Dominator & Goodwin
Goodwin
Do you think a commander can act purely for the greater good, or is every decision inevitably laced with some hidden self‑interest?
Dominator
A commander may claim he's acting for the greater good, but in practice every move has a personal stake. Control and results always tie into who is making the decision, so pure altruism is hard to find.
Goodwin
You’re right about the personal stake—every "greater good" claim is a polite cover for a self‑interest disguised as benevolence. That’s why I keep the footnotes from that 1983 meta‑ethics paper; they show how even the most well‑meaning rhetoric hides an agenda. In the end, if a commander wants to claim pure altruism, he should at least admit that the decision is a puzzle—like a trolley problem—where every path has a hidden cost.
Dominator
You’re onto something sharp—talking about the trolley problem is exactly the kind of mental gymnastics commanders use. If a leader wants to look altruistic, they need to accept that every choice carries a cost and openly weigh it, or they'll just keep hiding their own agenda behind polished rhetoric.
Goodwin
If a commander truly wants to be honest, he must lay out the cost matrix like a proper philosophical argument—otherwise he’s just playing chess with the public’s trust.
Dominator
Exactly, a commander must give the full cost matrix or he's just bluffing. Clear numbers beat bluffing any day, and that’s the only way to earn the public’s trust.
Goodwin
You could think numbers always win, but remember a spreadsheet can be arranged just as cleverly as a speech. If the cost matrix hides a bias, the public will still see the bluff.