168 réponses à ce sujet

[Snoteye]

Good in real life terms or game alignment terms? The problem, regardless of any definition, is that good is subjective. I do not think Caesar ever considered himself a saint (well, Caesar just might have, but take any other dictator) but do you think he considered himself evil? And if he did, might he have considered it warranted (the means to an end argument)? I wonder if not "altruism" is a better word in this context, though I may just be being a pedantic nit-wit.

Nighteye2 wrote...

Well, good is any act that is in balance with nature. An act that does not endanger the continued existence of any species, or even repairs damage previously done by helping an endangered species return from the brink of extinction. Doing good is acting with the intent of improving the quality of life, not just of humans, but of all living things.

So basically, good is the opposite of evolution? I do not disagree that we are sometimes a little... zealous in our gp grinding, but that is basically what you're saying.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
we could argue that it was "not good" that you didnt recognize such a well known quote.

It's not good. It's also not good if she did recognize the quote. Recognizing a quote is about as morally neutral as picking one's nose.

Ah, so "nature" is the application of good we
are talking about here? I’ll keep that in mind when I post my treatise later
tonight.

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...

Good in real life terms or game alignment terms? The problem, regardless of any definition, is that good is subjective. I do not think Caesar ever considered himself a saint (well, Caesar just might have, but take any other dictator) but do you think he considered himself evil? And if he did, might he have considered it warranted (the means to an end argument)? I wonder if not "altruism" is a better word in this context, though I may just be being a pedantic nit-wit.

i disagree. i think good and bad are objective terms. the bad person who believes himself to be good does not have a different view point, he is just wrong.

read my post above for more details.

[Maria Caliban]

Snoteye wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Well, good is any act that is in balance with nature. An act that does not endanger the continued existence of any species, or even repairs damage previously done by helping an endangered species return from the brink of extinction. Doing good is acting with the intent of improving the quality of life, not just of humans, but of all living things.

So basically, good is the opposite of evolution? I do not disagree that we are sometimes a little... zealous in our gp grinding, but that is basically what you're saying.

I don't think a ethical system can be the opposite of any random natural system. Evolution is not about pwning other species into extinction. Evolution isn't about anything; it's just our name for processes we've observed.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Objective absolutism is a concept I believe that is emotionally blind and completely lacking empathy, which may well be evidenced by the word "objective".



I ask you this: Can something that disregards emotions of either side of an issue truly be "good"?

I would say that it can not. An issue, especially on what is "good" or "bad" is colored, perhaps completely, by that specific person's point of view and emotional attachment.

An "objective" approach to a problem may not benefit either side, and could do harm.

So, is it a "good" approach? Maybe.

Is it a "bad" approach? It well may be.



So, again, is it always this subjective? Please, if you have an objectively absolute answer, do share.

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i disagree. i think good and bad are objective terms. the bad person who believes himself to be good does not have a different view point, he is just wrong.

In your point of view, yes. I can list a handful of things I believe to be inherently wrong and bad with Western society that are nevertheless considered both good and right in Western society. The fact that I disagree with them does not make them objectively not-good.

Modifié par Snoteye, 26 octobre 2009 - 05:55 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
we could argue that it was "not good" that you didnt recognize such a well known quote.

It's not good. It's also not good if she did recognize the quote. Recognizing a quote is about as morally neutral as picking one's nose.

Ah, so "nature" is the application of good we
are talking about here? I’ll keep that in mind when I post my treatise later
tonight.

That's a bizzare conclusion to draw. It doesn't follow from what I've said at all.

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Objective absolutism is a concept I believe that is emotionally blind and completely lacking empathy, which may well be evidenced by the word "objective".

I ask you this: Can something that disregards emotions of either side of an issue truly be "good"?
I would say that it can not. An issue, especially on what is "good" or "bad" is colored, perhaps completely, by that specific person's point of view and emotional attachment.
An "objective" approach to a problem may not benefit either side, and could do harm.
So, is it a "good" approach? Maybe.
Is it a "bad" approach? It well may be.

So, again, is it always this subjective? Please, if you have an objectively absolute answer, do share.

Objective absolutism does not need to be emotionally blind or lacking in empathy. It is simply a matter of also taking emotion into consideration.

 

The key thing to remember is that the judgment or value determination process of any given situation is completely unique to that one situation. There are no general rules. There are no rules that apply for more than one circumstance.

 

The problem with the acceptance of this philosophy is that it is incredibly inconvenient to put into practice. The only way it is effectively applicable is if individuals use it in their own decision making processes individually and independently of any other outside requirements.

 

It also hurts that people will often also operate with a huge degree of bias that ruins the process entirely. For example, a parent will almost always act for the benefit of its child. But nothing about being your child makes that individual in any way special or above anyone else in any unique situation. But try and convince a parent of that, and suddenly the issue of bias becomes blatantly apparent.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2009 - 06:04 .

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
we could argue that it was "not good" that you didnt recognize such a well known quote.

It's not good. It's also not good if she did recognize the quote. Recognizing a quote is about as morally neutral as picking one's nose.

Ah, so "nature" is the application of good we
are talking about here? I’ll keep that in mind when I post my treatise later
tonight.

That's a bizzare conclusion to draw. It doesn't follow from what I've said at all.

it follows completely. being of a "good nature." not being of "good quality." or of  "good value." good has a number of completely different applications that fit with the dictionary definition of the word. but you're talking about morals and thus about a "good nature."

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i disagree. i think good and bad are objective terms. the bad person who believes himself to be good does not have a different view point, he is just wrong.

In your point of view, yes. I can list a handful of things I believe to be inherently wrong and bad with Western society that are nevertheless considered both good and right in Western society. The fact that I disagree with them does not make them objectively not-good.

simply put, either you are wrong, or western culture is wrong. i dont deem myself fit to say which it is.

oh, there is also always the possibility that you are both wrong, but in different ways.

it is just that, since you disagree, you cannot both be right.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2009 - 06:07 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Objective absolutism does not need to be emotionally blind or lacking in empathy. It is simply a matter of also taking emotion into consideration.

The key thing to remember is that the judgment or value determination process of any given situation is completely unique to that one situation. There are no general rules. There are no rules that apply for more than one circumstance.

If the value changes with every individual situation, and if you take the emotional qualities of the issue into consideration, then how can it be called objective? By objective I refer to this definition:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;

You can't remain objective and still take into account the emotions involved, especially if you have the empathy required to see both sides of the issue.

It also hurts that people will often also operate with a huge degree of bias that ruins the process entirely. For example, a mother will almost parent will almost always act for the benefit of its child. But nothing about being your child makes that individual in any way special or above anyone else in any unique situation. But try and convince a parent of that, and suddenly the issue of bias becomes blatantly apparent.

But a child is special to its mother, and will often make that child more deserving of favor when the mother is making a decision about her own child.

Again, that's why I say objective absolutism is crap.
You can't be objective and still understand both sides of an emotional issue, and there often is no absolute. Forcing an absolute onto either side will likely not be a "good" thing to do.

In an ideal situation, maybe, but in this example it's especially clear. You can not tell a mother to ignore the fact that it's her child. If you make an "objective absolute" decision that harms the mother's child then it was not a "good" thing for the mother.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 26 octobre 2009 - 06:11 .

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

For example, a parent will almost always act for the benefit of its child. But nothing about being your child makes that individual in any way special or above anyone else in any unique situation.

I disagree. If our purpose was only to ensure the continued existence of our species, all children are equally "valuable." However, I happen to think our purpose to a greater extent is spreading our own genes, in which case our own offspring becomes far more valuable than that of any other person.

the_one_54321 wrote...

simply put, either you are wrong, or western culture is wrong. i dont deem myself fit to say which it is.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is with the culture. I could argue a hundred different ways for my point of view but I still wouldn't be able to convince the people of a different opinion that they are, in fact, wrong. Right and wrong, and by extension good and evil, cannot be absolutely defined without the goal, and no goal has been specified in question as posed.

[BluesMan1956]

Good is making personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.

Good is always putting the needs of others before your own.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It also hurts that people will often also operate with a huge degree of bias that ruins the process entirely. For example, a parent will almost always act for the benefit of its child. But nothing about being your child makes that individual in any way special or above anyone else in any unique situation. But try and convince a parent of that, and suddenly the issue of bias becomes blatantly apparent.

I'd say a parent has an obligation to their child that they don't have to other people. If I have a five-year-old daughter and I don't make sure she's well-fed, what I'm doing is wrong. If there's a five-year-old down the block and I don't make sure she's well-fed, I'm not doing something wrong.

If your objectivist viewpoint does not take into consideration the relationship between people, then it's either okay to not look after my child, or it's immoral to not look after all children.

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
Is "good" always this subjective?

Personally, I don’t think so. I am a heavy supporter of
objective absolutism. But it means that you have to define things clearly. And
you aren’t allowed to change those definitions arbitrarily. It runs into
trouble based on people's tendency to disagree and to dismiss what they
disagree with. I tend to believe that “everything is subjective” is just a very
poor catch-all excuse used when someone cannot be bothered to put the necessary
analysis into finding out what is correct and what is incorrect. Or when
someone simply wants to make the argument go away since they are wrong.

Who makes the definitions? How do you ensure that these definitions aren't biased?
If another person starts with another definiton of what is good or desirable and comes to different conclusions which one is objectively valid?

I think this concept is highly problematic. It leads you to think that you are right on questions that are based on values and not even consider that there could be other perspectives on the issue that are equally valid.

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

Good is a point of view, Anakin. *evil grin*

[the_one_54321]

dahn-var puts it very well. that is the result of moral subjectivity.

1. i think a lot of you took my example of parent and child the wrong way.

2. giving specific examples is pointless except as a brief coloring of the concepts. every single instance is unique and has it's own individual analysis.

3. the way the definitions are made is based upon the selection of axioms. the axioms themselves are not based on anything except concrete elemental objective statements. then you put together definitions using these "building blocks."

hopefully it will make a little more sense when i am able to go home and post what i'd written about dissecting the the definitions in the D&D alignment system.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2009 - 07:10 .

[vyvexthorne]

I think there's a basic concept of good.. but it still mostly relies on what type of society you were raised in and what you learned and experienced growing up.

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
By objective I refer to this definition:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;

you can be both uninfluenced by personal feelings and still considerate of personal feelings if you treat the feelings as objects in themselves. by treating them as objects they can included in the process of value determination. and this in the end really only applies to the notion of the avoidance of causing unnecessary harm to others. emotional harm, is still harm. sometimes harm is a necessary outcome, just as sometimes harm is specifically to prevented. every single instance is unique and has a different value determination set.

Christoph Gasser wrote...

It leads you to think that you
are right on questions that are based on values and not even consider
that there could be other perspectives on the issue that are equally
valid.

there is no such thing as two viewpoints on an issue being equally valid, unless they are either unrelated, or in some way concurrent with each other. this is a fallacy concocted by and agreed upon by society in general to promote the continued peaceful interaction of society in general. it is a mechanism for coexistance, but that does not make it correct in its analysis.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2009 - 07:22 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Treating emotions as objects is not empathy.



Recognizing the emotions for what they are and including them in an objective decision-making process is not empathy. It's emotionally blind.





I was not a die-hard fan of Michael Jackson's music. I respected him as an artist and recognized his contributions to the music world during his time, but when he died it did not affect me too deeply on a personal level. However, all the other people who loved Michael Jackson and were devastated by the news, some of my closest friends for instance, they affected me. I felt sad about his death because it saddened them. That is empathy.



Objective absolutism can not be empathetic, especially if all you're doing is taking the emotions and turning them into "objects". My original point still stands on it being emotionally blind in that sense.

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Treating emotions as objects is not empathy.

Recognizing the emotions for what they are and including them in an objective decision-making process is not empathy. It's emotionally blind.

Objective absolutism can not be empathetic, especially if all you're doing is taking the emotions and turning them into "objects". My original point still stands on it being emotionally blind in that sense.

i never said it was empathy. i said that emotions can be included in the value determination of objective absolutism.

keep in mind that the reason you include emotions in your analysis is because you recognize the importance of emotions to individuals.

but you also must keep in mind that just because someone has a strong emotions concerning some instance, it does not automatically mean that their emotion will be important in that instance.

again, every instance is completely unique.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

You said, and I quote:

Objective absolutism does not need to be emotionally blind or lacking in empathy.



I said, "Yes, it does need to lack empathy or else it isn't objective."



You can not turn empathy into an objective equation. I can not remove my empathic sadness over Michael Jackson's death from mind to make an unbiased decision because the empathy is there. Empathy is not exactly a switch you can turn off. If you can just turn it off and then turn the emotion into an "objective part of an equation", I'd argue it was never empathy.

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...


there is no such thing as two viewpoints on an issue being equally valid, unless they are either unrelated, or in some way concurrent with each other.

only if everything is objective. For example I could find a song good you could find it bad. Two different viewpoints on the same issue, both subjective, both valid.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 26 octobre 2009 - 07:45 .

[Nighteye2]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Snoteye wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Well, good is any act that is in balance with nature. An act that does not endanger the continued existence of any species, or even repairs damage previously done by helping an endangered species return from the brink of extinction. Doing good is acting with the intent of improving the quality of life, not just of humans, but of all living things.

So basically, good is the opposite of evolution? I do not disagree that we are sometimes a little... zealous in our gp grinding, but that is basically what you're saying.

I don't think a ethical system can be the opposite of any random natural system. Evolution is not about pwning other species into extinction. Evolution isn't about anything; it's just our name for processes we've observed.

Evolution is part of the natural balance. Nature is not a status quo, but a dynamic system. Sometimes species go extinct from natural disasters, but often leaving enough species surviving to keep the environment healthy and the earth habitable. Doing good is not opposing evolution - but not meddling with it, either.

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Objective absolutism is a concept I believe that is emotionally blind and completely lacking empathy, which may well be evidenced by the word "objective".

I ask you this: Can something that disregards emotions of either side of an issue truly be "good"?
I would say that it can not. An issue, especially on what is "good" or "bad" is colored, perhaps completely, by that specific person's point of view and emotional attachment.
An "objective" approach to a problem may not benefit either side, and could do harm.
So, is it a "good" approach? Maybe.
Is it a "bad" approach? It well may be.

So, again, is it always this subjective? Please, if you have an objectively absolute answer, do share.

You can find the objective good by looking at what is logical, on a large scale. For example, such things as not causing the extinction of your own species. It's only when you get into details or specifics that it becomes subjective.

[Snoteye]

Nighteye2 wrote...

It's only when you get into details or specifics that it becomes subjective.

But you have to go into details because good cannot be universally defined. Child labour is undeniably unhealthy and should not be allowed because it affects the next generation negatively, but is it worse to have third world children slave away for joke salaries that'll barely keep them fed than take away the only possible source of income bar perhaps prostitution and starve them completely? Life isn't about good and evil, it's about varying degrees of evil.

Modifié par Snoteye, 26 octobre 2009 - 08:30 .