1253 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Emp. do you have any idea what a moral fact is? If you don't then you think it's ok to go out and molest little children...as long as you are more powerful than anyone that can stop you. Ditto for mass murder. Ditto for just about every thing that society throughout history has rightfully called evil pretty much no matter what.

Whether you want to admit it or not, moral facts EXIST whether you personally want to acknowledge them or not. That's because there are some moral decisions that the vast majority of people agree with regardless of how they rationalize it. The existance of moral fact is extremely important in the study of ethics and ethical philosophy for these facts are how we test how well ethical theories work.

So Emp, as usual, you are wrong.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Neither Warden's Peak, nor Blackmarsh is ever fully repaired.....

Emphasis mine.  They WERE repaired in direct contravention to your claim that the veil could never be repaired.  I think I'm done here.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, and the mages weren't punished for what Anders did. What Anders did allowed the mages to be punished though.

The mages were going to be executed for what Anders did, which is exactly what Meredith says when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. She proclaims, "The Grand Cleric has been slain by magic, the Chantey destroyed. As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Annulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately!" Orsino acknowledges that the Circle didn't do this, so they shouldn't be punished for Anders' actions. Meredith further adds, "After what just occured, you cannot deny what must be done," which is followed by Sebastian addressing that they shouldn't be discussing the Right of Annulment when Anders is standing right in front of them. "It doesn't matter," Meredith says in response to Anders' confession. "Even if I wished to, I could not stay my hand. The people will demand blood."

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Uh, no.  The RoA is supposed to be for circles that are irredeemable, not unruly.  Meredith losing control of her Templars and the circle are marks against her, not the mages.

Indeed. The only one who should have been annuled was Meredith, but the Chantry seems utterly oblivious to her incompetence.

Yep, I think this nails it. A Right of Annulment is not something one can just call because the mages and templars aren't listening to you. The Codexes state it is meant to be called when the Circle has gone past being salvageable. In other words, demons and abominations running amok, like it was at Lake Calenhad. Not to be used as a means to fix normal revolt and rebellion because a Knight Commander is a complete idiot and a fail at their job.

It's like that brilliant divine who wanted to call an exalted march on her own Catherdral, rather than actually try and negotioate with the mages who had barricaded themselves in (and, according to the Codex, weren't even behaving with hostility or using magic, just demanding to be heard and their grievances resolved) the Cathedral. That a templar commander had to talk the Divine out of such a stupid, idiotic "solution" kinda says alot about that Divine. And given the overreacting uselessness of her replacements and their love of exalted marches as answers to everything, I'd say this tradition of idocy has remained unchanged over the centuries.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
"Might makes right" is a way of thinking, it is probably even one of the purest ones. Might makes right is not "morally wrong" since it does not even follow such rules. Furthermore it is probably the only one which is even clsoe to the way the world actually works.
...

To me, morality is a luxury, used and empowered by people who have never had to endure hardships.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the person taking an action doesn't just get to say "I don't buy into your morality" and have that make their actions ok.  Morality is decided at large.  I think it's pretty clear in history that anyone who really bought into the "might makes right" philosophy was a grade A bad guy.  Most people who want to flout the "rules" of society only get away with it because so many other folks are following the rules. Stealing someone's car would become a lot less popular if the victim was allowed to hunt down the thief and kill them for it.

How people behave when faced with hardships is one of the best tests of character.  Throwing your morals out the window when they become inconvenient means you didn't really believe in them in the first place.

[IanPolaris]

GavrielKay,

Correct. A 'Moral Fact' is determined like any other fact (and like any other fact may change over time), ie. by a concensus view.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
The existance of moral fact is extremely important in the study of ethics and ethical philosophy for these facts are how we test how well ethical theories work.

Not quite. A person from the consequentialist school of ethics would say that you are committing the "naturalistic fallacy" right now. Your argument seems to be deontologist, but it is far from being the only school of ethics.

EDIT: actually no, it's not deontologist and they would reject your view utterly. For them morality is absolute, consensus is irrelevent. Your view is no more or less valid than theirs.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:00 .

[tmp7704]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Don't even need to look at gameplay. the lore has Thedas pretty much stuck at the same level of technology. The Historical codexes show very little improvement or devlopment from age to age.

The codex entries don't really discuss the level of development at all, do they? They focus either on important individuals or the broad, political picture.

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

GavrielKay,

Correct. A 'Moral Fact' is determined like any other fact (and like any other fact may change over time), ie. by a concensus view.

-Polaris

Most people in Thedas are in support of the Circle.

Here you go, it's been made moral in its context and universe.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emp. do you have any idea what a moral fact is? If you don't then you think it's ok to go out and molest little children...as long as you are more powerful than anyone that can stop you. Ditto for mass murder. Ditto for just about every thing that society throughout history has rightfully called evil pretty much no matter what.

Whether you want to admit it or not, moral facts EXIST whether you personally want to acknowledge them or not. That's because there are some moral decisions that the vast majority of people agree with regardless of how they rationalize it. The existance of moral fact is extremely important in the study of ethics and ethical philosophy for these facts are how we test how well ethical theories work.

So Emp, as usual, you are wrong.

-Polaris

Moral facts does not exist. That you think so is adorable, and naive. Cultural norms exists. We don't all go an murderous rampages becasue we have been taught not to. We know that it would be illogical, and that we have nothing to gain from such actions. It is not some divine universal truth that prevents us from doing so, it is ourselves, and the knowledge that we wouldn't benefit from such actions.

If we actually lived in a world where such actions would come with great benefits to the one commiting them, you could bet your naive arse that people would do it. Thankfully we don't. Therefore people don't do it.

So again. Moral facts are established by the culture in which they are used, AND they even differ from culture to culture, proving that moral facts are not facts at all, but can change. What is completely acceptable in one society, may be anathema in another. Luckily, being as we are with a fair amount of internationalization, we have a rather streamlined set of morals these days. But a few hundred years ago, it would have been totally acceptable for any englishman to kill a welsh or irish. Apparently it isn't anymore. Perhaps one day it will become again.

Moral facts can only ever have any sort of bearing if a universal set of rules was in existance, which would probably require some sort of god to be in existance... So until you can prove some god's existance, I'm gonna deny your moral facts...

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
The existance of moral fact is extremely important in the study of ethics and ethical philosophy for these facts are how we test how well ethical theories work.

Not quite. A person from the consequentialist school of ethics would say that you are committing the "naturalistic fallacy" right now. Your argument seems to be deontologist, but it is far from being the only school of ethics.

EDIT: actually no, it's not deontologist and they would reject your view utterly. For them morality is absolute, consensus is irrelevent. Your view is no more or less valid than theirs.

KoP,  I have to disagree with you there.  FIrst of all morality is not absolute for the deantologist, only for a small subset of them.  In fact most deantologists would agree (the Naturalist Realists are deantologists).  The small subset you refer to are the absolutionists and while they exist, I find very few in modern ethics that take them seriously precisely because some try claim that there is an abolsolute moral TRUTH which is a far cry from a moral fact (and then claim it can't change which gets them into epistimological hot water).

As for moral fact as I have defined it here, it is pretty much universally accepted albeit it's not called "moral fact" by many philosphers but rather "innate moral sense" or "conventional morality".  Even the relativists use what I defiend to be 'moral facts' to test their theories of moral calculus to see if their models give the correct 'results' for things that everyone agrees are wrong (ie. moral facts).  I am using the minimalist (and scientific) term of fact which is not at all related to moral truth (but too many modern philosophers conflate the two being unfamiliar with science).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

GavrielKay,

Correct. A 'Moral Fact' is determined like any other fact (and like any other fact may change over time), ie. by a concensus view.

-Polaris

Most people in Thedas are in support of the Circle.

Here you go, it's been made moral in its context and universe.

Yes. I agree.  In Thedas the people in that world would regard the circle as a moral fact.  They also would recognize that punishing someone for the crime of someone else is still wrong.  Even sebastian says so during the game.

In case you missed it, moral facts can change as people get better information.  They can and do in fact.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
As for moral fact as I have defined it here, it is pretty much universally accepted albeit it's not called "moral fact" by many philosphers but rather "innate moral sense" or "conventional morality".  Even the relativists use what I defiend to be 'moral facts' to test their theories of moral calculus to see if their models give the correct 'results' for things that everyone agrees are wrong (ie. moral facts).  I am using the minimalist (and scientific) term of fact which is not at all related to moral truth (but too many modern philosophers conflate the two being unfamiliar with science).

-Polaris

Oh I see what you mean. "Conventional morality" would be a better terminology though imo, "fact" sounds too close to "truth". That was my first impression.

[IanPolaris]

To KoP and Emp,

Getting back to the point, it is irrelevant what the people of Thedas would view as a moral fact. That was never the issue. The issue was the game, Dragon Age 2, was trying to make a "morally grey decision" while at the same time grossly violating a moral fact that even a three year old child would recognize, and that fact is this:

You can not morally knowingly punish one person (or group of people) for the crimes of another.

It is fundamentally unfair, and that's a moral sense that even little children have. Does bioware have less moral sense in it's writing than little children? I am starting to wonder.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes. I agree.  In Thedas the people in that world would regard the circle as a moral fact.  They also would recognize that punishing someone for the crime of someone else is still wrong.  Even sebastian says so during the game.

In case you missed it, moral facts can change as people get better information.  They can and do in fact.

-Polaris

Yea I don't think anyone even remotely reasonable would believe that Meredith had it right. Which makes me wonder why Cullen took so long. The people want blood excuse is just a poor one.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
As for moral fact as I have defined it here, it is pretty much universally accepted albeit it's not called "moral fact" by many philosphers but rather "innate moral sense" or "conventional morality".  Even the relativists use what I defiend to be 'moral facts' to test their theories of moral calculus to see if their models give the correct 'results' for things that everyone agrees are wrong (ie. moral facts).  I am using the minimalist (and scientific) term of fact which is not at all related to moral truth (but too many modern philosophers conflate the two being unfamiliar with science).

-Polaris

Oh I see what you mean. "Conventional morality" would be a better terminology though imo, "fact" sounds too close to "truth". That was my first impression.

Sorry, having googled some philosphy papers, I can see where you were confused.  I was using "fact" in the scientific and not philosophical way, and that probably accounts for the confusion.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Killing someone without cause is immoral.  I HOPE everyone agrees that this is a moral fact.  A moral fact is no different than any other kind of fact.

As presented, there are mages in the circle who don't want their quarters searched.  That's it.  That's the whole list of known crimes for the circle mages.  Orsino refuses to let Meredith search the entire Gallows so she figures they must be guilty.

Oh nevermind that they are planning to rebel against their Knight-Commander and is fleeing the Circle left and right. Those aren't crimes.... Just for planning against their superior could be enough to warrant a purge...

Technically, all we know is that First Enchanter Orsino thought Meredith was overstepping her bounds, and was heading to the Grand Cleric to resolve the issue. As for rebelling against the Knight-Commander, are you talking about Ser Thrask gathering templars and mages to remove a dictator from power, who are working side by side under the leadership of a templar no less?

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Maybe it was not suppose to be a morally grey choice. Maybe it was suppose to be evil or good.

Sup fable.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

Getting back to the point, it is irrelevant what the people of Thedas would view as a moral fact. That was never the issue. The issue was the game, Dragon Age 2, was trying to make a "morally grey decision" while at the same time grossly violating a moral fact that even a three year old child would recognize
-Polaris

Yea, though I'd phrase it differently. They created a situation where no one could really agree with Meredith. They might side with her because of the belief that they can mitigate the damage or for some purpose (whether they are correct or not is besides the pont). But I do not think anyone reasonable would say that Meredith had it right or that the RoA was necessary, especially not with the idol. 

It's just poor writing imo, IF they were aiming to make it a complex situation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Maybe it was not suppose to be a morally grey choice. Maybe it was suppose to be evil or good.

Sup fable.

I highly doubt it, but if it's bioware's intention to go the Fable route, than I'd like to know, so I can drop their products from my interest list.

Fable's morality is ridiculous.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Maybe it was not suppose to be a morally grey choice. Maybe it was suppose to be evil or good.

Sup fable.

I could actually accept that much better if it were true, but DG and other Devs have told us repeatedly that this was 'supposed' to be a 'grey' choice.  I have no problem playing in worlds that are brutal and where many actions that I consider morally rephensible by today's standards occure.

That's part of the scenery, and I am not being asked to approve of them.

Likewise I have no issue with playing a scenario that involves making morally poor or even vile choice (and I have no issue with gamers that do either).  Playing the villian can be cathartic....as long as you know that you are in fact playing the villian.

-Polaris

[alex90c]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Maybe it was not suppose to be a morally grey choice. Maybe it was suppose to be evil or good.

Sup fable.

I highly doubt it, but if it's bioware's intention to go the Fable route, than I'd like to know, so I can drop their products from my interest list.

Fable's morality is ridiculous.

But you get wings!!!!

[Follow Me on Twitter]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Maybe it was not suppose to be a morally grey choice. Maybe it was suppose to be evil or good.

Sup fable.

I highly doubt it, but if it's bioware's intention to go the Fable route, than I'd like to know, so I can drop their products from my interest list.

Fable's morality is ridiculous.

Arent they going fables route? Compare 2 and 3. Same thing they dumb it down and start heading towards action game and simplify it for casual gamers.


But thats another topic entirely.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It obviously isn't the cause since mages of Kirkwall has ALWAYS been rebellious. The mages themselves have forced the Templars to crack down on them so hard.

There's no evidence that's true. By the time Hawke arrives in Kirkwall, Meredith is Knight-Commander, and he can only see how things are now. Anders mentions that he came to Kirkwall because Karl wrote to him and told him how bad things were under Meredith, and it's Karl's tranquility and death that seems to spur Anders to join the underground resistance. We know Ser Kerras and others are violating at least one mage, Alain. We know Ser Alrik is making mages tranquil illegally and implies to rape an underage mage when Hawke encounters him (according to the letter Bethany wrote to Hawke, which references Ella as a child).  A female tranquil tells the mage she was romantically involved with that "Only Ser Alrik can command me now," and explains that it was her romance with a mage that caused Alrik to tranquil her. We know mages are beaten if they speak to any civilians and the proprietor is whipped if anyone steals from her. Considering how Meredith becomes a dictator over all of Kirkwall, to the point that mages are willing to work with templars to oust her from power because both sides see her as a serious problem, I don't agree with your statement.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Killing someone without cause is immoral.  I HOPE everyone agrees that this is a moral fact.  A moral fact is no different than any other kind of fact.

As presented, there are mages in the circle who don't want their quarters searched.  That's it.  That's the whole list of known crimes for the circle mages.  Orsino refuses to let Meredith search the entire Gallows so she figures they must be guilty.

Oh nevermind that they are planning to rebel against their Knight-Commander and is fleeing the Circle left and right. Those aren't crimes.... Just for planning against their superior could be enough to warrant a purge...

Technically, all we know is that First Enchanter Orsino thought Meredith was overstepping her bounds, and was heading to the Grand Cleric to resolve the issue. As for rebelling against the Knight-Commander, are you talking about Ser Thrask gathering templars and mages to remove a dictator from power, who are working side by side under the leadership of a templar no less?

Are you asking becasue you are in doubt? Then let me make it perfectly clear for you. Yes. That one exactly.