168 réponses à ce sujet

[dubsaves]

Good is less than Very Good, but better than Okay. Its still a far way from Excellent, and quite a wide margin from Awesome. It can never amount to 100%. It is far better than Passing, and still better than Satisfactory.  While Good may be a sign of a positive performance, it is no where near close to Winning. Good is also not the same as Excelling, and more along the lines of a Tolerable Demonstration of Skill. Good isn't Great. But we all know that, but you can't Fail while being Good. Good is probably a Complete, but not really a Distinguished something. Good is Acceptable, with shortcomings of Amazing, Superior, and Mastery. Good might be cousins with Correct. Good might be Useable in terms of Quality. But, again it will never be in the league of Expert.

I guess...its just Good.  

Modifié par dubsaves, 26 octobre 2009 - 08:53 .

[www.awesome.com]

very good lol

[Odelpex]

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.

But who's the authority on what is wrong? How can you define what is wrong?

[Mordaedil]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

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.

Huh... Is it bad that I can pretty much control my outbursts in real life and chose when to show emotion?

It's so weird when I have to fake sadness for someone I didn't "know" for someone else.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

No, it's not bad.



Empathy is not dependent on control either way. You can control the emotions inside you and still feel the emotions. I can feel sad and not show it on my face.



If you're faking sadness for someone else, that's also not empathy.

[the_one_54321]

ok, what follows is my treatise on good & evil from the perspective of the alignment system of D&D.



i start from simply the definitions of a few words and work up from there. i dont know that it can get much more objective than this.

[the_one_54321]

Now for the objective views. (these will be our axioms)
As found in Dictionary.com;
Good
adj.
-Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.

We then must also consider the diametric opposite of Good, which surprisingly is not
“Evil” (though it will be used to define evil), it is Bad.
From Dictionary.com;

Bad
Injurious in effect; detrimental: bad habits.

So is this enough to get started? Hardly!  This is just the tip of the ice berg.

Good/Evil is not defined in D&D solely by the concepts of Good and Bad, there is more to it. We must also consider Just/Unjust and Right/Wrong.
:innocent:

Just
-Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.

Unjust
-Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair: “monstrously unjust and socially harmful” (Anna Garlin Spencer). (basically the diametric opposite of just)

Right
-Conforming with or conformable to justice …or morality: do the right thing and confess.
(Comment on law was omitted as it was referring to legal issues)

Wrong
n.
-An unjust or injurious act.
-Something contrary to ethics or morality
-tr.v wronged, wronging, wrongs
-To treat unjustly or injuriously.
-To discredit unjustly; malign.
-To treat dishonorably; violate


As a smaller addition I will add these definitions. (axioms)
Morality
-Virtuous in conduct
Virtue
- The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong
- A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality

:innocent: Good and Evil
These terms are, in D&D used incredibly loosely. They generalize a whole grouping of concepts into two separate categories. So to really understand what it means to be Good or Evil in D&D one must examine the underlying concepts behind the words.
Good and evil are most often used to quantify the actions of the characters, and this brings up the constant disagreement of whether or not an action was actually good/evil and why. The way to solve this problem is to look at the nature of action.

An action can be labeled on three different levels.
-On the action itself without any consideration of context or cause and effect.
-Based on cause and effect or on the context of the action
-Labeled with a final judgment

The action itself is either a "good" act a "bad" act or a neutral act. For example, killing is a bad act. This does not mean killing is evil or even wrong, simply that killing something causes it pain and then death and this is a bad thing to do to another living thing. It is “injurious in effect, and detrimental” and thus Bad.

The context of the action, or its cause and effect, are then considered to determine if the action was "Just" or "Unjust." For example killing an animal because you need to eat may be bad because you kill, but it is Just because you must eat. It is “suitable and proper in nature” and it is “fitting” and thusly it is Just.

Then you must label the action with a final (often moral) judgment. The action was either "Right" or "Wrong." This is the most subjective of the labels, and where one might become confused. The general trend, however, is that Just actions are usually Right actions. For example you witness a wild dog about to pounce on and kill a child. So you shoot the dog before it has the chance. The action of killing the dog was “bad.” But it was also certainly “Just” and certainly “Right.” It was “conforming to justice and morality” and thus Right.

The definition of Good and Evil in D&D encompasses, or at least attempts to encompass, all of these concepts.

  :innocent: Good characters tend to commits acts that are mostly Just and/or Right. This causes the character to lean towards altruism, selflessness, respect for the right to live and helpfulness. The definition of Good in D&D is concurrent with the above and thusly is an objective truth, based on the definitions (axioms) of “good” “just” “right” and their diametric opposites.

It does not, however, imply that the character be a perfect person. All characters have their flaws and some characters perform more Right and/or Just acts then others. The differences say between a paladin and a Good fighter for example.

  Evil characters tend to commit acts that are Unjust and/or Wrong. This causes the character to tend towards over-subjectivity, selfishness, lack of willingness to help, little or no recognition of the right to live and self-absorption. The definition of Evil in D&D is concurrent with the above and thusly is an objective truth, based on the definitions (axioms) of “bad” “unjust” “wrong” and their diametric opposites.
It does not, however, imply that the character is a maniacal or scheming villain. All characters have their beneficial qualities and some perform more Wrong and/or Unjust acts then others. The difference say between the evil wizard bent on world domination and the common thief who only robs houses for his own gain.

A neutral character, with respect to good and evil, does not tend to commit acts that are more often good then bad, or vice versa. This does not mean that their acts balance each other out but simply that a neutral character tends towards the middle. "-10+10=0" does not hold true for neutrality. A neutral character will often view himself/herself as "Good" but really does not tend towards altruism or selfishness etc. They perhaps lack the willpower or commitment to commit enough Just and/or Right acts while still trying not to commit Wrong and/or Unjust acts. Some actively seek to behave in a neutral manner. This implies a non-value concerning Good and Evil and thus is neutral concerning the definitions (axioms) of “good” “just” “right” and their diametric opposites. Since the D&D definition of Neutral is concurrent with this it is also an objective truth.
The theorem of Good and Evil is now complete!

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 octobre 2009 - 11:07 .

[the_one_54321]

as an addendum, the essay on the alignment system is pages and pages longer than this, so please do not start discussing the applications in the D&D alignment system. i could go on and on and on and on about it, but that is not what this thread is about. if you are interested in discussing the alignment system, please start a new topic and we'll discuss it there.

[DigitalOrigami]

Pizza, a refreshing beverage to wash it down with, and a good movie with no interruptions is good.

[Christoph Gasser]

ok, what follows is my treatise on good & evil from the perspective of the alignment system of D&D.
...

You did that very well . Perhaps this is the closest to objective we can get. However, I would argue that the axioms you chose can be interpreted differently by different people, depending on their values. Not everybody will for example have the same understanding of just and unjust.

An example you gave:

The context of the action, or its cause and effect, are then considered to determine if the action was "Just" or "Unjust." For example killing an animal because you need to eat may be bad because you kill, but it is Just because you must eat. It is “suitable and proper in nature” and it is “fitting” and thusly it is Just.

While I personally agree (and it certainly fits the D&D alignment system) members of Peta might not. They might consider it unfitting since there are other things you could eat and they value the life of animals higher than those of plants.

So the problem really comes with the application of the axioms to specific questions as well as agreeing on the axioms you use to begin with. I would argue that different people will still arrive at different conclusions. 

Other controversial examples: Death penalty for a murderer; just or unjust? Abortion; morally justifiable?

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...
While I personally agree (and it certainly fits the D&D alignment system) members of Peta might not.

it's a simple matter to define it biologically. we require omega 3 fatty acids to live healthy. there really isnt anything else to it in regards to the eating of animals. you can survive without any animal proteins, but it's not really good for you.

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...
Death penalty for a murderer; just or unjust? Abortion; morally justifiable?

there are simple objective approaches to this as well. but im not going to talk about them because i dont want other posters to start flaming just because they disagree. and no matter what i say with regard to those topics, someone will flame.

quite frankly, i think the same concept applies to either of those. one side is right and the other is wrong. but try to explain that to people and they just get pissed off because they dont want to be wrong.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

quite frankly, i think the same concept applies to either of those. one side is right and the other is wrong. but try to explain that to people and they just get pissed off because they dont want to be wrong.

Go ahead and try. Please? I'm dying to see your theory at work and so far all we have is mumbo with a side of jumbo.

[Nighteye2]

Snoteye wrote...

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.

You only have to go into details for specific examples, like the one you gave. In a specific example, you take the elements that are objectively good and the elements that are objectively bad, then you attach subjective weights to each of those elements, and the sum total is your subjective opinion of whether that specific situation is good or bad.

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

you can survive without any animal proteins, but it's not really good for you.

Alrigth I'm no food expert and I'm no vegetarian (and this is really getting off topic so this is my last post on this). I will only say that to my knowledge this statment is not true.

According to http://www.bbc.co.uk...etary_veg.shtml

"Several large studies have examined the nutrient intake of vegetarians
and meat eaters, and most have shown no difference in nutrient intake.
Vegetarian or vegan diets may be more healthy or less healthy than
diets of meat eaters, depending on specific food choices."

To come back to the topic (since this was just an example): As a thought experiment what would the moral judgment on killing an animal for food be if we assume that you could live just as healthy as vegetarian?

[Christoph Gasser]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Snoteye wrote...

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.

You only have to go into details for specific examples, like the one you gave. In a specific example, you take the elements that are objectively good and the elements that are objectively bad, then you attach subjective weights to each of those elements, and the sum total is your subjective opinion of whether that specific situation is good or bad.

Well put!

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

quite frankly, i think the same concept applies to either of those. one side is right and the other is wrong. but try to explain that to people and they just get pissed off because they dont want to be wrong.

Go ahead and try. Please? I'm dying to see your theory at work and so far all we have is mumbo with a side of jumbo.

this is what we call flame baiting.

you dont have to like it, but not understanding it doesnt make it mumbo jumbo. one of the posters above you got it all and even had a well thought out relevant question in response.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:16 .

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...
To come back to the topic (since this was just an example): As a thought experiment what would the moral judgment on killing an animal for food be if we assume that you could live just as healthy as vegetarian?

if you accept that assumption then the concept becomes heavily debatable.



how do you determine the sentience of an animal that cannot intelligibly communicate with you? 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:22 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

this is what we call flame baiting.

you dont have to like it, but not understanding

it doesnt make it mumbo jumbo. one of the posters above you got it all and even had a well thought out relevant question in response.

I'm not flame baiting, I really want to know your thought process here.
I just think it's really convenient that you come in here and say that an issue THAT BIG has a simple objective answer by your system, and then you refuse to elaborate or explain it because "people would disagree".

LMAO, that's the equivalent of saying it's not a good answer, isn't it?

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:17 .

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

this is what we call flame baiting.

you dont have to like it, but not understanding

it doesnt make it mumbo jumbo. one of the posters above you got it all and even had a well thought out relevant question in response.

I'm not flame baiting, I really want to know your thought process here.
I just think it's really convenient that you come in here and say that an issue THAT BIG has a simple objective answer by your system, and then you refuse to elaborate or explain it because "people would disagree".

LMAO, that's the equivalent of saying it's not a good answer, isn't it?

are you serious?! you want me to talk about abortion and the death penalty? 

and btw do not dare assume you know what my opinion on it is just because of the way i've talked about things here.

in all seriousness, talking about my opinion on that stuff would be like holding up a sign that says "please come yell at me and insult me over the internet." it wouldnt matter what i said. id get bashed the same whichever side i happen to take.

but, quite frankly, it is my opinion that in either case, one side is right and the other is wrong. as above, it's defined biologically, and through application of the ideas of good bad right wrong just and unjust.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

I didn't ask for your opinion, did I? I asked you to show us the simple objective approach, which you said had a right and wrong answer.



If it's simple and objective, then your opinion shouldn't even have to come up, so there's no reason for flaming. If you post something that annoys somebody, then your simple objective approach must not be simple and/or objective.



See what I mean? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

"There is a simple objective approach with a right and wrong answer, but I'm not going to explain it because other people will disagree and get upset." If it's "simple and objective" then there'd be nothing for anyone to get upset about.



Objective = That book's cover has a dragon on it.

Non-Objective = This cover is better than that one because it has a dragon on it.

Nobody can get upset about the first one... See what I mean?

[the_one_54321]

i think that these two concepts are controversial for one very important reason. it is a matter of proof. there is either a lack of, or a refusal to accept absolute proof of something. because either side approaches this lack or refusal differently, and will not relent on their approach, you have a concept on which people simply will not agree.they simply will not accept the proof or lack thereof. i am reminded of Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time? ... Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it." (please note that i do not intend this quote to apply to you) i personally think of it as ignorance, but well that's how it is and im not opening that can of worms.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:31 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

That doesn't seem to address my point at all.

How can it be objective if it's so GD controversial?


EDIT: And, yes, it's kind of hard (read: impossible) to objectively state something as a fact without any proof, so... 

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:31 .

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

EDIT: And, yes, it's kind of hard (read: impossible) to objectively state something as a fact without any proof, so... 

in one case, proof may not be attainable. in another, people simply refuse to accept it. at least that is my take on it.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

in one case, proof may not be attainable. in another, people simply refuse to accept it. at least that is my take on it.

Examples? Without examples I simply think your "take on it" is a load of mumbo jumbo.
The former, if proof is not attainable, means that it is most likely not an objective fact.

It reminds me of people who tell me Yahweh's existence is a fact, despite having no proof. You can say "life is proof" all you want, but that's not objective proof of his existence.
That's not directed at you; it's just an example of my point that what some people deem as facts simply aren't facts.
EDIT: Nor is that^ a religious statement in any way. Just an example.

So, again, examples?

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:39 .