472 réponses à ce sujet

[adneate]

IanPolaris wrote...
Natural Rights are not subject to Moral Relavism.

Whenever someone brings up the subject of absolute natural rights it's always good to ask, where do these rights come from? Who granted them and who enforces them? Generally that role is given to an all powerful all knowing God thus requiring a theological basis to them, so in order for one to believe that all people have absolute natural rights granted to them by God and enforced by God's divine punishment. The concept being that all people are icons of our Lord God and should be protected lest we suffer the consequences in the afterlife.

Other wise it's merely a human construct that a group of people just created one day and proclaim it as true and enforced or not enforced by secular powers as they see fit. Making it very much subject to moral relavism.

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

Templars are uniformed soldiers.  That's all the difference.

-Polaris

And Grand Clerics?  Revered Mothers?  Devout believers?  What are they?

Cannon fodder?

[GodWood]

IanPolaris wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

Templars are uniformed soldiers.

So?

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

Every single templar who attacks me or others and doesn't surrender. My standards for templars aren't any different from any other aggressor.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  That would only apply if you were talking all Andrastians for death (or confinement).

Why only then? 

However, if you are only targeting soldiers, then it's not genocide.

Yes it is, because it is targeting for death a specific group for what they have chosen to believe.

Likewise if you are only targeting priests, it doesn't apply.  That's because you can CHOOSE to be a soldier or a priest.  It might be otherwise murder and/or immoral but not genocide.

You can also choose to be Andrastian, but you said that was genocide earlier. Choice has nothing to do with it. The term genocide seems to cover groups whether the people in those groups chose to be in them or not.

Please.  You are being intellecually dishonest IMO.  Everyone knows what genocide means these days.  Targeting people for what they are rather than what they have done is the basic working requirement and you know it as well as I do.  You are just trying to 'lawyer' your way out of it...and it's a charge that even the UN says you should not be able to lawyer out of.

And IMO, you are doing the same thing by trying to 'lawyer' your way out of the term protecting the Chantry/Templars.

[Xilizhra]

Yes it is, because it is targeting for death a specific group for what they have chosen to believe.

It's more what they've chosen to do, i.e. hunt the mages.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Natural Rights are not subject to Moral Relavism.  In this case those other people are wrong...and it's still genocide.

The only reason they might not be is if they were literally alien (and I don't mean humans in funny suits aliens either).

-Polaris 

So if all human beings are smart and logical and moral, they should all come to exactly the same conclusions?

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Every single templar who attacks me or others and doesn't surrender. My standards for templars aren't any different from any other aggressor.

You're breaking the law and putting others in danger 
You must be apprehended.

Modifié par GodWood, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:20 .

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Every single templar who attacks me or others and doesn't surrender. My standards for templars aren't any different from any other aggressor.

You're breaking the law and putting others in danger
It's fully within their right to apprehend you.

It's also fully within their rights to die. I expect they'll be exercising that one rather more.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

Every single templar who attacks me or others and doesn't surrender. My standards for templars aren't any different from any other aggressor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you also said that the Templar Order and the Chantry must me dissolved, even if by force?

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
It's also fully within their rights to die. I expect they'll be exercising that one rather more.

How selfish

[LobselVith8]

Godwood wrote...

You're breaking the law and putting others in danger.

If Hawke has the choice between siding with a genocidal lunatic who wants to murder an entire population of people for an act that only one apostate is responsible for, or protecting hundreds of men, women, and children from being killed, then I think it's a law worth breaking.

Godwood wrote...

It's fully within their right to apprehend you.

That would apply for templars like Ser Kerras and Ser Alrik, who apparently raped mages given their dialogue.

[Xilizhra]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you also said that the Templar Order and the Chantry must me dissolved, even if by force?

The Chantry just needs to lose its control over the mages, which is inherently aggressive. Unfortunately the Templar Order is the means of that control; theoretically, it could reform, but I doubt it.

How selfish

If the garden of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants, you'll find me a willing gardener.

[IanPolaris]

adneate wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Natural Rights are not subject to Moral Relavism.

Whenever someone brings up the subject of absolute natural rights it's always good to ask, where do these rights come from? Who granted them and who enforces them? Generally that role is given to an all powerful all knowing God thus requiring a theological basis to them, so in order for one to believe that all people have absolute natural rights granted to them by God and enforced by God's divine punishment. The concept being that all people are icons of our Lord God and should be protected lest we suffer the consequences in the afterlife.

Other wise it's merely a human construct that a group of people just created one day and proclaim it as true and enforced or not enforced by secular powers as they see fit. Making it very much subject to moral relavism.

I disagree.  Natural Rights are inherent to being a human being.  Whether or not a "god" exists has no bearing as to whether or not you have the right to defend yourself which is the most fundamental of all the natural rights.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes it is, because it is targeting for death a specific group for what they have chosen to believe.

It's more what they've chosen to do, i.e. hunt the mages.

Fair enough. In that case the Templars are immediate aggressors, and it is widely self- or other- defense. That still doesn't explain why killing Chantry clergy isn't genocide.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

And Grand Clerics?  Revered Mothers?  Devout believers?  What are they?

Cannon fodder?

Again, murder is murder but to have that be risen to the level of genocide, it has to be a systematic attempt to confine/eliminate a certain group for merely existing.  A pogram to eliminate all Andrastians (or all followers of the Qun) is genocide (and the Chantry is guilty of this many times over).  Killing a church full of people is a reprehensible Act of Terror but not in of itself geneocide unless the purpose was part of a systematic  attempt to kill/convert all Andrastians and it clearly wasn't.

The Right of Annulment on the other hand IS very clearly an attempt to kill all mages simply for being mages.  That makes it genocide.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes it is, because it is targeting for death a specific group for what they have chosen to believe.

It's more what they've chosen to do, i.e. hunt the mages.

Fair enough. In that case the Templars are immediate aggressors, and it is widely self- or other- defense. That still doesn't explain why killing Chantry clergy isn't genocide.

How fortunate that I'm not doing that.

[GodWood]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If Hawke has the choice between siding with a genocidal lunatic who wants to murder an entire population of people for an act that only one apostate is responsible for, or protecting hundreds of men, women, and children from being killed, then I think it's a law worth breaking.

We weren't talking about the final mage/templar choice.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes it is, because it is targeting for death a specific group for what they have chosen to believe.

It's more what they've chosen to do, i.e. hunt the mages.

Fair enough. In that case the Templars are immediate aggressors, and it is widely self- or other- defense. That still doesn't explain why killing Chantry clergy isn't genocide.

It would be if it were part of a larger program to destroy the Andrastian religion.  On the other hand if the clergy is helping out the Templars (who you admit are the immediate aggressors) even if it's as little as enabling them, then they become "legitament" military targets, i.e. not genocide.  Why the clergy is being killed is the important determinant.

-Polaris

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  Natural Rights are inherent to being a human being.  Whether or not a "god" exists has no bearing as to whether or not you have the right to defend yourself which is the most fundamental of all the natural rights.

-Polaris

How are Natural Rights inherent if they are decided collectively?

[IanPolaris]

GodWood wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
If Hawke has the choice between siding with a genocidal lunatic who wants to murder an entire population of people for an act that only one apostate is responsible for, or protecting hundreds of men, women, and children from being killed, then I think it's a law worth breaking.

We weren't talking about the final mage/templar choice.

I am.  It's also worth noting that Meredith makes it very clear (as do her underlings) that they are itching for any reason at all to kill all mages long before Meredith goes banannas.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  Natural Rights are inherent to being a human being.  Whether or not a "god" exists has no bearing as to whether or not you have the right to defend yourself which is the most fundamental of all the natural rights.

-Polaris

How are Natural Rights inherent if they are decided collectively?

They are not decided.  They are discovered.  The most basic is the absolute right of self defense.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Natural Rights are not subject to Moral Relavism.  In this case those other people are wrong...and it's still genocide.

The only reason they might not be is if they were literally alien (and I don't mean humans in funny suits aliens either).

-Polaris 

So if all human beings are smart and logical and moral, they should all come to exactly the same conclusions?

Of course not.  Perspectives vary, but they WILL come over many iterations (read generations) to a moral concensus, a concensus that is wiser collectively than each contributing individual.

-Polaris

[adneate]

IanPolaris wrote...
I disagree.  Natural Rights are inherent to being a human being.  Whether or not a "god" exists has no bearing as to whether or not you have the right to defend yourself which is the most fundamental of all the natural rights.
-Polaris

But the defense of self without God is subject to moral relativism, what if in order to defend myself I have to completely exterminate another group? To let any of it's members live would have them nurse their children on fantasies of revenge where they would once more pick up the sword and hunt their enemies to the last man woman and child?

Additionally who would enforce these rights? What gives the enforcer binding power, if it's just another human faction that enforces them can't they be destroyed in war and thus render the violation of said rights free of consequence?

[IanPolaris]

adneate wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I disagree.  Natural Rights are inherent to being a human being.  Whether or not a "god" exists has no bearing as to whether or not you have the right to defend yourself which is the most fundamental of all the natural rights.
-Polaris

But the defense of self without God is subject to moral relativism, what if in order to defend myself I have to completely exterminate another group? To let any of it's members live would have them nurse their children on fantasies of revenge where they would once more pick up the sword and hunt their enemies to the last man woman and child?

Additionally who would enforce these rights? What gives the enforcer binding power, if it's just another human faction that enforces them can't they be destroyed in war and thus render the violation of said rights free of consequence?

That is not true.  Morals can have objective standards without relying on any supreme being.  Indeed the idea that such a supreme being grants moral status in anti-thetical and inconsistant with objective moral realism.  I didn't say that, a wise man named Socrates said that a long time ago. Read the Euthyphro.

-Polaris