I know that Superwaffle makes those threads as jokes, but being the philosophy enthusiast that I am, I cannot resist the urge to analyze this. ;DYes, that's the spirit! ;D
Therefore Dracula's argument is: all religions steal men's souls and make them their slaves, thus he is not worse than them.
First we must analyze what "stealing a man's soul" is. We know that many religions, especially Judeo-Christian ones, demand that people place their trust and loyalty in the religion and its laws, as they believe were given to them by God. If the faith and loyalty of a man is his "soul" as Dracula implys, we may say by that logic that religion takes a man's "soul" but we do not know if that could be considered stealing. Another interpretation is that a man's "soul" is his freedom. Religion forces a man to behave according to a specific set of rules, therefore limiting his freedom, and of we consider that as an unjust limitation of freedom, it may be considered "stealing".That's also reasonable.
However, it is not only religion that limits man's freedom. Any government limits man's freedom, and a great part of history religion and government were the same. The rules of a religion used to be the rules of the state, and breaking them would be breaking the law. Separation of Church and state is a fairly new concept.Now here's where I don't understand your argument. From what I've read, this is essentially what you're telling us:
Therefore I reach a point where I must say that Dracula's argument should rather be The same could be said about all governments.
The second part of the analysis is one where I continue and beg the question: Do all governments steal men's souls and make them their slaves?I'm sorry, but St. Augustine's and Hobbes' ideas are hardly representative of political philosophy as a whole. You've left out so much of it that I wouldn't dare to enumerate all of the authors you've missed... And what does St. Augustine have to do with anarchist or libertarian theories? And how is Hobbes' view a "classic argument"?
You could say yes, but that would be quite a controversial answer. St. Augustine said that citizens are slaves of the ruler the same way all men are slaves of God, and that the need for government is a punishment from God for the original sin.
Robert Hobbes gave a more secular interpretation of government as one that is a human choice, one that is painful but necessary. People need to live in fear of the government because otherwise there would be anarchy where they would fear each other, which is worse.
So we have the anarchist / libertarian argument that government is inherently evil, and the classic argument that government is necessary. I could combine the arguments to conclude that government is a necessary evil.
However! That does not mean it is necessary for a government to be evil. In fact, it is better that it would be as less evil as possible. So this is the equation I get:Here you've completely lost me.
1. Dracula is evil
2. Government is evil
3. Dracula wants to be the government / religion.
4. Government and religion should be as less evil as possible.
=============================================
Conclusion: Dracula's argument fails. He should not be allowed to become government.
However! That does not mean it is necessary for a government to be evil. In fact, it is better that it would be as less evil as possible. So this is the equation I get:
1. Dracula is evil
2. Government is evil
3. Dracula wants to be the government / religion.
4. Government and religion should be as less evil as possible.
=============================================
Conclusion: Dracula's argument fails. He should not be allowed to become government.
My analysis is obviously more of a joke than a serious philosophical argument. :rollseyes:Of course it is. But if you don't already know, I love making serious arguments out of trifles... And, essentially, you can philosophize on just about anything. So I'll admit I had quite a bit of fun reading your post. ;)
I think we SHOULD take note of the original japanese, not so much the translation, as shit tends to change a bit.
Fan Translation:
Richter Belmont: Begone! This world is not meant for the likes of you!
Dracula Vlad Tepes: My own powers did not bring about my resurrection. It was greed, the greed of you men which summoned me back. And is justice not defined by the mighty?
Richter Belmont: Such a selfish claim! Humanity is guided by our shared principles. We only want to come together, and move forward.
Dracula Vlad Tepes: Oh, but the truth is that humanity also bears burgeoning desires within them, which leads them to submit to their religious creeds, yes?
Richter Belmont: Mere power is not what leads mankind. Respect and generosity: these are what truly guide humanity!
Dracula Vlad Tepes: Preposterous. Which one of our claims is true? I shall give you the answer, along with death's embrace!
If I recall the japanese script from memory, I would go for this fan translation.That's fair. It just proves that there is no real black or white. Just varying shades of grey. No one is purely good nor is anyone purely evil. We have capacity for both.
As for my view on the topic, we have one (Drac) who believes in the evil capacity of humans, while the other (Richter) believes in the good side of humans. I'd say, both have a point.