209 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

I'm going to go ahead and point out how utterly ridiculous it is for a person to say "I'm going to throw away my principles the first chance I get!" or somesuch nonsense.

Either principles have value, or they don't. Simple, yes?

If they do have value, then the idea of throwing them away at the first sign of trouble is ridiculous.

And if they don't have value, the idea of having or pretending to have them in the first place is ridiculous.

If someone were to tell me they have no principles, I certainly wouldn't condone it, but I could at least respect it. Respect the honesty and the person for knowing what they want.

But this? This gleeful and prideful eagerness to see who can throw principles away the quickest as some sort of absurd show of supposed rationality is, really, quite pathetic. The hypocrisy? The laziness and foolishness in not bothering to mentally translate and address such a simple and obvious contradiction? A complete spit in the face to actual rationality.

A word of advice. If for some reason you belive principles are stupid and have no use for them, fine. You're not obligated to have them. But do not attempt to put up a nonsensical and absurd facade of principles so you can clumsily demonstate how gleefully you throw them away. It's pathetically weak, it's obvious, and it's repulsive.

Modifié par David7204, 21 décembre 2013 - 01:30 .

[Jigglypuff]

easy going and just having fun before it all goes down.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

First playthrough: Paladin of Justice (for humans) and Honor (the dishonorable will be punished in horrible ways)
The next playthrough might be a moderate Elf Mage, kickass pragmatic Qunari or an elitist Dwarf noble. Rogues are too abhorrent for me to be one. Blood mages are abominations.

[Medhia Nox]

@David7204: I doubt anyone throws away their principles really.

Those who say they are willing to - have simply convinced themselves that their principles are: "rational, pragmatic, etc. etc."

For example: A patriot willing to only work for the betterment of her country - is still possibly a fanatic for an invented idea (a nation does not "exist" in any scientific way).

Just because they aren't willing to pursue more traditional goals - like "compassion" or "honor" does not mean they don't have principles that they will gladly follow - even to their detriment.

Family is another invention (while genetic groups exist biologically - "family" has a vast array of permutations and again - does not "exist" on a scientific level and is purely a social convention) that even pragmatists claim they will put themselves at a disadvantage for.

So - take it with a grain of salt when someone says they're willing to be pragmatic, throw away morals, etc. etc.

What they really mean is - they're selfish. Which is, ultimately, the principle of fear.

So, when they're being selfish, they are - in fact - maintaining their principles.

This is most evident in how ardently they defend their pragmatism.

[David7204]

Yes, I'm well aware. All the more reason why it's very silly for them to proclaim how eagerly they throw them away as if it's something to be proud of.

[Medhia Nox]

@David7204: It's not silly at all though. They're not throwing theirs away - they're willing to throw yours away.

It's just different belief systems calling each other names.

[David7204]

No. They're not. If they wanted to say they have different principles, they would have just said they have different principles. They didn't, and they don't.

Modifié par David7204, 21 décembre 2013 - 01:35 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...
Either principles have value, or they don't. Simple, yes?

You're wrong. Principles could have value in relation to each other, or only have value in relation to certain facts. So "never let an innocent die" can become a wothless principle if "innocents dying" will happen. In that case, the principle, by its own definition, can't even apply (or, another way, applying it is impossible). 

[Sully13]

Female city elf rogue and probably be verry sarkey.

[David7204]

Ridiculous. The fact that innocents will die in fiction and in the real world is an utter certainty. Is the principle of 'protect the innocent' rendered 'worthless' because of that? Rendered 'worthless' because it can't apply to every person on Earth?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Ridiculous. The fact that innocents will die in fiction and in the real world is an utter certainty. Is the principle of 'protect the innocent' rendered 'worthless' because of that? Rendered 'worthless' because it can't apply to every person on Earth?

If it gets in the way of 'win the battle' or 'defeat your enemy', then yes, it is rendered worthless.

I see that you're getting upset over other people's philosophies again. I'd ask who you were to judge them, but I figure it's best if you just realize people don't share your values and ideas and move on. You're angry because people who are supposed to be heroic in their games aren't being heroic.

Take a look at works by John Stuart Mill or Machiavelli. Nietzche works too.

[Medhia Nox]

@In Exile: I disagree.

Having the principle: Never let an innocent die - remains in tact, if that remains your goal.

That "Innocents will die regardless." does not invalidate the principle.

It may make it difficult to pursue, and to those who do not wish to pursue it, it may seem futile and therefore beneath their time, but still - an opinion does not invalidate a principle.

When a person has a strong, almost absolute principle - we often call it an ideal. Ideals are almost universally unachievable.

Yet it is the very pursuit of them - that, in our example, might lead to the saving of more innocents than it would if the person simply said: "People die, get over it."

Difficulty is not an excuse for apathy.

=========

@MassivelyEffective:  Please don't judge him, you resorted to your own level of namecalling last night.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 02:04 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...

Ridiculous. The fact that innocents will die in fiction and in the real world is an utter certainty.

That's just absolutely false. Look at Superman - even in the New 52 DC Incarnation. He often saves innocents - all innoicents - when he's on the scene. The value, and code, is absolutely achievable. 

It all depends on the situation. Even IRL, we have circumstances were our law enforcement, in e.g. hostgage situations, can save every innocent person in play. The only thing that's riduclous is the categorical nature of your statement.

Is the principle of 'protect the innocent' rendered 'worthless' because of that? Rendered 'worthless' because it can't apply to every person on Earth?

What is this nonsense? Re-read my post, and explain how "protect the innocent" is at all similar to "never let the innocent die" and how "a principle could be worthless if it is impossible to apply" is the same as "a principle that can be applied in some cases is worthless in all". 

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...
Having the principle: Never let an innocent die - remains in tact, if that remains your goal.

When it's an impossible to achieve goal, it can't actually define your actions. 

That "Innocents will die regardless." does not invalidate the principle.

That innocents will die means it's impossible to use the principle to reach conclusions. Let's say you have a situation like in Alpha Protocol: you have to choose between a single innocent person dying, or a lot of innocent people dying. 

There are, obviously, moral principles that justify what to do in that case. But the moral principle, never allow an inncoent person to die, can't apply. It would be violated in either case. It's categorical. 

What people would apply is something different - maybe "save as many innocent people as you can". That's a different moral principle. Maybe the one person has some knowledge that could save even more inncent lives in the future. Then the same principle applies differently because of the facts. 

It may make it difficult to pursue, and to those who do not wish to pursue it, it may seem futile and therefore beneath their time, but still - an opinion does not invalidate a principle.

When a person has a strong, almost absolute principle - we often call it an ideal. Ideals are almost universally unachievable.

Yet it is the very pursuit of them - that, in our example, might lead to the saving of more innocents that it would if the person simply said: "People die, get over it."

Difficulty is not an excuse for apathy.

I don't think we've on the same page. I'm talking about principles as actual instruments to reason, not as "guiding values", becuase when people say they use a principle as a guiding value they sometimes mean they're using a very different principle all toghether. 

[David7204]

What garbled nonsense is this?

'principles as actual instruments to reason, not as "guiding values"'

Does this have any actual meaning? What do you think 'guiding values' are? Instruments of reason.

[Medhia Nox]

@In Exile: Yes, but if "protecting every innocent" is a principle - then is it not a means by which I reason?

It will guide me to protect not only the "valuable" innocents - but also the "invaluable" ones (as if any single, or group of men, could determine actual value of anything).

@David:  You're being rather hostile - which is counterproductive to any real discussion.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 02:16 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...

What garbled nonsense is this?  

The kind where you ignore the response I made to you, apparently, and selectively quote a few words out of context froom the response I made to someone else. You don't seem interested in a coversation, but in sniping.

'principles as actual instruments to reason, not as "guiding values"'

Does this have any actual meaning? What do you think 'guiding values' are? Instruments of reason.

If only I had a "because" in there explaining my use of the phrase, something like, I don't know, " becuase when people say they use a principle as a guiding value they sometimes mean they're using a very different principle all toghether. "

Put  another way, a principle is a logical rule that implies certain conclusions because of the way is stated, but when people say they use it as as guiding value, they don't actually mean they use it as a logical rule and then absolutely follow whatever it spits out. Instead, they use it as a kind of heuristic and stand in for multiple principles. 

Using "never let an innocent person die", what people really do is what you did, which is translate something like you said, which is "protect the innocent", which actually implies a number of situationally specific sub-principles like "never let an innocent person die if it is possible to save them", "if people will die, save the greatest number", etc. 

All of this is to say what I said originally, which is that the "value" of principles is determined (a) relative to each other and ( relative to the situation they're being applied to (or in). You are wrong that someone has to fanatically adhere to one rule in all cases for it to have value. 

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@In Exile: Yes, but if "protecting every innocent" is a principle - then is it not a means by which I reason?

Yes, but protect the innocent is not the same as "never let an innocent die" which is my point. It's possible to apply it in all cases. Protecting the innocent doesn't even require that innocents live, or that there are innocents around. 

It will guide me to protect not only the "valuable" innocents - but also the "invaluable" ones (as if any single, or group of men, could determine actual value of anything).

It guides because it implies a large number of sub-rules that are situationally appropriate. I don't disagree with you here, I'm just saying it's different than a case where a principle can't apply in either case because either case violates it, meaning you need a new principle.

In that case the principle doesn't have "value" in the sense that it can't spit out the moral outcome in that one case, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate the cases where it can spit out a moral outcome.  

[David7204]

And you're wrong in assuming I ever said or even implied such a thing. Perhaps you should go back and read my post.

Modifié par David7204, 21 décembre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Medhia Nox]

@In Exile: I see - I would argue that not even the sub-categories can spit out a moral outcome in "most" situations. Most likely outcome - sure.

I think, ultimately - you could have as many sub-categories as you have situations (since each is different) and - inherently we do. However - I think a "blanket" principle is better suited for myself - with an understanding that that principle is modified by each separate situation.

We're not disagreeing - you simply prefer more sub-categories from what I can tell.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 02:26 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...

And you're wrong in assuming I ever said or even implied such a thing. Perhaps you should go back and read my post.

What thing? I said you assumed said lots of things. Which thing in particular is it? 

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@In Exile: I see - I would argue that not even the sub-categories can spit out a moral outcome in "most" situations. Most likely outcome - sure.

They don't spit out the outcome. They spit out their outcome, unless there is an internal contradiction in which case the rule does have a serious problem. 

I think, ultimately - you could have as many sub-categories as you have situations (since each is different) and - inherently we do. However - I think a "blanket" principle is better suited for myself - with an understanding that that principle is modified by each separate situation.  

I don't think there's anything wrong with a 'blanket' principle. I just think that for it to be a blanket princile, it has to be at a high level of generality or it can't apply. 

Basically, my point is that once you look to considerations external to a principle you're not using that principle anymore. If you want to have a principled approach to morality you need to find a kind of meta-principle you can appeal to. 

We're not disagreeing - you simply prefer more sub-categories from what I can tell.

Something like that. Really, I only got involved in the discussion because I disagreed with David's initial claim that moral principles are either valuable or not, categorically. 

[David7204]

That one individual principle requires 'fanatical adherence' for it to have value. That's nonsense.

Reality requires us to put principles of greater value ahead of principles of lesser value. For example, bringing a murderer to justice will likely make the life of his innocent child worse. However, the notion that in this instance, the harm to an innocent is of lesser importance to justice means that the harm to an innocent has no value or importance is absurd. The notion that I have to somehow abandon that principle or devalue it to bring that murderer to justice is absurd.

Modifié par David7204, 21 décembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

People will roleplay what they damned well please. Back on topic David.

[lady_v23]

Renegade/evil of course.