

[Accountant]

What makes a lawful action wrong?

It being against the correct path.

[Annadog40]

But the correct path is following the law.

[Sesq]

Yes, but not necessarily by YOUR standards. It could go entirely different from your standard of high intelligence.
You seem to be chronically unable to see things from any perspective other than yours. You're a bad intellectual.

The world has been steadily moving towards my definition of high intelligence for the past few centuries. I don't see why that should change.

In what ways? I've seen more and more democracy being implanted into more and more places, which I think you oppose.

@Sesq: It is because I am unable to see things other than through the perspective of the correct path that I am the perfect intellectual. I actually literally cannot be wrong. I am physically unable to think a wrong moral thought. How amazing is that?

No, I don't think you understand this. Seeing through other people's perspectives means being able to look at their stance and being able to determine where they are coming from and then deconstruct and analyze their thoughts. This is how you intelligent. When you have the idea - no, fuck that - ideology of the correct path, that lens tints everything you look at and makes you unable to see things from an objective standpoint. If I had to go back and edit all your messages to add in "from my perspective" when relevant, well, I couldn't. I'd die long before that.

[Not_Mafia]

That doesn't contradict what I said

No, ir does. The principle is consistent. Only the application of the principle changes, and nobody cares about that. The correct path is concerned with principles, not with how you execute them. For instance, a system that espouses the principle "always be kind" would be consistent, even if being kind is different at different times.

But under the system of being kind, an action's morality is defined by the action itself. Under yours, morality can have a completely different definition, I can stand at the border of one country where smoking weed is legal and moral then step across the border where smoking weed is punishable by death and be worthy of death. Such a system is by definition, is imperfect.

[Accountant]

But the correct path is following the law.

The correct path here states two contradictory commands. This is therefore resolved by hiearchical order. The hiearchical order of "be orderly" is above the order of "murder is evil".

Therefore:

The order of "murder is evil" compels you to do two things - firstly to condemn murder, secondly to act against it. The first is executed without issue, the second is overriden by a higher order to not act against it as it is lawful. Therefore you condemn murder but do not act against it.

[Annadog40]

What about in the event that the thought of 'muder is evil' is out lawed?

[Accountant]

What about in the event that the thought of 'muder is evil' is out lawed?

Then once again we have a conflict between the moral principle of condemning murder and the moral principle of being orderly -> following the law. The latter principle wins, so you'd be forced to support murder. That's only if a law like that is passed though.

[Sesq]

Accountant, answer my previous.

[Accountant]

In what ways? I've seen more and more democracy being implanted into more and more places, which I think you oppose.

Do not think of it as "more and more democracy". Think of it as "more and more progress". Democracy is a progress up from feudalism. Now, if we know that humanity will keep progressing, what is the progress up from democracy? ...that's right. It's the correct path. That pattern of more and more democracy being implanted into more and more places is indicative of an overall pattern of progress. In a few centuries you will be saying that you see more and more utopianism implanted into more and more places.

[Accountant]

No, I don't think you understand this. Seeing through other people's perspectives means being able to look at their stance and being able to determine where they are coming from and then deconstruct and analyze their thoughts. This is how you intelligent. When you have the idea - no, fuck that - ideology of the correct path, that lens tints everything you look at and makes you unable to see things from an objective standpoint. If I had to go back and edit all your messages to add in "from my perspective" when relevant, well, I couldn't. I'd die long before that.

I have no need to deconstruct and analyze thoughts that will end up being wrong anyway. Why should I? I already have the ultimate objectively correct path behind me. Why should I care about seeing things from an objective standpoint?

All perspectives that aren't mine are worthless and irrelevant.

[Sesq]

No, I don't think you understand this. Seeing through other people's perspectives means being able to look at their stance and being able to determine where they are coming from and then deconstruct and analyze their thoughts. This is how you intelligent. When you have the idea - no, fuck that - ideology of the correct path, that lens tints everything you look at and makes you unable to see things from an objective standpoint. If I had to go back and edit all your messages to add in "from my perspective" when relevant, well, I couldn't. I'd die long before that.

I have no need to deconstruct and analyze thoughts that will end up being wrong anyway. Why should I? I already have the ultimate objectively correct path behind me. Why should I care about seeing things from an objective standpoint?

All perspectives that aren't mine are worthless and irrelevant.

Why do you assume you have perfect knowledge of everything?

It kind of makes you look like an asshole.

[Accountant]

Because I do. I'm not gonna lie to you guys.

[Annadog40]

What about in the event that the thought of 'muder is evil' is out lawed?

Then once again we have a conflict between the moral principle of condemning murder and the moral principle of being orderly -> following the law. The latter principle wins, so you'd be forced to support murder. That's only if a law like that is passed though.

So does that mean that there is no longer a moral principle of condemning murder?

[Sesq]

Because I do. I'm not gonna lie to you guys.

Name all the transportation milestones reached in 1943. If you know everything.

[Lurker]

Thanks for taking the test Accountant.

I'll presume you've been 100% honest, since you're the expert on your own views here, and I presume you're acting in good faith.

Obviously, your school of thought is more then a philosophy, it advocates action in some form, though you may not be the conduit such action is taken through.

It's less then a cult though, in that you aren't using your philosophy for any exterior goals: Not Money, People, Attention, Resources, Power, and so on.

Overall, It seems you scored around a ~300. Not bad.

[Dwlee99]

TIL being morally superior to people is more important than saving lives.

[Accountant]

Because I do. I'm not gonna lie to you guys.

Name all the transportation milestones reached in 1943. If you know everything.

I don't claim to be omniscient. When I said everything, I meant every moral thing. I'm omniscient in the field of morality, that's why I'm able to give you every correct answer.

[Accountant]

So does that mean that there is no longer a moral principle of condemning murder?

The moral principle is there, it's just been temporarily overriden by a higher principle. It will come back into full force as soon as the conflict between it and the higher principle goes away.

[Accountant]

TIL being morally superior to people is more important than saving lives.

I value being correct a great deal. I hate being wrong. I hate being wrong even more than I hate watching innocent people die pointlessly, which is a lot.