HiroVoid wrote...
Saying there can be no alliance will be considered spam.
I agree with the sentiment, but that's easier said than done. What people here are doing is defining "alliance" in a way that's not acceptable for the opponent, and forcing them to be the first one to say this is impossible.
Firstly, if people think that to be deprived of all ability to say no can still amount to a "compromise," then we're just not on the same page. There may be compromise in Thedas, but there is no compromise on BSN if that keeps up.
Second, we have to do away with this false dichotomy between "work" and "no work" that comes from this infantile caricature of welfare politics in real life. Not permitting/allowing/encouraging mages to do community service is a one-side formula to breeding sloth and contempt. Not only that, not creating a venue for mages to perform labour is actually more inhumane, not less. If you let them sleep all day, [1] it causes mages to feel they don't matter, [2] it causes ordinary people to feel that mages contribute nothing. What follows from [1] is that when pushed by nihilism and pulled by leisure, mages will revolt even if it gets them all killed - at least they will matter for a second or two. What follows from [2] is that it negates affective attachment on both sides. All in all it results in a mainstream that is happy to see mages die, and a mage culture that has no interest in living. When using "no work" as an excusing carrot for the sticks of meaningless deprivation, both the words "alliance" and "compromise" become emptied of meaning.
Thirdly then, a better model for the Circle is to actually encourage mages to orient their activities to creating enchanted artifacts that benefit everyday life. The templars can sell most of what the mages make to fund their order as well as to provide lodging for the mages, and the mages can keep a portion of these everyday artifacts for their own use. This process will go a long way towards reconciling incommensurable differences between the two parties with regards to what ordinary life is and should be.
Fourth, letting mages see their families is not a necessary carrot, especially if they have not seen their families ever to begin with. What is more important is that templars and mages come to see that living with each other is not just "duty" or "imposition" but a form of everyday life. It is of paramount importance that these people, who must live together, do not constantly hold opposite stakes. This will involve reciprocity, and not some kind of finger-wagging paternalistic attitude dispensed unilaterally from one to the other. Carrots and sticks should not be dichotomized along the lines of "being away from templars" and "having templars nearby". This reward structure still ends up maintaining "no templars at all" as a final telos, all the while placing it out of reach. This is pathological. It is best in fact that peaceful acts are taught to be ends in themselves. Easier said than done, to be sure, but if you are serious about avoiding violence then I don't see how you can skirt around this.
Fifth, we need to do away with a linear conception of rights, as though it is something that can be adjusted on a one-dimensional slider. Whether it is in the encounter with Qunari in Thedas, or in encounters with other modernities outside the west in real life, there are radical differences in the understanding of freedom and choice. Yet we see that substantive notions of dignity remains articulate (although ironically Hawke & gang often fail to realize this) even as the procedural conceptions of rights become disturbed. A cognitive understanding of rights has to be epistemically founded upon an understanding of
some form of dignity. And if this is so then we have to ask, what do rights/dignity even mean for the parties involved? (Consider Sarabaas!)
PS: the prevaling sense of ethics on these boards is heavily utilitiarian, and this makes it impossible to voice concerns such as the problem of using people as means instead of ends. I am not telling the utilitarians to change their philosphy - I am simply pointing out that there are other legitimate/commonly accepted moral paradigms out there. Doesn't make for much of a reasonable discussion when one side infinitely repeats from a well-known repertoire of utilitarian tropes while the other side is stuck at every turn trying to reinvent the wheel.
Modifié par alexbing88, 23 décembre 2013 - 08:11 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
