315 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That suffering is likely to happen anyway (especially since, even in the short-term, to prevent the suffering you need to win that fight, which your PC may have no real reason to expect - my PC certianly didn't expect to win that fight).

That depends on the moral system, again. Does the likelihood of the outcome have any moral weight on the action and so forth.

And furthermore, I wouldn't be the one inflicting the suffering.  That would be Vaughn, and none of this was my fault.  I'm just choosing to extract myself from the situation.

That is a very narrow view of consequence. You are choosing to allow the situation to continue; this is different from not causing suffering. While I would not make the claim that allowing a murder to murder someone is equivalent to commiting the murder yourself, neither is it equivalent to never havign been implicated in the situation in the first place.

It does not matter whether or not it was your fault. You were in a position to attempt to stop it; an offer that might advance your personal standing was made, and the condition to receive it was not to interfere. Since you intentionally made the choice not to interfere, there is some moral culpability that is greater than not having been in the situation at all; we can speak about degrees or not, but you cannot equivocate choosing not to interfere with no moral value.

What does that mean?  Morality has to be an internal process to have any prescriptive force.

Effectively, that when we speak about morality we cannot simply be speaking about the moral compass of the person alone. While it is possible and even common for someone to engage in self-contradictory behaviour, if we used that as our standard for morality, I believe we fail to properly describe what it means to have a moral system. I could elaborate, if you like. I would just rather not sidetrack the thread with a debate on morality. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

jvee wrote...

Haha, I'm sorry, what?  I don't see how risking your life to save Redcliffe's remaining villagers could be seen as selfish.  Reckless?  Definitely.  But I'm not seeing the selfish aspect.

You have a duty to stop the Blight.  Saving Recliffe is at best a tangential concern.  But if you save it to avoid feeling bad about letting all those people die, that's selfish. 

People do good things because they fear the guilt they'll experience if they don't.  Avoiding that guilt when facing it would be the right choice is selfish.

[HarryThePlotter]

Collider wrote...

Has any Bioware game done evil right? I hear criticisms that evil hasn't been done right or is often not done right. That the PC comes off as the idiotic mustache twirling villain rather than  true evil or intelligent evil. What do you think about that?

How should DA2 do evil? Should Hawke even be allowed?

hmm...

Lets see.

Does  YOUR opinion of pure Evil belong to the catagory of profitmaking and sadism?

[Ayanko]

HarryThePlotter wrote...

Collider wrote...

Has any Bioware game done evil right? I hear criticisms that evil hasn't been done right or is often not done right. That the PC comes off as the idiotic mustache twirling villain rather than  true evil or intelligent evil. What do you think about that?

How should DA2 do evil? Should Hawke even be allowed?

hmm...

Lets see.

Does  YOUR opinion of pure Evil belong to the catagory of profitmaking and sadism?

There is no evil.

Modifié par Ayanko, 03 septembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[HarryThePlotter]

Ayanko wrote...

There is no evil.

You mean the Joker in Batman franchise is a Nice guy?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That depends on the moral system, again. Does the likelihood of the outcome have any moral weight on the action and so forth.

And even if it does, a character with low levels of self-confidence would believe his chances of success were effectively zero.  Taking the money was his best chance to extract any good from the situation at all.

That is a very narrow view of consequence. You are choosing to allow the situation to continue; this is different from not causing suffering. While I would not make the claim that allowing a murder to murder someone is equivalent to commiting the murder yourself, neither is it equivalent to never havign been implicated in the situation in the first place.

It does not matter whether or not it was your fault. You were in a position to attempt to stop it; an offer that might advance your personal standing was made, and the condition to receive it was not to interfere. Since you intentionally made the choice not to interfere, there is some moral culpability that is greater than not having been in the situation at all; we can speak about degrees or not, but you cannot equivocate choosing not to interfere with no moral value.

Inaction isn't action.  If my presence and failure to act had the same material effect on the world as my not being there would have, then the two are morally equivalent.  Absolutely.

If there's some reason why they're not, I'd love to hear it.

There needs to be some actual difference for the distinction to matter.

Effectively, that when we speak about morality we cannot simply be speaking about the moral compass of the person alone.

Why not?

While it is possible and even common for someone to engage in self-contradictory behaviour, if we used that as our standard for morality, I believe we fail to properly describe what it means to have a moral system. I could elaborate, if you like. I would just rather not sidetrack the thread with a debate on morality. 

I find the subject sufficiently interesting that Ethics was the focus of my degree (not Logic, as people often assume).  I would very much like you to elaborate.

[testing123]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You have a duty to stop the Blight.  Saving Recliffe is at best a tangential concern.  But if you save it to avoid feeling bad about letting all those people die, that's selfish. 

People do good things because they fear the guilt they'll experience if they don't.  Avoiding that guilt when facing it would be the right choice is selfish.

Has that thought process ever occurred?  Has any human being really ever thought, 'I better stay and risk my life otherwise I might feel bad for awhile?'  Your argument hinges on the idea that people fear their guilt more than they fear death itself.  It is a ridiculous notion. 

People do things for a variety of reasons.  I can't speak to every single person's individual motivations.  One could easily take the inverse of your argument and say that people do evil things to justify their sense of 'duty' to the greater good.  

[Ayanko]

HarryThePlotter wrote...

Ayanko wrote...

There is no evil.

You mean the Joker in Batman franchise is a Nice guy?

There's no True Evil.
And didn't he have a reason why he became so "Messed up"
I'm pretty sure he loved and cared for his wife.

[HarryThePlotter]

Ayanko wrote...

HarryThePlotter wrote...

Ayanko wrote...

There is no evil.

You mean the Joker in Batman franchise is a Nice guy?

There's no True Evil.
And didn't he have a reason why he became so "Messed up"
I'm pretty sure he loved and cared for his wife.

That was Grant "retcon" Morrison. If we are to believe Frank "Goddamn" Miller, Joker IS evil, rotten to the core.

[Alexia89]

Jade empire did evil very well...you have to make some tough choices to do it too

[Estelindis]

In Exile wrote...
Only for a deontologist.

And only not so for a teleologist?  But that's tautological, as we're simply identifying one's stance re. means and ends in terms of philosophies that deal explicitly with those matters.  This doesn't answer the question of whether the objection re. means and ends is actually correct or useful.

In Exile wrote...
Not to mention that in that particular case, harder to kill Warden is a benefit for everyone, since you have magic plot powers that mean only you can kill the archdemon.

Not much of a benefit for the city elves who have been killed in the ritual!  

Modifié par Estelindis, 03 septembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[Collider]

That is a point. That a stronger warden could mean a stronger chance at beating the blight. Not sure if the player can actually use that justification though.

[thegreateski]

There is no evil. Just dangerous insanity.

[Hollingdale]

thegreateski wrote...

There is no evil. Just dangerous insanity.

There is no good. Just harmless saneness.

There is no saneness or insanity there is only being or not being in harmony with society and it's set of values which in turn are just the values that have been best fit to survive and reproduce memetically. And so violence rules the world.

[thegreateski]

Hollingdale wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

There is no evil. Just dangerous insanity.

There is no good. Just harmless saneness.

There is no saneness or insanity there is only being or not being in harmony with society and it's set of values which in turn are just the values that have been best fit to survive and reproduce memetically. And so violence rules the world.

That is correct but that last sentence makes no damned sense.

Modifié par thegreateski, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Yup, violence isn't always the value that have been best fit to survive and reproduce.

[Lord Gremlin]

HarryThePlotter wrote...

Ayanko wrote...

There is no evil.

You mean the Joker in Batman franchise is a Nice guy?

Of course. He's just misunderstood. Explosions ARE fun, after all.


Our problem here, is that any evil can be justified in DA universe. "I did it for the greater good. Honestly. Or you want to accuse me of killing orphans with blood magic just for fun while I'm pointing my staff at your groin?"
Connor, elves, everything can be justified. Only YOU, player, know the true motives.

[finnugold]

Hollingdale wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

There is no evil. Just dangerous insanity.

There is no good. Just harmless saneness.

There is no saneness or insanity there is only being or not being in harmony with society and it's set of values which in turn are just the values that have been best fit to survive and reproduce memetically. And so violence rules the world.

A person who has absolutely no grasp of reality is not insane, just doesn't fit in with society? What about people who are so insane they have to be force-fed because they think their food will kill them? Or people with split personalities? Or people who think they're inanimate objects?

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

They are not any more insane then people who think objects are solid.

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

They are not any more insane then people who think objects are solid.

... What?

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

The distance between nuclear are pretty large compares to the size of atoms. if atoms were size of footballs, in most object, the adjutant nuclei would be a stadium over.
We take for granted the things we perceive are real, but the world you see exist only in your head.
I won't blame you if you can't understand that, through.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 05 septembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

The distance between nuclear are pretty large compares to the size of atoms. if atoms were size of footballs, in most object, the adjutant nuclei would be a stadium over.
We take for granted the things we perceive are real, but the world you see exist only in your head.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

And even so, a person who perceives an object as "solid" is sane in that they have fully-working perceptions and are coming to a logical conclusion based on what they are capable of perceiving.

An insane person may come to the conclusion that they are an inanimate object despite the fact that they breathe, eat, think, and move. Or that a completely harmless object is capable of damaging them despite the fact that it has never done so. Insane people do not have working perceptions based on what has been observed to be the norm for all living beings or their mind deviates notably from what they perceive.

[thegreateski]

finnugold wrote...

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

The distance between nuclear are pretty large compares to the size of atoms. if atoms were size of footballs, in most object, the adjutant nuclei would be a stadium over.
We take for granted the things we perceive are real, but the world you see exist only in your head.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

And even so, a person who perceives an object as "solid" is sane in that they have fully-working perceptions and are coming to a logical conclusion based on what they are capable of perceiving.

An insane person may come to the conclusion that they are an inanimate object despite the fact that they breathe, eat, think, and move. Or that a completely harmless object is capable of damaging them despite the fact that it has never done so. Insane people do not have working perceptions based on what has been observed to be the norm for all living beings or their mind deviates notably from what they perceive.

Finnugold. This is that insanity thing I was talking about earlier.
Try not to look directly at him.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

An insane person may come to the conclusion that they are an inanimate object despite the fact that they breathe, eat, think, and move. Or that a completely harmless object is capable of damaging them despite the fact that it has never done so. Insane people do not have working perceptions based on what has been observed to be the norm for all living beings or their mind deviates notably from what they perceive.

It's perfectly understandable not to trust one's perception. Optical illusions are all over the place and perception does fail regularly. By your definition of sanity, if someone disbelieve in an illusion that fooled everyone else, they are insane.

[Pritos]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

An insane person may come to the conclusion that they are an inanimate object despite the fact that they breathe, eat, think, and move. Or that a completely harmless object is capable of damaging them despite the fact that it has never done so. Insane people do not have working perceptions based on what has been observed to be the norm for all living beings or their mind deviates notably from what they perceive.

It's perfectly understandable not to trust one's perception. Optical illusions are all over the place and perception does fail regularly. By your definition of sanity, if someone disbelieve in an illusion that fooled everyone else, they are insane.

If you consider paranoia as a insanity, perhaps he is rigth. It's really weird how someone can not be fooled by an ilusion if everyone else has, unless he has already been noticed of such.