199 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

The innitial statement is mostly empty: "it is bad to harm something." You don't have any magnitude for "harm" and you have no specification on what is a "thing" and there is no inclusion of any context at all. There is no reason to reject this statement except for bias or arbitrary rejection.

I agree, but I fear you're presupposing that the badness of harm is inherently relevant.  The purpose of morality is to drive behaviour, is it not?  And I see nothing here so far that does that.

I'd suggest the first purpose of morality is to suppress behaviors that are 'bad' and the second purpose is to drive behaviors that are 'good.' Sure, giving money to the poor might be appreciated, but not driving over the ****hole you work with when you see him in the parking lot is demanded.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Fame? Glory? Wealth? Power? If you don't like those things go back to being a peasant and get butchered but by the darkspawn or qunari scum!

[Fishy]

We all need hero

[asaiasai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

In Dragon Age 3, you become the Champion of Nothing. You spend the next 20-30 hours just sitting at home doing nothing ingame and then the credits role.

Sounds like my Black Ops experience the other night, i can not believe that game is as popular as it in my day it was called Quake or Counterstrike. Nothing new except a reskin of an old idea repackaged just in time for the holiday rush, quick all you lemmings get your copy before they are gone forever it is a limited time offer so act now.

 Is the world in the throws of a Zombie apocolypse, let me work the data with the new information.
Let me see, Americas Idol still has idiots paying a toll to vote.
Survivor is still showing annoying people being annoying.
Sarah Palin has a top rated television program. 
 
The result is.

BARRICADE YOUR HOMES!
AVOID ALL CONTACT WITH FANS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROGRAMS!
WAIT FOR OFFICIAL INSTRUCTIONS.



Asai

[Aldandil]

Isn't it in some part the responsibility of the player to create a character that has some form of ambition? If I pick up a game that's called "DA2:Rise to Power" and the first thing I read on the back is that my character will become the Champion of Kirkwall, then my reaction wouldn't be to create a buddhist character who spends his time meditating over the reality of sensory perception. You ask why we should care about becoming Champions. I say: You decide.



You have pretty much endless freedom in determining why you should do something. The game definitely should acknowledge different types of characters and allowing for different outcomes - that is of course partly why we play - but if the game is to have any sort of a main plot, our characters have to play along for a bit. If you don't want to be a Champion of Kirkwall, I guess not playing the game is a good way around it.

[darrylzero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

darrylzero wrote...

While I'm sympathetic to opening up the idea of interest to non-material goals/desires, but I think we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to slip into tautological definitions of interest, such that anything anyone does must by definition have been in their interest.

I think those are the only sensible definitions of interest.

I can identify, to an extent, but then we lose all the analytical leverage of the concept of interest.  So, it may sensible in a certain way, but it can't tell us anything.

[Augustei]

David Gaider wrote...

I don't think anyone's aware just yet as to the circumstances whereby Hawke becomes the Champion of Kirkwall. That's sort of the point of the entire story: how did this happen?

If one wishes to assume the player lacks proper motivation to do that, I guess that's fine. We're not going to comment on it just yet. Ultimately, however, this is still heroic fantasy-- if someone doesn't want to buy into the basic premise of that, then I suspect all the motivation in the world isn't going to do much for them.

Didn't hawke find the viscounts kitten and the viscount couldn't reward him enough so he gave him his title and all his stuff?

[Oshunsar]

To answer the introductory question:
The point is that this a Computer RPG.
Like its P&P forebearer you mostly need a goal.
Yes you can come there by being nice, and most of the game will go smoother.
But this is Bioware so i think you will be able to get there less nice and:
What happens after that, being good or evil in the coming years - your choice.

Dwarf Duster can come back to take over the charta,
noble dwarfs son can be helped to get the throne next,
Blood Magic can be allowed in Your circle,
you can take over Orlais as noble the next 3 decades or just weaken the Banns now that Loghain and Howe are out of the way
or seek a therapy against the tainted blood, to become a dalish elf with tribe again, to search your forgotten history...

It all has happened to my NPC, in the hours after the game, like Lennon said: "Imagine..."

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I agree, but I fear you're presupposing that the badness of harm is inherently relevant.  The purpose of morality is to drive behaviour, is it not?  And I see nothing here so far that does that.

No, there is no relevance at all, except to the philisophical exploration of an abstract action. The purpose of "morality" is to serve as a label for the system of right and wrong (good and bad, and so on and so on) actions that are defined as an extension of this initial factual statement.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
the_one_54321, I believe I've seen you elsewhere. You're a big fan of Ayne Rand and hate taxation, right?

Woah... no, absolutely not. In fact, I'm like the opposite of whichever person you're thinking of.

I can see why Kenshin thought so, though.  Ayn Rand used a very similar philosophical approach in her attempt to justify her moral position.  "A is A" was her starting point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

No, there is no relevance at all, except to the philisophical exploration of an abstract action. The purpose of "morality" is to serve as a label for the system of right and wrong (good and bad, and so on and so on) actions that are defined as an extension of this initial factual statement.

To what end?  What reason would anyone have to care about the labels?

[the_one_54321]

Yes, but the details of the final suppositions make all the difference. The reason I think laissez faire is evil is not based on it's construction or intention but based on it's application. History has shown that laissez faire inevitably becomes a system for artificially recreating slavery.

The logical pathway is that "if A => B AND B = bad THEN A = bad." 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:08 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
No, there is no relevance at all, except to the philisophical exploration of an abstract action. The purpose of "morality" is to serve as a label for the system of right and wrong (good and bad, and so on and so on) actions that are defined as an extension of this initial factual statement.

To what end?  What reason would anyone have to care about the labels?

Because people need words to communicate. Instead of explaining the system every time you talk about it, you instead call the whole thing "morals" and then communication is made much easier. Or a hell of a lot harder when you consider that no one actualy has the same perception of "morals" and that all current "morality" systems have been corrupted by bias and.... yeah the world is a tough place because of all this, after all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But if the labels are just arbitrary, why is there any need to communicate regarding them? I can define something I call "monkeyleaf", but that doesn't mean anyone has any reason to care about the concept.

[the_one_54321]

Well "monkeyleaf" hasn't been shown to have an impact on the quality of life for most people on the planet. "Morals" on the other hand certainly has.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yes, but the details of the final suppositions make all the difference. The reason I think laissez faire is evil is not based on it's construction or intention but based on it's application. History has shown that laissez faire inevitably becomes a system for artificially recreating slavery.

Though its most avid proponents - like Ayn Rand - maintain that this outcome is desireable if it was reached though treating all parties fairly.

I don't paricularly want to discuss the merits of the free market here.  But I do want to make clear that one's objectives or preferences will direct how one views the moral value of any given outcome.

You and Ayn Rand might agree about what the results of capitalism are.  But if you disagree about whether those results are desireable, how can you possibly resolve that?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well "monkeyleaf" hasn't been shown to have an impact on the quality of life for most people on the planet. "Morals" on the other hand certainly has.

Have they?  Whether people get fed or are enslaved affects their quality of life.  The labels "good" and "evil" are immaterial.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You and Ayn Rand might agree about what the results of capitalism are.  But if you disagree about whether those results are desireable, how can you possibly resolve that?

By readdressing the notion of what is desirable.
My issue with a "free market" is that 1. the name is missleading; there is actually very little that is free about it, and 2. a free market leads to economically imposed slavery rather than legally imposed slavery.
If Ayn Rand believes that ecconomically imposed slavery is a good thing, well I'm more then willing to take issue with her on that and work the suppositions down to their base facts to find out who is wrong.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well "monkeyleaf" hasn't been shown to have an impact on the quality of life for most people on the planet. "Morals" on the other hand certainly has.

Have they?  Whether people get fed or are enslaved affects their quality of life.  The labels "good" and "evil" are immaterial.

But who said anything about "good" and "evil." We're talking about the label "morality" which designates the system by which people are deemed right or wrong in their actions and punished or rewarded accordingly. The system on which countless legal infrastructures have been constructed and innumerable people fed, incarcerated, evicted, supported, killed and so on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm confident that Ayn Rand wasn't at all concerned with the welfare of those she called "subnormal", which basically included anyone who didn't agree with her.

I just want to make clear that there is no reasoned way to convince her that she's wrong.

[the_one_54321]

To convince? Likely not. But to refute, more than likely yes. Not that she'll ever accept that refutation. But the idea here is to keep things based on "to be caused detriment is bad."

[the_one_54321]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well "monkeyleaf" hasn't been shown to have an impact on the quality of life for most people on the planet. "Morals" on the other hand certainly has.

Have they?  Whether people get fed or are enslaved affects their quality of life.  The labels "good" and "evil" are immaterial.

But who said anything about "good" and "evil." We're talking about the label "morality" which designates the system by which people are deemed right or wrong in their actions and punished or rewarded accordingly. The system on which countless legal infrastructures have been constructed and innumerable people fed, incarcerated, evicted, supported, killed and so on.

Just to add onto this, consider that a system of "morality" is precisely the reason that someone hasn't designated you and your family for immediate removal to incarceration and likely execution, or why some group of marauders hasn't randomly raided your home for your women and all your possesions. Hyperbole, yes, but not by much.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Just to add onto this, consider that a system of "morality" is precisely the reason that someone hasn't designated you and your family for immediate removal to incarceration and likely execution, or why some group of marauders hasn't randomly raided your home for your women and all your possesions. Hyperbole, yes, but not by much.

I see where you're going, now.  You want to use this as a basis for legal systems.

I'll agree that I benefit from other people adhering to a consistent and desireable system of morality.  I was more asking whether an individual would have any reason to adhere to that moral system himself or to agree with it.

That the extant moral system benefits me is not a reason why I should agree with or obey that moral system.  It is only a reason why I should want that moral system to persist and be used consistently by others.

[the_one_54321]

No I don't want it to be used for a legal system! D:

It would never work. There are too many details. Much much too many details. I think that the legal system we use now, the system of adjudication, actually works fairly well at taking individual circumstances into account. But I think the system for writing laws, voting on them, is very very wrong. Popularity does not lend justification.