Being free to be selfish doesn't mean that it's virtuous to be selfish. Snorri was never going to compel anyone to hand over a rune they invented, that wasn't the question. The question was whether it was morally better to be altruistic than selfish, and we said that it wasn't.
There was no question of centralisation of power or authority, any more than there ever is when you ask for advice from a spiritual leader or a trusted mentor.
The question was 'Should I let other people learn how to make or further develop this life-saving invention or should I keep it a family monopoly so we can get even richer?'. That's not about individualism or freedom whichever way you chose to answer.
The question was 'Should I let other people learn how to make or further develop this life-saving invention or should I keep it a family monopoly so we can get even richer?'. That's not about individualism or freedom whichever way you chose to answer.
And what about personal and private property? Personal achievements? I mean, look at how you just framed and phrased that. "Life-saving."
You could have categorized the discovery as "lucrative", but you didn't. You put it under the category of "life-saving" --
thus automatically framing anybody who doesn't share it as being bad and evil, because they are selfishly and jealously hoarding things away.
(That it's not enough that Dolgi and his family are going to specialize themselves towards serving Brana and probably being major makers of Brana stuff, over and above what other Dwarf runesmiths would because it's going to become 'the' family niche. If he had shared it with everybody, it would have been good and better, and because he didn't, it was bad and wrong. As if all that matters is utilitarianism or some maximal achievement or spreading within a society. Rather than individuals or families within that society.)
Who decides if something is life-saving, or very useful, or strategically significant, or lucrative, or whatever? Who decides whether something should be shared "for the greater good of all" and why should they get to decide that and why should they get to force (oh, it
starts with nudges and murmurs of 'Oh, you should obviously do this good thing... or else you're a bad person' but let's be real here, the intent is that centuries down the line it becomes compel or force rather than nudge, because the end goal is to make everybody follow this set of guidelines) others to follow along with this?
You have, just now, basically just up and called this as "We had a choice between between selfish and evil, or good and altruistic. We chose to be selfish and evil."
The reason I brought up centralization (though it was a bit of a jump in topics) is because it related to broader themes and philosophies of centralization of power and control and influence and politics. A government or organization or religion that centralizes and tries to get power and influence over its peoples, versus leaving people to do as they will.
Let's take another look at things; "I made it, so I should get to say what to do with it" versus "You made something very useful, so it should be spread as far as possible, for the greater good of all. (And also because it's not you alone that made it; you only made this because you were part of a society, and were taught by a master, and so you owe it to society and etc. Your things aren't purely your own.)"
There's not necessarily exactly a problem with having people be so altruistic that they're willing to pick the second choice often. (Though that gets into arguable territory, where, if you're always expected or demanded to be charitable, does it actually lead to good outcomes? And is it actually virtuous if charitableness is baked-in from bedrock; I think not, I think charity should be an active and chosen thing, rather than an automatic and passive thing. I think a person choosing to do charity is better for that person, and the person receiving charity to boot, than if it were automatic. Charity is uplifting to give and to receive. And it should not be forced or automated, because then it becomes... not uplifting, and instead just draining spiritually on both giver and receiver.)
But the reason I turned a skeptical eye on it, is because I don't think people should be forced to be charitable, and I don't trust your intentions here to
not be to construct a legacy and tradition about forcing charitableness. Or whatever goal or agenda you have. I don't trust your intentions and goals, basically. And given how from my perspective I see you always being for pushing the enveloping on everything as much as possible, of using any justification possible -- "Well Thungni is here so it's arguably the best time to be maximally radical, right, because if he remains silent on our radicalness it's like approval, right? -- I think I'm right to be skeptical. In short, it's because I think I've identified the goal or intent you're going for (or at least, identified the general direction you're going for), and so I'm deeply skeptical about any claims you make about playing within the spirit of the rules and coloring within the lines, because as I see it you're always gonna push for maximum radicalness and for a far-off agenda; rather than being cautious or evolving from the bedrock principles we were given.
If Dolgi winds up deciding to share the runes, and not keep them to the family,
anyway because of his admiration for Snorri and because of him looking at what Snorri did with the prosthetic runes and deciding to follow on those lines... Fine. That's perfectly fine. That's good, even. That means that Dolgi was inspired by some of Snorri's virtues/values/proclivities, and decided to follow in those footsteps. And maybe Snorri could have given him advice to share rather than to keep to his family, we could have voted for that, yeah.
But I don't like it when
you make the argument that Snorri should have told him to share it, because I know when you are the one making that argument, that it's all in service to your own agenda/goal/direction or OOC (is OOC the right word here? it sort of is, it sort of isn't) and said direction is one that, in my opinion, cares nothing for the style, aesthetic, psychology, tradition, values, etc, of this art or these peoples.
It automatically puts my hackles up, because to me it feels like just another way to accelerate things... which means I naturally want to pull on the breaks, because I
don't want to go as full speed ahead as possible while assuming that train tracks materialize underneath us because... because.
In other words, ironically, I might have been more willing to actually vote for the "Be charitable as fuck" option... if it weren't for who I felt was also voting for that option, and my doubts about them and their goals/intents! Something which I feel is borne out, given your framing of things here as "We had an option to spread life-saving things, but we didn't!" and "It's not about individualism and freedom, it's just about monopoly and money."
