PEACE

[RWStanding]

Peace
Every Christian and most others in the world call for global Peace. The only problem is that peace, without great qualification, is not intrinsically virtuous. Tyrants everywhere and at all times have vaunted peace, but on their terms. The only virtue in peace is where it is allied to respect for the law, in which case it does at least mean a belief in a stable community or society. Albeit everyone may be a slave and used abominably [in altruist eyes] other than those in command. And even then, if society is ruled by bigoted religion or philosophy, those in authority may also be subject to rites that no altruist would tolerate.
A belief in freedom without qualifications by all other values is a moral trap.
Where society is opposed to tyranny, then it does at least support some degree of tolerance, and equality, but how those values relate to individuals, the individual in mass, or the community in some kind is an outstanding question. It may on the one hand vaunt a world of complete individual moral freedom barring outright direct harm to others, based on absolute personal rights. On the other hand a world based on mutual responsibility, between individuals, and between communities of various kinds.
We must decide how diversity as a value relates, to a ‘free’ world. How pragmatism relates. And so forth.
The common reference to the modern word ‘love’ is also a moral trap, being so very vague. We may love what is ‘good’ and hate what is ‘bad’.
We only know what is ‘good’ on the basis of what form of society we already espouse, albeit this may change in the future global environment – for ‘better’ or ‘worse’.
Simply callin for peace in Israel-Palestine is fatuous.

[Age]

Peace
Every Christian and most others in the world call for global Peace.

Yet it is "christians" who are starting and going to wars, and fighting and killing 'fellow human beings', including children.

So, go figure!

The only problem is that peace, without great qualification, is not intrinsically virtuous.

Really?

Have you ever considered that whatever is considered 'not intrinsically virtuous' is not actually 'peace', itself?

Tyrants everywhere and at all times have vaunted peace, but on their terms.

Once again have you ever considered that 'this', whatever 'it' is, is not actually 'peace', itself?

The only virtue in peace is where it is allied to respect for the law, in which case it does at least mean a belief in a stable community or society.

And here we have another prime example of another "tyrant" who is 'vaunting peace' but really is believing that its own perspective and version of 'peace' is the true and right one, and the one that all "others" should adhere to and follow.

Which is probably a very accurate depiction and/or definition of a 'tyrant'.

Albeit everyone may be a slave and used abominably [in altruist eyes] other than those in command. And even then, if society is ruled by bigoted religion or philosophy, those in authority may also be subject to rites that no altruist would tolerate.

Remember you just claimed that the only virtue in 'peace' is where it is allied to respect 'the law', which, let us not forget, is made up by only a few, and is enforced by only a few, who any or all of could have very bigoted religion/s and/or views.

A belief in freedom without qualifications by all other values is a moral trap.

But what you have just shown and proved above here is the 'qualification' is where the 'tyranny' lies, or lays.

Where society is opposed to tyranny, then it does at least support some degree of tolerance, and equality, but how those values relate to individuals, the individual in mass, or the community in some kind is an outstanding question.

What do you mean by an 'outstanding' question?

Everything here is really just very simple, and very easy, indeed, and really very unexceptional as well.

It may on the one hand vaunt a world of complete individual moral freedom barring outright direct harm to others, based on absolute personal rights. On the other hand a world based on mutual responsibility, between individuals, and between communities of various kinds.
We must decide how diversity as a value relates, to a ‘free’ world. How pragmatism relates. And so forth.

Already done.

And what was found is that a Truly self-governing society works in the best possible way for each and every one.

But, of course, you people in the days when this was being written had not yet caught up, or evolved, to this stage, just yet.

The common reference to the modern word ‘love’ is also a moral trap, being so very vague.

But if you only have a vague reference, and/or only use it with a vague reference, then this in no way means that that word will always be referenced so vaguely.

We may love what is ‘good’ and hate what is ‘bad’.
We only know what is ‘good’ on the basis of what form of society we already espouse, albeit this may change in the future global environment – for ‘better’ or ‘worse’.
Simply callin for peace in Israel-Palestine is fatuous.

So, what should you be doing and/or calling for instead, exactly?