Ad Victoriam
New member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
- Messages
- 6
As the subject suggests, I'm wondering does "the end justify the means" in context of acquiring resources for our individual and collective prosperity as Satanists.
One theoretical example being a company legally sells addictive drugs to people indiscriminately (young, old, gentile, jew and everyone in between). The company doesn't force anyone to buy or sell their drugs, but none the less their customers are satisfied and keep coming for more. Their employees are making triple their previous income and work long tedious hours everyday. Some of their customers spend their monthly income on just one hit, while others request drugs that bring them intense pain and even humiliation. People who consume these drugs are satisfied in the moment, but never seek out more healthy alternatives for their satisfaction. The company uses part of their profits to invest in Satanic programs and organizations like the JoS. The addictive drugs aren't physically harmful unless the customer requests that it is, and that it's harm is psychological. If this company wasn't to sell these drugs, their customers would find other providers.
Personally, I'd argue this transaction isn't immoral. Everyone get's what they want from the transaction, and a company shouldn't be (directly) in a position to control the desires of consumers beyond advertising. People who want to buy drugs badly enough will buy drugs, whether it be through legal or illegal means. Whether people should be buying drugs isn't the concerns or responsibility of a company, but instead the responsibility of the individual buyer and perhaps the government.
I'm definitely interested in having a discussion about this if anyone disagrees with me. If you do agree, what conditions within the context given would result in you not agreeing that the transaction wasn't immoral; ie, addictive drugs caused physical harm, people are forced to consume them, it's illegal? Perhaps this wouldn't be moral either, however there's not a neutral word for this situation (that I know of) as people tend to see things in black and white. I'd say it'd fall somewhere in a comfortable grey margin, probably closer to moral than immoral as part of the money would be going to a good cause that might eventually satisfy their consumers in a healthier way.
HS
One theoretical example being a company legally sells addictive drugs to people indiscriminately (young, old, gentile, jew and everyone in between). The company doesn't force anyone to buy or sell their drugs, but none the less their customers are satisfied and keep coming for more. Their employees are making triple their previous income and work long tedious hours everyday. Some of their customers spend their monthly income on just one hit, while others request drugs that bring them intense pain and even humiliation. People who consume these drugs are satisfied in the moment, but never seek out more healthy alternatives for their satisfaction. The company uses part of their profits to invest in Satanic programs and organizations like the JoS. The addictive drugs aren't physically harmful unless the customer requests that it is, and that it's harm is psychological. If this company wasn't to sell these drugs, their customers would find other providers.
Personally, I'd argue this transaction isn't immoral. Everyone get's what they want from the transaction, and a company shouldn't be (directly) in a position to control the desires of consumers beyond advertising. People who want to buy drugs badly enough will buy drugs, whether it be through legal or illegal means. Whether people should be buying drugs isn't the concerns or responsibility of a company, but instead the responsibility of the individual buyer and perhaps the government.
I'm definitely interested in having a discussion about this if anyone disagrees with me. If you do agree, what conditions within the context given would result in you not agreeing that the transaction wasn't immoral; ie, addictive drugs caused physical harm, people are forced to consume them, it's illegal? Perhaps this wouldn't be moral either, however there's not a neutral word for this situation (that I know of) as people tend to see things in black and white. I'd say it'd fall somewhere in a comfortable grey margin, probably closer to moral than immoral as part of the money would be going to a good cause that might eventually satisfy their consumers in a healthier way.
HS