I must be missing something. Through all ages, most philosophy, especially those that answer ethics, allow and encourage cruel acts against other human being. It’s the norm. It’s not the exception.
We like to believe that it’s only done on exceptional cases. Still, those exception is more of a norm than exception.
In fact, libertarianism is the only school of ethics that do not justify cruelty, at least not consensually, nor encourage cruelty to others. Exceptions are arguable like in cases of shooting burglars slowly to death. But the burglars ask for it so it’s like consensual right? Okay just kidding but you got the point.
It’s as if the very reason why philosophy and religion is made is to justify cruel acts.
Normally we retaliate against cruel acts. But then, ah, through some long twisted philosophy of ethics, we start thinking oh it’s justified, it’s okay.
We see people getting tortured to death. Well according to legalism, a school of ethic, it’s the law of the land. So it’s okay. That sort of thing.
And that’s I think the real origin of ethic. Some tyrants sponsoring thought that justify his cruelty so he can stay in powah.
In fact, one central theme of taoism is that even robbers cause limited damage. But evil in the name of truth (=awesome ethic) has no limit.
Perhaps the issue is whether the school of ethic is formal. Perhaps formal means major. Well these look formal enough to me:
Legalism obviously.
If it’s the law, it’s okay.
It justify killing, strangling, crucifying, castrating, slaughtering to 9th degree of family. What doesn’t it justify?
Religion is another.
Religions should count as a school of ethic too, if not the main ones.
It justify war, genocide, slavery, just read book of exodus in bible. Just look how Taliban works.
Why? Well, God says so. Hmmmm. mmmmkay
Militarism is another.
It justify shooting other people. Yes those are technically enemy. But then again most guys in Hiroshima weren’t soldiers. So are most women raped by rusian army. So were jews that died during holocaust.
C’mon guys. They just want to kill. Then they come up with some philosophy why it’s cool to kill.
Now let’s count some indirect circumstances.
We need food. Say you prohibit someone from getting food in any practical way. You effectively force him to starve right?
Imagine if you said okay you can get food but you can’t pay for it. Well that’s still as good as forcing him to starve because unless you are very charming then you most likely can’t get food without paying.
So if we can include any philosophy that may not justify cruelty but justify acts that obviously lead to cruel outcome and use felonious murder legal doctrine logic we should include:
Trade restriction-ism
It’s a school of ethic. It basically says that some consensual trade is not ethical and hence must be prohibited. What’s the result?
I think all evil in the world stem largely due to trade restrictions. Without trade restrictions we can be rich by helping others. Trade restrictions give more happiness to those who are in power than those who are productive. Basically profit in trade restriction-ism goes to those who have the power to restrict trade.
So people try to be in power more and act cruelly to others so they are feared.
World wars would not have happened if globalization was already the norm. Politicians cannot seize people money if the market regulate everything. Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson would have been alive if ganja is legal.
Everything we hear are just bullshit after bullshit to make us believe the fairy tales that some consensual trade is evil.
That’s the heart of evil.
The most notorious trade restrictionism is
Socialism
It’s a school of ethic. It says that wealth is not ethical
One notorious trade restriction-ism is socialism. It justify government intervention in economy that obviously lead to really really messed up famine and poverty. During chinese “great leap” or whatever, chinese eat their own kids because they are starving. Such is the evil of government’s intervention in economy.
The worst of the worst of trade restriction-ism is
The #1 super cruel philosophy in the world is, drum roll (looks like it’s going to be my last answers before I am kicked out from this site)
feminazism
It’s a major school of ethic. It says that some/all commercialized consensual acts for sex is not ethical.
It restrict trade and commercialization of the most important aspect of our life, sex.
Most males want to get laid. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex. Then you cruelly forced him into a shageless life. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex unless you pay for it? Well unless you’re Brad Pitt, it’s hard to charm women without “consideration”.. Yes you can offer marriage (I wonder why) but marriage sucks because it’s infested by non market force such as governments’ trade restriction.
Feminazism hurt the interest of hot babes even more than males.
Think about it. So many women are stoned, killed, and beaten up in Afghanistan. Obviously many of those women prefer to move out to other countries where women are treated better.
Feminists prohibit anyone from helping those women out. Yes, they said that you are prohibited from helping women move out only if the woman is going to have sex for money.
That’s still the same thing. What can that girl offer beside sex to persuade others to provide costly help for her? Even western girls often have sex with photographer for stardorm. It’s what girls do.
So many kids are born out of poverty because their dad are poor. Yet feminazis successfully make sugar babies illegal. So many hot babes cannot get paid by richer males. Those women ended up marrying. Marriage must be monogamous. In other word, every male will tend to get one under marriage system no matter how poor or violent he is.
Result is obvious. Women ended up with violent assholes that beat her up.
The only thing good about feminazism is that they demand women to fight on front line. Sure. We should encourage those dikes to do so.
Why rich smart attractive males avoid marriage? Why religions teach you to get married? Why feminazis prevent consenting females from accepting high paying jobs and escaping patriarchal oppression? Why force and deceit are often more politically correct than consent in getting a mate? What should you do to help your self?