/lit/ - Literature

>>14114821
>self-interest of the atom bomb
Self interest? A bomb?

>very
This comes off not only as bad writing, but also as petty and unecessarily opinionated.

>supposing themselves to be very rational and having cast off the superstitions of ethical theory,
"supposing themselves to be rational and free of superstition,"

>matters,
cut the comma imo

>I would,
>I
Who the fuck are you? No offense, but does your audience care? I don't know what your prompt is.

>they think they're reasonable, but like, I think anyone who thinks a little longer knows they're not the reasonable ones, like just think for five more minutes bro trust me
Ditch this. Cut the "I would..." and "We have a..." lines completely, then put a "However," in front of the empathy line.

>moment,
cut the comma

>families.
semicolon

>I would reckon
Nigga stop what the fuck are you doing? You WOULD reckon? Setting aside the fact that "would" misdirects me into believing this is your own response to the hypothetical rather than a judgment of the response you predict from your opponent, in turn causing me to be completed blindsided by the word "reckon," which is just fucking funny in its own right--who the fuck are you? Who is this "I" and why is he part of the argument?

>reckon that they wouldn’t, because of our innate sense of justice, we know that when [...]
Are you saying that you reckon, because of our innate sense of justice? Or are you saying that because of our innate sense of justice, we know when [...]? Poor structure.

>recourse of action
Nigga you stupid, just say "recourse" or just "course of action." This is like "don't take life for granite" tier dweebery.

>we know that when we are being treated unfairly by those more powerful than us, that our only recourse [snip] is to fall back on claims of moral righteousness for our cause. Why then, should we deny this to others?
Setting aside the fact that this is phrased as a question, this is in essence your thesis statement. The problem with it being a question is that you're running into a very sneaky game of "Is it not so, that...?", as well as the fact that someone might just answer the question. Generally I've avoided bant in favor of just help you make the argument more clean, but to bant:

Your own explanation for why the opposition would take your side in crisis, is that it would be in their self interest to do so anyways. Accurate prediction? Sure. But then when you ask "Why then, should we deny this to others?" you'll probably still be met with the answer, "self interest." You seem to think you've found an area where the opposition might internally contradict themselves, when in reality all you've found is a scenario in which they would lie. Either do something with the inherent lying you've found, or develop the empathy point from before, if not both.