197 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
But I really can't get behind Hume's logic. At all!

He is not condoning that. He is trying to prove a point.
He believes that reason / rational / objective arguments cannot counter that sentence.  

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

While I personally reject hedonism and find it pointless, there is no objective reality that dictates that any life is worth more than 10 seconds of pleasure.
David Hume: 'Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.'
So I personally wouldn't call that "evil". I'd call it pointless and childish.

There is no such thing as objective reality, if you go by quantum physics. All reality is subjective, because it is beiong observed through the eyes of the observer.

Selling the kid's soul for nookie is evil not childish. Evil is where you do something so meaningless and petty, fully aware of the consequences, and do it any way to please yourself. being childish, one would not know, or care to understand, the consequences. Childishness implies an impulsive, immature descision for no other reason than immediate desire/cravings, with no understanding, or desire to understand, long term implications. Evil implies knowing these consequences, and willing to carry on with them, and not caring for who gets hurt.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glaucon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Glaucon wrote...
And although, as noted by KoP, a player can choose to be indifferent to the tone or consequences of their actions, even that requires an ability to spot the difference so to speak.

What?
How does being amoral mean that one is indifferent to the consequences of one's actions?
It's completely unrelated.

To be amoral is to be indifferent to right or wrong, but yes the conjunction spoils the sentence.

Which is not the same as being indifferent to consequence.
Especially since I believe all those ideals of "right" and "wrong" are at their core based on practical issues and concerns, that tradition embellished and exagerrated.

One can be amoral and still do what is believed to be "right", but for practical concerns without any spiritual / idealistic / absolutist / ...etc reasoning behind it.

[ejoslin]

Hanz54321 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Any other child would be.  Any other abomination would be.

This is a basic tenant of the religion and law of the land.

And I guess I should make it clear that I rarely kill Conner.  but it is not evil -- it is what is expected.  Teagan suggests it, Alistair suggests it -- this is not just a stupid act done by a malicious soul.

Well that qualifies as a reason other than, "Connor is weak and therefore deserves death."  So we are sympatico.

Now the Uldred example . . . now there's where an argument can be made.  Is Uldred the "victim" of a Pride Demon?  Or was Uldred too power mad and he should've known better?  It's difficult to convince me that Uldred is not to blame for what happened at the Circle Tower . . . but it's possible.  Blood magic is known for it's ability to mind control people.  So maybe Uldred did not make a deal with the demon . . . the demon simply took him.

But I'm not buying my own jive on that one.

I wasn't meaning to say that Conner was weak and therefore deserves death.  I was trying to put his death into the context of the land where it happened and what is considered moral there -- not the morality of our world.

the demon that was in Conner was powerful enough to wipe out a castle and most of a village.  It occasionally goes dormant, but never for long.  There is no reason to think that it will stay dormant for 2 days, and furthermore, there is no reason to think that the templars would allow an abomination to live -- and presumably, if you go to the mage tower, there's a chance that the templars won't allow the mages to leave without knowing why.  And the laws of the land, and of the religion will not allow an abomination to live.

I know people will pick this apart.  But the blanket statement, killing conner is evil, is just not correct.  There are plenty of reasons, other than evil, why killing Conner makes sense and perhaps is a lesser evil to other alternatives.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He is not condoning that. He is trying to prove a point.
He believes that reason / rational / objective arguments cannot counter that sentence.  

Well I do think that reason / rational / objective arguments CAN counter that sentence, but I feel that we'd end up going in circles if we did argue about that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Selling the kid's soul for nookie is evil not childish. Evil is where you do something so meaningless and petty, fully aware of the consequences, and do it any way to please yourself. being childish, one would not know, or care to understand, the consequences. Childishness implies an impulsive, immature descision for no other reason than immediate desire/cravings, with no understanding, or desire to understand, long term implications. Evil implies knowing these consequences, and willing to carry on with them, and not caring for who gets hurt.

That's how you define "evil", not what it is (if it even exists).

But yes, maybe I should find a word better than childish. Petty is good.
"Evil" is a word I refuse to use.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He is not condoning that. He is trying to prove a point.
He believes that reason / rational / objective arguments cannot counter that sentence.  

Well I do think that reason / rational / objective arguments CAN counter that sentence, but I feel that we'd end up going in circles if we did argue about that.

Because the whole world destroyed would mean that he'd live in a lonely place, and would probably die in a few days, which means that his injury is not worth the entire world?

Sure.
I would have changed the sentence to: " 'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of a village very far from me that will have no consequences at all to my person, to the scratching of my finger".

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I would have changed the sentence to: " 'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of a village very far from me that will have no consequences at all to my person, to the scratching of my finger".

Now I admit that the way you word it is more... reasonable, shall we say.

If the logic is that it's understandable that one would prefer to avoid a unpleasant experience at the expense of others, then I would agree. Although that doesn't mean that I would actually choose to avoid the unpleasant experience, but I would understand why one would want to avoid it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glaucon wrote...
But if we follow Hume we paralyse our ability to prove one line of action to be better than another.

That's the point. No one action is objectively better than the other in and of itself, but only vis a vis a certain goal.

If your goal, or passion as Hume would call it, is to win a war. Telling your men to go naked and unarmed to the field because it gives you a pleasant sensation to watch them doing that, is not a good action to accomplish that specific goal or satisfy that passion.

But that action, in and of itself, is not better or worse than any other.

BTW, I do not fully agree with Hume, but I prefer him over Kant much much more. At least he is honest and is not trying to presume to know "the Truth". 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's how you define "evil", not what it is (if it even exists).

But yes, maybe I should find a word better than childish. Petty is good.
"Evil" is a word I refuse to use.

Evil is a tricky word/concept to use, because it is a very subjective concept. And that is all it really is, is a concept, like anything else. When it comes to ambiguous concepts, stating what they are is impossible, one can really only describe one's personal perception/definition.

I use the word evil because it carries weight, as opposed to "naughty", "bad", ect. As to the existance of evil, I do not believe it exists as a definite principal outside of human consciousness.

In otherwords, evil exists because we exist. If we did not exist, evil would not either. Because it is a concept born out of higher intelligence and awareness. As far as we know, animals and plants do not know of a concept of evil.

[Morrigans God son]

leaving redcliff to the zombie horde haha good times...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Evil is a tricky word/concept to use, because it is a very subjective concept. And that is all it really is, is a concept, like anything else. When it comes to ambiguous concepts, stating what they are is impossible, one can really only describe one's personal perception/definition.

I use the word evil because it carries weight, as opposed to "naughty", "bad", ect. As to the existance of evil, I do not believe it exists as a definite principal outside of human consciousness.

In otherwords, evil exists because we exist. If we did not exist, evil would not either. Because it is a concept born out of higher intelligence and awareness. As far as we know, animals and plants do not know of a concept of evil.

Yea, I agree (and it's something that might make some of my bretheren in faith raise an eyebrow).

The reason I dislike using the word is because more often than not, it's used as a tool for mass mobalisation and villification as to prevent any understanding of the other and as ego stroking (because if the other is "evil", we are "good").
Of course, I'd use the word much more often were I in a position to mass mobalize people to fight an enemy, because it's a very useful tool.

But as a person, I don't like using it, because it will end up over-simplifying the issue, whether we consciously want to or not.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:25 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glaucon wrote...
That would be unique ground to occupy don't you think?

Maybe, I don't know.
I am pretty sure I am not the only one to think like this.

This requires explaining.  If by belief you mean self-belief then of course no amount of argument will sway such a stance.

I meant doing what is believed to be "right" by the society that amoral person is living in, but without believing it's "right" in absolute.
Difference between doing something out of belief and out of practicality, even if they end up being the same action.

An amoral person can oppose murder because a proper functioning society cannot exist if such an act is allowed, without believing that murder in and of itself is "wrong" or "evil". 
Of course I am not suggesting that all amoral people end up thinking the same, it will always depend on perspective and how they view things and inevitably, what they believe.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, I agree (and it's something that might make sone of my bretheren in faith raise an eyebrow).

The reason I dislike using the word is because more often than not, it's used as a tool for mass mobalisation and villification as to prevent any understanding of the other and as ego stroking.
Of course, I'd use the word much more often were I in a position to mass mobalize people to fight an enemy, because it's a very useful tool.

But as a person, I don't like using it, because it will end up over-simplifying the issue, whether we consciously want to or not.

Oh, I understand completely. I was raised a Pentacostal Christian, where "evil" was not only a defined, rigid principal, it was also considered to exist (meta)physically as a real entity/law of the universe. When I ditched the religion, I was pretty leary of it's use in general, because it carried the specific weight of an unquestioning dogma I no longer believed in.

In real life, I limit it's use to exceptional examples of certain people or events, but my own definition is quite different and more complex that what might be the generally accepted definition. In general, when discussing certain phisophical or literary subjects, I use it generally to add weight to a point/opinion of something being completely pointless and destructive for no real reason or benefit.

In Connor's case, I use it in the case of selling his soul for sex. If one were to trade his soul for blood magic, knowledge, or loyalty of one's companions, one could argue that it is done for the greater good: putting the Warden and their companions in a better position to defeat the much greater evil, the Blight. But since sexual intercourse with a devious, supernatural being produces nothing except temporary pleasure, and ends up creating a worse situation then before, then the moral, as well as practical, implications I label as "evil".

In short, in this instance, I use "evil" to describe the gravity in moral/practical terms, of such a descision as, creating more destruction/strife than "good"/productive descisions would have. In my eyes, it is even worse if you do it via Jowan's ritual, since Isolde just sacraficed her life in a ritual she finds morally abhorrent, so you have not only traded one life, but two.....for nothing, really.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glaucon wrote...
Some actions are better than others.  Examining game theory allows us to see choices that have higher utility than others. 

Utility implies a certain goal you want to reach, hence they are better than others in attaining that goal. In and of themselves, their utility is meaningless if you have no goal, or if your goal is completely different.

Glaucon wrote...
But perhaps that is muddying  the waters?  But I can't, personally, go along with the notion that all actions are equal when seeking a goal.

I didn't say that.
It's precisely when seeking a specific goal, that some actions are better than others only in regards to their utility in satisfying / reaching that goal.

But without that specific goal, in and of themselves, I see them as equal.
Which is pointless theorising, action implies goal, except for those unaware of what they are doing.

But if say one's goal is to get capital punishment, being a serial killer is a better action vis a vis that specific goal that being generous and nice. Again, useless theorising and hypotheticals because I doubt many would place capital punishment as their desire. Whereas, if your goal is to be respected, bullying people on the street, walking naked and drunk is not a good action.

EDIT: Yes, that's moral philosophy for you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:38 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Skadi.

Yes I understand, sometimes I end up understating my feelings for an act because I don't use the word. Sacrificing Connor for sex, I would consider extremily petty and revolting. But I am stubborn and still won't use the e word

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Skadi.
Yes I understand, sometimes I end up understating my feelings for an act because I don't use the word. Sacrificing Connor for sex, I would consider extremily petty and revolting. But I am stubborn and still won't use the e word

You will if Morrigan says you will!:happy:

Not that she would, anyway, because she seems to find the whole idea a curious and pointless exercise in futility, really.

But I see what you're saying. Avoiding the use of a word that is heavily charged with implications of set religous/moral concepts.

I say go with the Orwellian idea: Superplusungood!