31 réponses à ce sujet

[Big I]

Considering the good that mages could do in society templars massively fail to serve the greater good by oppressing mages. In a society where most medical professionals still use leeches they keep people who can heal disease and injury instantaneously locked away from the general public. Communication between cities and nations still crawls along by horse or ship, while the Circles are allowed to use the magic equivalent of telephones only to talk to each other. Best people for exorcisms? Mages.


Leaving aside how mages are treated in the Circle, mages are able to perform a wide variety of very beneficial services for the public but can't because of their enforced isolation. It's just stupid.

[Always Alice]

Leaving aside how mages are treated in the Circle, mages are able to perform a wide variety of very beneficial services for the public but can't because of their enforced isolation. It's just stupid.

I too believe that mages could do A LOT more good if they are exposed to society rather than being locked up (magic is meant to serve man, after all), but at the same time, there needs to be some kind of watchmen to make sure the peace is kept, and templars are the only ones with the abilities necessary to do this job.

Modifié par Always Alice, 25 mars 2012 - 02:51 .

[Always Alice]

Plaintiff wrote...

They also pay almost no attention to any community problems that are not mage-related.

Are you talking about Kirkwall templars specifically, or templars in general? Because we obviously see them helping out in Lothering.

All things being equal, Thedas would literally be better off without it.

I believe a reformation is necessary, but the complete abolishment of a religious institution? No way. Religion plays a HUGE part in people's lives, particularly in medival societies such as Thedas. Not only does it give hope, fulfillment, etc., but they clearly help people and offer them refuge (the orphans, Leliana, the dwarf with the casteless child, etc.). The main problem, imo, is the interpretation of certain parts of the Chant. The new Divine seems to understand this, so reformation does not seem to be outside the realm of possibility.

[jb1983]

Lynata wrote...

jb1983 wrote...
I would argue that it's not utilitarian because it's not about the "greater good." It's simply about having a stable society, and the rule for a stable society where freedom exists to exist requires that mages not have any power.

Hm, I would have thought that a stable society is the greater good. Still, I see where you're coming from - it basically seems to be that the Chantry not using mages for everything they could supply bars them from qualifying for the utilitarian approach, right?

Whilst I do find discussions such as these fascinating and like to read or talk about such topics, I haven't studied philosophy myself, so my understanding of the various terms is limited to a very basic level and I actually had to look up deontology on wikipedia. Still hope I can add something of value to the discussion.

Either way, it seems to be that the current perspective on mages has evolved over time; it is now a largely a deontological approach that has its roots in a consequential perspective of the survivors of the First Blight - and from time to time you have individuals within the Chantry hierarchy trying to modify its approach to the issue, in different directions (e.g. utilitarian -> make everyone a Tranquil, libertarian -> give them more freedoms, etc).
There may be a lot of overlap depending on what we're looking at in particular.

Everyone is a philosopher, they just don't realize it. So of course you can contribute. 

I like your last paragraph because this would summarize the evolution of the morality. At first, it was consequentialist, then turned to deontological over time. 

While a stable society is part of the greater good, this can also be called the "common good," which comes from a virtue ethic. Thus, a stable society or the desire of a stable society isn't indicative of any particular ethical theory (truth be told, almost all ethical theories will say they offer a stable society...except Nietzsche, but that's because he's crazy). 

I would still stand by deontology to some degree just because there are so many rules for how the Templars are to handle the mages, and all of it is entirely dependent upon the "righteousness" of the mage; if he passes the harrowing, he has deemed himself holy before the Maker and can therefore live as a mage. It's not really Utilitarian, but more rules based, or more of a Divine Command Theory. 

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

jb1983 wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

You say it yourself in what you write above: Anders is egocentric and Justice (which only goal is to do what's right) strengthens him in the feeling he has towards mages.

So then Anders is a tragic version of the Übermensch. 

I would only add that I said Anders would be an egoist, not necessarily egocentric. The two are not necessarily the same.

The reason why I used egocentric is that some one who is egocentric can only think and talk from his point of view and isn't able to put himself in some one elses shoes. I think that fits Anders perfectly. He doesn't start out that way but in the course of the story you can see him change.
Hopes what I wrote made some sense.

It makes sense. I guess when I view egoism, the person who buys into egoism will only walk in someone else's shoes to see how to convince the person to leave those shoes and to walk in the shoes the egoist has made. Someone who is egocentric won't even consider other points of view, even as a point of strategy, simply because psychologically he's focused too much on himself. 

So we are left with what would be an interesting exploration; is Anders buying into egoism (Nietzsche), but simply loses it, or is he buying into Virtue Theory (Aristotle/Aquinas), but due to a character flaw (egocentric) he ignores how to properly apply this ethic? 

[jb1983]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

So we are left with what would be an interesting exploration; is Anders buying into egoism (Nietzsche), but simply loses it, or is he buying into Virtue Theory (Aristotle/Aquinas), but due to a character flaw (egocentric) he ignores how to properly apply this ethic?


Thought about that. I'll try to motivate with my limited english vocabulary.
I stay with egocentric because Anders and Justice are one person. In the time span the game takes place you can see that Anders gets more and more secluded and fanatic. This is Justice because Justice isn't capable of emotion. The two are so intertwined in the end with Justice being the dominant personality that leads Anders to his deed. You could say that it was in fact Justice who made the descision for Anders. If you try to talk Anders out of what he's planning Anders wants to even stop it but Justice doesn't let him (egocentric).

Is that kinda what you mean?

If the two are essentially the same person, then one could argue that Justice is the virtue theory that I see while Anders is the egoist (or egocentric), so that when the two are mixed together we get vengence.