188 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

You're exactly right Marlina. Evolution and morals are closely linked. Of course, memetic evolution also plays a large role.

[vallix]

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

'Cuz it's fun

[LucidStrike]

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

Moral nihilism is a skeptical philosophy, and, as a hardcore skeptic, I know the tricks. At the nihilist level, it tends to be the Münchhausen-Trilemma.

Wiki
Simply put, the trilemma is a breakdown of all possible proofs for a theory into three general types:

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and
because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted
values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma,
then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

The moral nihilist position is basically that all moral arguments are without merit because they fail to evade this trilemma.

[Chained_Creator]

vallix wrote...

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

'Cuz it's fun

Rape justified in less than five words. I applaud you, vallix.

[DeathCultArm]

You can't prove that rape is "bad". Since being justified itself is subjective, then yes rape could be justified, in the same way of eating a big mac could.

[Marlina]

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

I can justify rape, I just have to use a different moral system. Put myself in their shoes, so to speak :happy:

Ok, now imagine that I'm a MIGHTY WARLORD MAN that feels that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Alright? Now, I just feel that since I'm pretty strong and I feel like it, I can rape this poor woman, since she's weak. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ARRRRRGH!
See? Opinions!  You can disagree with the mighty warlord man, but he's has still justified himself according to HIS moral compass.

[Collider]

LucidStrike wrote...

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I'm not pretending that arguments professing things to be morally right or wrong can objective logical or sound. But I do hold that some arguments about moral can be beneficial in the sense that it can be intellectual simulating, along with some other subjectivity.

[adam_grif]

LucidStrike wrote...

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

Moral nihilism is a skeptical philosophy, and, as a hardcore skeptic, I know the tricks. At the nihilist level, it tends to be the Münchhausen-Trilemma.

Wiki
Simply put, the trilemma is a breakdown of all possible proofs for a theory into three general types:

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and
because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted
values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma,
then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

The moral nihilist position is basically that all moral arguments are without merit because they fail to evade this trilemma.

I spent the entirety of my senior high Religion+Philosophy course arguing with people about this. I'd come out with all of these well thought out arguments, and all they'd say is "BUT THAT MEANS YOU THINK PEDOPHILIA ISN'T WRONG!" as though it being objectively morally wrong was a universal truth, instead of just a widely accepted opinion. I'd explain that I agreed that it was wrong, in my opinion, but that such things didn't make objective truths, and that morality could never move beyond the realm of opinion.

Sigh.

[Collider]

Marlina wrote...See? Opinions!  You can disagree with the mighty warlord man, but he's has still justified himself according to HIS moral compass.

Yea. I was more going on the lines of seeing if anyone could make a better justification than just that =p Something that might make me go "hmm."

[Arrtis]

might does make right with enough might.

Easy control over people is to make them fear or entice their greed.Everything we do revolves around punishment and reward.thats what i believe.

[LucidStrike]

Collider wrote...

You're exactly right Marlina. Evolution and morals are closely linked. Of course, memetic evolution also plays a large role.

Exactly. There can be objective reasons for moral principles. I believe that moral principles are those principles that are necessary for the persistence of life in a social context. It may be axiomatic and based on a value of life that does not inherently exist, but the decisions folliowng from it are based on objective observations.

Comparing moral principles to color preferences oversimplifies.

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:06 .

[KainrycKarr]

I am a gray sort of Spectre.



I always save the council,



1. because Sovereign is defeated regardless.

2. the renegade ending is justified by saying "the aliens will see how strong and tough we are"

well...with the paragon ending you get your cake and eat it too. Humanity is seen as strong and saving the galaxy WITHOUT gaining the fear of other races by purposefully alienating everyone else from the council. Humanity gets a seat, respect, and shows that they can kick ass.



I kill Balak. Why? True, there's no guarantee he'll cause more trouble. But he already nearly wiped out a good portion of a planet's population. Unless you have a way to follow and monitor his behavior, there is no real justification for letting him go to save 5-6 people.



and yes...a Shepard that runs around being a dick SHOULD be punished. In the same way a paragon should be punished for being a goody two-shows when dealing with murderers and psychos.



Ideally, you want shepard to show strength and ruthlessness...when dealing with other strong and ruthless individuals. Like, say, Balak. Or the various crime bosses you deal with. They won't respect your authority if you just tell them to play nice. That's an "intimidate" situation. They use intimidation and are familiar with fear. Show them the same and they will understand. Think Batman.



And then you want Shepard to show he can be level-headed and diplomatic, like with Darius.



Yes, he's a warlord. Yes, he is, in general, a bad person. But if you just give a man like the finger, and either kill him, or he escapes, you can start a war. Hell, if you kill him, he can be a martyr, and show the Alliance's other various "allies" that you will turn your back on them, and they will royally screw you. So, you use tact, and diplomacy to keep him under control. Think North Korea. Yes, we could go in, take kim Jong ill out, and put democracy in place, but you KNOW he has nukes, and you KNOW people, lots of people, will die. So you use diplomacy to contain your enemy.



I always play Mass Effect situation by situation, because just like in real life, sometimes you need to be tough, sometimes you need to be smart.



This is why I always HATED the rachni queen decision.



No single sapient being has the right to commit genocide like that. But then again, the race in question has a history of being...well, an epidemic. Kind of like the xenomorphs in "aliens".



I would have so much more preferred the option to keep the queen contained, and transfer her to Citadel control and let it be put to the council.



so, while both renegade and paragons should be punished for some decisions, it needs to be done right, just like they need to be rewarded for others. so again, i think it should come done to knowing what situation to negotiate, and what situation to terminate. Tl:Dr



You should be punished for terminating when you should have negotiated..

You should be punished for negotiating when you should have terminated.

You should be rewarded for terminating when the situation calls for it.

You should be rewarded for negotiating when the situation calls for it.



And yes, i ramble a lot.

[DeathCultArm]

Marlina wrote...

Collider wrote...

I'd like to see someone justify rape. That would be something to see, indeed. Without using implausible and extraordinary situations.
@deathcult: This debate was never objective in the first place. This is dealing with semantics, what entails as renegade and paragon.

I can justify rape, I just have to use a different moral system. Put myself in their shoes, so to speak :happy:

Ok, now imagine that I'm a MIGHTY WARLORD MAN that feels that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Alright? Now, I just feel that since I'm pretty strong and I feel like it, I can rape this poor woman, since she's weak. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ARRRRRGH!
See? Opinions!  You can disagree with the mighty warlord man, but he's has still justified himself according to HIS moral compass.

Even opinions aside their are compariosn rape could be linked, neutrally. What's the difference between a sexually depraved man raping a hooker, and a starved man steling someones meal.

Or for that matter what's the differnce between a some random man raping a women, and an obese women ordering more food than see needs. Both have potential "victims". The man is unwilling having sex with her body, and the obese women is hurting her body(voluntarily or not).

Why was the man wrong? Was the women innoncent? From what? It's it his fault she couldn't stop him? Just because she doesn't want it mean he should be depraved of sex...? Why b/c she said so?

[Marlina]

I'm a determinist too, so yeah. A nihilistic determinist? Oh dear... D:

[Chained_Creator]

LucidStrike wrote...

Collider wrote...

You're exactly right Marlina. Evolution and morals are closely linked. Of course, memetic evolution also plays a large role.

Exactly. There can be objective reasons for moral principles. I believe that moral principles are those principles that are necessary for the persistence of life in a social context. It may be axiomatic and based on a value of life that does not inherently exist, but the decisions folliowng from it are based on objective observations.

Comparing moral principles to color preferences oversimplifies.

"If you are on Earth, and you jump, no matter how much you believe that the theory of gravity has no value, you are not going to float away simply because you think it has no value."

Something along those lines?

Modifié par Chained_Creator, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:10 .

[Arrtis]

well i find that destroying everything solves all problems because there isnt anyone around to create any....

[adam_grif]

LucidStrike wrote...
There can be objective reasons for moral principles. I believe that moral principles are those principles that are necessary for the persistence of life in a social context. It may be axiomatic and based on a value of life that does not inherently exist, but the decisions folliowng from it are based on objective observations.

Comparing moral principles to color preferences oversimplifies.

No, there can't. You just admit two sentances down that it's not actually objective. Your argument is "It's not actually objective, but it is". Which doesn't make sense.

[Marlina]

@KainrycKarr

About the council: pfftt, benefit of hindsight!

[Collider]

DeathCultArm wrote...

The man is forcing another person to have sex, thus depriving them of their benign desire not to have sex with the man.

The obese woman is not doing anything except over eating. It's not the same.

Modifié par Collider, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:12 .

[KainrycKarr]

DethcultArm wrote:


Or for that matter what's the differnce between a some random man raping a women, and an obese women ordering more food than see needs. Both have potential "victims". The man is unwilling having sex with her body, and the obese women is hurting her body(voluntarily or not).



You dont seriously believe that do you?

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:14 .

[ShadowAldrius]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Even opinions aside their are compariosn rape could be linked, neutrally. What's the difference between a sexually depraved man raping a hooker, and a starved man steling someones meal.

A man needs nourishment. He doesn't need sex.

Or for that matter what's the differnce between a some random man raping a women, and an obese women ordering more food than see needs. Both have potential "victims". The man is unwilling having sex with her body, and the obese women is hurting her body(voluntarily or not).

Most people eat more food than they need. The amount of harm one does to one's self through overeating doesn't really compare to the shattering emotional damage one does to somebody else through rape.

Why was the man wrong? Was the women innoncent? From what? It's it his fault she couldn't stop him?

What...? No. It's his fault he's so much of a selfish jerk that he can't take responsibility for himself and pursue sexual relations in a responsible way.

Just because she doesn't want it mean he should be depraved of sex...? Why b/c she said so?

No. He should be deprived of sex because he refuses to be patient or responsible, or intelligent, or a number of other important reasons.

Anyway, the connection this discussion has to Mass Effect has become increasingly dubious. Might I suggest we... steer it back in that direction?

What possible reprucussions could you guys see for saving the Rachni Queen? Or for sparing the colony on Feros?

Modifié par ShadowAldrius, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:16 .

[Arrtis]

from a very high view on everything...I would just go with your all unlucky to live in such a world where you are left in the dark about universal truths that only i know.

now everyone needs to think that way and and stop caring whether or not the other understands then were all good.

[LucidStrike]

Marlina wrote...
I can justify rape, I just have to use a different moral system. Put myself in their shoes, so to speak :happy:

Ok, now imagine that I'm a MIGHTY WARLORD MAN that feels that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Alright? Now, I just feel that since I'm pretty strong and I feel like it, I can rape this poor woman, since she's weak. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ARRRRRGH!
See? Opinions!  You can disagree with the mighty warlord man, but he's has still justified himself according to HIS moral compass.

...Moral nihilists often contradict themselves. What you just argued isn't moral nihilism but moral relativism. Your original position was that no moral argument can be objectively justified.

I like this quote:

Louis Lingg, an anarchist of the Haymarket Massacre (court statement)

The rest of the accused have told you that they do not believe in
force. I may tell you that they have no buiness in this dock with me.
They are innocent, everyone of them; I do not pretend to be. I believe
in force just as you do. That is my justification. Force is the supreme
arbiter in human affairs. You have clubbed unarmed strikers, shot them
down in your streets, shot down thier women and thier children. So long
as you do that, we who are Anarchists will use explosives against you. Don't comfort yourselves with the idea that we have lived and died
in vain. The Haymarket bomb has stopped the bludgenings and shootings
of your police for at least a generation. And that bomb is only the
first, not the last...
I despise you! I despise your society and its methods! Your courts
and your laws, your force-propped authority... Hang me for it!

[KainrycKarr]

Aldrius:



I would like to see that saving the queen in and of itself be the right thing to do. But it would interesting if, say, the queen ended up unable to control some of her offspring and the rachni slowly start to go down the "expansionist" trend, and you are forced to "fix it".



or something like that. For the rachni queen, I didn't think either solution was entirely the right thing, and i think the consequences should reflect that for both paragon/renegade.

[Marlina]

Hmm, Collider, how about this:

Rape is justified (as much as anything is justified) because the rapist was only following his set path, as determined by the rest of the world. If you remove free will from the equation, you can't really blame anyone for anything. I guess you could blame the big bang or something. Determinism, **** yeah!