One must be capable of honesty in the context of which he makes an expression. Do you possess the same self awareness you demand of those others? I suggest more so but because the evidence has manifest before you. Yet if you tried to propose an alternative model, would you be any less blind to consequences over time than they were?
IN the sense that you are ‘conservative’: demanding evidence before tolerating variance in genetic, normative, informal, and formal capital – you are less likely to be wrong by pursuit of the false promise of utopian fantasies.
What are you trading for that risk abatement and how do you know what is worth trading and what not?
I suspect you would say that scale and agency increase risk tolerance and small scale and limited agency decrease risk tolerance.
As such, if expressed in those terms (practical) rather than ideological or moral, you would be correct. It’s your continued posturing as moral vs practical that I have a hard time with.
The jews were diasporic, the Anglos, Romans, and Greeks naval, the continentals and the russians landed martial, and each had a different strategy because each had different constraints.
The moral difference only comes in to play (as you say) when we are cooperating. Otherwise morality has nothing to do with it. I know you know this but it doesn’t stop you from arguing against yourself.
Blaming the strong and advantaged because one is week and disadvantaged when we are not bound by a desire or need of cooperation is begging for special pleading because one is weak.
It’s not an argument.