228 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

Well, it's interesting. Let's take a real life example to clarify everything, because it's a bit confusing. Slavery in USA. Today, slavery is considered as something evil by most countries, by most people in the world. It's truly disgusting. It wasn't for the americans in 1850 for example. Many people had slaves.

 

 Should I think they were all disgusting people, evil men, and evil women with their children because they had slaves regardless of the context, regardless of anything ? Should I think they all deserve to die ? Should I say that it is forbidden today, so they were criminal ? Just curious.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, it's interesting. Let's take a real life example to clarify everything, because it's a bit confusing. Slavery in USA. Today, slavery is considered as something evil by most countries, by most people in the world. It's truly disgusting. It wasn't for the americans in 1850 for example. Many people had slaves.

 

 Should I think they were all disgusting people, evil men, and evil women with their children because they had slaves regardless of the context, regardless of anything ? Should I think they all deserve to die ? Should I say that it is forbidden today, so they were criminal ? Just curious.

Many people hated slavery in America ever since America was created. 

[Sylvianus]

Many people hated slavery in America ever since America was created. 

 

You're arent answering my question.  The point is that many americans had slaves and were fine with it. So what should I think about them ?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You're arent answering my question.  The point is that many americans had slaves and were fine with it. So what should I think about them ?

I was more saying you need a better example, since people of that day and age thought slavery was just as bad as we do today. 

[Sylvianus]

I was more saying you need a better example, since people of that day and age thought slavery was just as bad as we do today. 

 

There were people against it, there were people that didn't want the freedom of black people, especially those with their plantations. It's one of the reasons why the civil war happened.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There were people against it, there were people that didn't want the freedom of black people, especially those with their plantations. It's one of the reasons why the civil war happened.

But you're arguing that we shouldn't judge people using our modern viewpoints but judge them based on the viewpoints of the time. In your example, there were people who shared the same views as we do now so I don't get how it is an effective example. 

[Sylvianus]

But you're arguing that we shouldn't judge people using our modern viewpoints but judge them based on the viewpoints of the time. In your example, there were people who shared the same views as we do now so I don't get how it is an effective example. 

 

I said that you couldn't apply rules that don't exist in their time, like the rules according to the convention of Geneva, not that you couldn't judge something or someone is wrong according to your modern point of view. You should take into account the context of the time, yes, I said that though.

 

My example is still good. Slavery wasn't totally illegal in the world as it is now, officially condemned and forbidden.  and it was still allowed in the United states, as something legal. People could still be allowed to think that slavery was a good thing even if there were people screaming against it.

 

. But you won't answer me, so I give up.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Since you want these answered

 Should I think they were all disgusting people, evil men, and evil women with their children because they had slaves regardless of the context, regardless of anything ? Should I think they all deserve to die ? Should I say that it is forbidden today, so they were criminal ? Just curious.

1) Yes

2) Depends

3) No

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I said that you couldn't apply rules that don't exist in their time, like the rules according to the convention of Geneva, not that you couldn't judge something or someone is wrong according to your modern point of view. You should take into account the context of the time, yes, I said that though.

Sure I can. My characters could be the one who brings said reforms and punishes those people. And I will if the game allows it. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But we have been offtopic too long. If we need to continue, let's take it to the Gaspard thread.

[ladyofpayne]

 

 

I don't believe I've ever heard or read about medieval knights who received their knighthood for murdering some peasants. I'm pretty sure they weren't trained that way either.

Not. But you know 12 old sqiures already were killers.

[In Exile]

Of course it can be viewed as abhorent. Especially if concurrent. The problem arises when you try to apply modern standards to a historical society that clearly does not subscribe to them. Or in this case to a fictional world in which such standards clearly have never developed.

 

Claiming that a man was a bad man, because he lived by his concurrent standards, is being intellectually dishonest.

 

No. It's intellectually dishonest to say that his society viewed him as a bad man, because that would be intentionally distorting what those standards were in that society. But to say that the man was bad because his so-called concurrent standards are abhorrent and he embodied them is perfectly justified. An SS officer certainly "lived by his concurrent standards". You can't honestly think it's intellectually dishonest to judge him for that. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

No. It's intellectually dishonest to say that his society viewed him as a bad man, because that would be intentionally distorting what those standards were in that society. But to say that the man was bad because his so-called concurrent standards are abhorrent and he embodied them is perfectly justified. An SS officer certainly "lived by his concurrent standards". You can't honestly think it's intellectually dishonest to judge him for that. 

Most of the world opposed germany in the 1940s. No, it isn't dishonest to claim that the SS officer should've known better.

 

It is dishonest to claim that the Iron Age man should know that human sacrifice is reprihensible, since in his time it was perfectly acceptable. Hell, it was even a requirement in some cultures. The Aztec world would literally come to an end if they did not feed x amount of human hearts to the sun daily. Of course we know that is utterly ridiculous, but for the Aztecs that was irrefutable fact. You can judge the society all you want, but to claim that a man simply living by what he is taught, is a bad man for doing so, is being intellectually dishonest.

[ladyofpayne]

 

 

 It's truly disgusting. It wasn't for the americans in 1850 for example. 

And for ancient Romans slavery was OK. Aztecs ate people and sacrificed them alive to their gods. How about them? All were villians and deserved to die?

We shouldn't judje medieval people as they were in 21 age. Their reality is different and for their hard times Gaspard isn't bad man. Chevaliers aren't villians too.

Remember that we should go to another monastery with our rules.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Remember that we should go to another monastery with our rules.

[Devtek]

Most of the world opposed germany in the 1940s. No, it isn't dishonest to claim that the SS officer should've known better.

 

It is dishonest to claim that the Iron Age man should know that human sacrifice is reprihensible, since in his time it was perfectly acceptable. Hell, it was even a requirement in some cultures. The Aztec world would literally come to an end if they did not feed x amount of human hearts to the sun daily. Of course we know that is utterly ridiculous, but for the Aztecs that was irrefutable fact. You can judge the society all you want, but to claim that a man simply living by what he is taught, is a bad man for doing so, is being intellectually dishonest.

 

You never know, those aliens might have threatened to wipe out the Aztec Empire if they weren't given human hearts to study. Perfectly reasonable reason to kill people.

[TheKomandorShepard]

And for ancient Romans slavery was OK. Aztecs ate people and sacrificed them alive to their gods. How about them? All were villians and deserved to die?

We shouldn't judje medieval people as they were in 21 age. Their reality is different and for their hard times Gaspard isn't bad man. Chevaliers aren't villians too.

Remember that we should go to another monastery with our rules.

So if im from another culture i shouldn't be judged when i start run with axe and chope others heads?I like that rule sadly it isn't in case and i would end in prison for rest of my life.  

Now i understand that jason voorhees wasn't villain only misunderstood by our society.

[Maraas]

My example is still good.

I don't think it is. Slavery wasn't illegal at the time, but that's not the point, it was still unethical. Just because something is socially acceptable and legal doesn't mean it's right. "Everybody does it!" is not an argument, it's an excuse. 

 

But then again, whether or not morality depends on the context is an old question, and I'm not saying I have all the answers. But to assume that morality is entirely a matter of opinion is just lazy thinking.

[Big I]

Just finsihed reading Masked Empire, I predict that the Inquisitor will be called upon to take sides in the Orlesian civil war. Definitely getting a Orzammar succession vibe here, with Celene=Bhelen and Gaspard=Harrowmont.

 

Honestly I think I like Gaspard more personally, but he hates elves and wants to start external wars so he's got to go.

[ladyofpayne]

 

 

I don't think it is. Slavery wasn't illegal at the time, but that's not the point, it was still unethical. Just because something is socially acceptable and legal doesn't mean it's right. "Everybody does it!" is not an argument, it's an excuse. 

Cesar had slaves. Cesar was a great man. For 21 are he would be villian but for ancient Rome he was fine. Those two ages had different morals.

[Maraas]

Cesar had slaves. Cesar was a great man. For 21 are he would be villian but for ancient Rome he was fine.

Greatness and wickedness aren't mutually exclusive. Especially when it's a "wars of conquest" kind of greatness (what's so great about waging wars is beyond me). Should we approve of the latter just because of the former? Should we go like: Yeah, he murdered elves owned slaves and killed people, but he was a great man because he killed even more people in the wars he started and ultimately seized power over Orlais Rome? Or should we go: Yeah, he murdered elves owned slaves and killed people, but it was OK back then (it really wasn't), so there.

 

I don't think so. 

[Char]

I do think we have to use a certain amount of context when discussing historical figures and behaviours. For example, slavery is totally and utterly reprehensible. We can make distinctions however between people who actively fought against slavery, people who owned slaves but treated them like equals, people who owned slaves because it was a cultural norm and never considered the implications, and people who abused and violated their slaves. Most of the people I have mentioned took part in an abhorrent institution- but these people are all individual cases. People can live within an institution without being supportive of it. People can also be culturally insular- especially in situations where the media is strongly controlled b the reigning government. Many of us are lucky to live in a situation where we can view our actions through the eyes of other cultures, and thus shed light upon ourselves. Historical cultures often did not have that option.

 

I suppose what I am trying to say is that even in awful situations we can make distinctions between people's attitudes and behaviour. I also think the Milgram experiment is very apt here- a very high percentage of people will do things they disagree with because someone in authority ordered them to. Its been replicated over several different cultures, with both men and women, and it shows how frighteningly easy it is to obey.

[Char]

Anyway to return to the topic, I think, as someone who hasn't read TME that the section of the game encompassing these characters is going to be fascinating (I think I said something similar in the Gaspard thread) clearly they both are very morally grey characters and I'm looking forwards to seeing this play out, and how my inquisitors will respond to this situation. The fact that they are capable of stirring up this level of moral and social debate suggests to me that they must have been very well-written!

[Mistic]

But you're arguing that we shouldn't judge people using our modern viewpoints but judge them based on the viewpoints of the time. In your example, there were people who shared the same views as we do now so I don't get how it is an effective example. 

 

Exactly. Past societies weren't more homogeneous than modern societies. Even in the worst place of the world you'd find people with values that we consider more "modern". People should be careful with historical examples, because they might flanderize entire societies (not that we don't do the same today, sadly).

 

For example, colonization of the Americas was a grim business. At that point in history people tended to do pretty horrible things to each other, so it's not that they would feel compassion for a bunch of people because they had just conquered them. But there were others, like Bartolomé de las Casas in the Spanish colonies, who pushed for what we would call now 'indigenous rights' (even if the word didn't exist at that time).

 

Anyway to return to the topic, I think, as someone who hasn't read TME that the section of the game encompassing these characters is going to be fascinating (I think I said something similar in the Gaspard thread) clearly they both are very morally grey characters and I'm looking forwards to seeing this play out, and how my inquisitors will respond to this situation. The fact that they are capable of stirring up this level of moral and social debate suggests to me that they must have been very well-written!

 

I hope so, but TME was a whole book centered about this issue. Gaspard and Celene had time to shine, and we had insight about their thoughts. However, in DA:I the Orlesian plot will have to compete with other plots and characters. I fear that time contraints may make them more simplistic. Or introduce new elements that weren't in TME and could change their positions. I mean, if one read only The Stolen Throne, they would be surprised to find that Loghain became a villain.

[jtav]

I just don't want a repeat of ME where I end up saying "well, if you just read the book, you'll see that this character is fairly nuanced and I'm not delusional for liking them." But it's Gaspard I worry about, not Celene.