1751 réponses à ce sujet

[dm3565]

We are not talking about Aristotle's version of what rights are, or should be, or what nature is according to philosophers of old.

 

Again, rights that can be used today, or in the subject at hand, are rights that come from the etymology of the word ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ, which by the way comes from Aristotle's time and before. It's something to be used for vindication.

 

So, the philosophy lesson, has no point. It's a totally different way to look at a problem.

 

One that will not give practical solutions, only theoritical approaches.

 

Well, if we're going to talk about etymologies, the word right that we use comes from the Anglo-Saxon, not the Greek. And the way that the word right is used in the phrase "natural rights" has nothing to do with the Greek word, particularly since I was referencing Aristotle's notion of "nature," and not the later notion of "natural rights" that were derived from the tradition in which he worked. Moreover, those "theoretical approaches" were the tool of analysis used to explicate Germanic and Roman civil law codes, which began the Western legal profession as we know it (yes, it gave us lawyers...) and sparked a debate over the "best regime" that lasts to this day. This whole discussion began with a reference to Thomas Jefferson. Ideas have consequences.

 

Certainly. The problem is that all these ideas only exist in our minds. Basically, any answer to the question of whether any natural rights exist is as much a matter of faith as a belief in the existence of gods. Given certain axioms about what nature is, certain answers can be inferred, but those axioms are anything but self-evident. Not to me, anyway, socialized as I have been in the last third of the 20th century in the non-communist part of central Europe. 

 

The concept of natural rights, as I see it, exists because there is a pragmatic need for it as an ideological foundation for formulating universal concepts of ethics, something which all humans are genetically predisposed to care about in one way or the other influenced by culture or education. Nonetheless, strong arguments can be made for the position that they don't really exist - and actually, unless you're coming from a position of philosophical idealism (as some of the quoted philosophers did), you'll probably conclude they can't exist.

 

(If it isn't apparent by now, I do reject essentialist and teleological conceptions of the natural world. I find these....hmm....alien, and have no idea of how anyone can look at the world and come up with something like that.)

 

It's also probably rather obvious that I am an essentialist. I find that even simple causation breaks down--to say nothing of rights--without such a framework. The positions that you express, moreover, are not ones I take as a given, or as unanswerable. We could probably have a very interesting and profitable discussion on the subject, if this forum weren't for DAI. 

 

My main point, though, which I elaborated on after the post you quoted, is that people were making statements regarding the term "natural rights," with little notion of what the term meant, or with the whole bulwark of philosophy in which it was embedded. I only wanted to raise awareness as to the situation.

[Vilegrim]

...On all my promage playthroughs I missed it

 

But it'd make sense he says it to both considering... ugh what a creep. He's the exact kind of templar I wouldn't mind someone lighting on fire. Hell we can make smores over his corpse.

 

 

fire is to quick,castrate him, then cauterise the wound and allow his bladder to rupture with back pressure, should take a week or so of screaming for him to die.

 

To be clear, this is in the DA universe, not outside it.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Vilegrim: So - you're only KIND OF insane then?  

[Ryriena]

The Natural Rights of Man are a good source to read on this topic, as well, for the historical buffs Tomas Pain in his writings for the best example are his Common Sense writings he also comes up with his own veiws on, what Natural Rights are to human beings. Their are others like Plato's Republic that describes his version on this issuse. I would recommend the Cave, to readers as well it's veryily intresting.

[efd731]

The Natural Rights of Man are a good source to read on this topic, as well, for the historical buffs Tomas Pain in his writings for the best example are his Common Sense writings he also comes up with his own veiws on, what Natural Rights are to human beings. Their are others like Plato's Republic that describes his version on this issuse. I would recommend the Cave, to readers as well it's veryily intresting.

read the cave while 'coming down' from a rave, doubted my own existence for a week.

[efd731]

The Natural Rights of Man are a good source to read on this topic, as well, for the historical buffs Tomas Pain in his writings for the best example are his Common Sense writings he also comes up with his own veiws on, what Natural Rights are to human beings. Their are others like Plato's Republic that describes his version on this issuse. I would recommend the Cave, to readers as well it's veryily intresting.

read the cave while 'coming down' from a rave, doubted my own existence for a week.

[Vilegrim]

@Vilegrim: So - you're only KIND OF insane then?  

 

 

I study ,as an amateur admittedly, medieval and Roman history, trust me that one was tame compared to some of the stuff you can stumble across.  And it makes a kind of sense, extreme brutality or letting someone go, as the prison system is not a thing, and death isn't that feared. 

I didn't go for the Chinese punishment of 9 familial  exterminations, which is the perpetrator and their entire family line, including siblings in law of uncles and aunts, uncle, aunts, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, children, brothers, sisters, brothers in law, sisters in law.  Look it up, oh and they all died the slow slicing death aka the death of a thousand cuts...yea.

[Medhia_Nox]

@efd731:  Someday everyone will doubt your existence.

 

@Vilegrim:  Right, which is why I said you only went "kind of" insane.  I'm glad older time periods gave the mentally deranged an outlet for their perversions - and, of course, if you look too close - so does our modern age (only more civilized to your face). 

 

Anyway - way off topic.

[Mornmagor]

Well, if we're going to talk about etymologies, the word right that we use comes from the Anglo-Saxon, not the Greek. And the way that the word right is used in the phrase "natural rights" has nothing to do with the Greek word, particularly since I was referencing Aristotle's notion of "nature," and not the later notion of "natural rights" that were derived from the tradition in which he worked. Moreover, those "theoretical approaches" were the tool of analysis used to explicate Germanic and Roman civil law codes, which began the Western legal profession as we know it (yes, it gave us lawyers...) and sparked a debate over the "best regime" that lasts to this day. This whole discussion began with a reference to Thomas Jefferson. Ideas have consequences.

 

 

It's also probably rather obvious that I am an essentialist. I find that even simple causation breaks down--to say nothing of rights--without such a framework. The positions that you express, moreover, are not ones I take as a given, or as unanswerable. We could probably have a very interesting and profitable discussion on the subject, if this forum weren't for DAI. 

 

My main point, though, which I elaborated on after the post you quoted, is that people were making statements regarding the term "natural rights," with little notion of what the term meant, or with the whole bulwark of philosophy in which it was embedded. I only wanted to raise awareness as to the situation.

 

Right, as per the Anglo-Saxon world, i can only imagine it as of the same root as "rule". In Greek, it's much easier to understand its etymology and roots.

 

But not matter how you look at it, you still need them to be of use.

 

These "theoritical approaches", are not what gave us the first written laws. We have written laws since 1750BC or even before. Societies used a certain set of rules, whether or not they was written down or not.

 

There are cases of lawsuit and lawyers in ancient Greence even before Aristotle.

 

Anyway, i respect where you come from, but indeed, we see things very differently.

 

And since, we're gonna go off topic indeed, i'll stop here and say, on topic:

 

I certainly hope i can answer back to Vivienne on some points, because there are a lot of answers to be given. I still remember DA2 where my character was somehow unable to comprise logical arguments when he was talking with certain individuals.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Mormagor:  I'm sure there's going to be plenty more to that conversation.  I only hope that - without a LOT of work - you can't just mold the NPCs like you could in DA:2

 

Given that they said companions who don't like you will leave - I'm confident she'll stand her ground no matter how much someone rants at her. 

 

I suspect someone like myself will have a problem keeping Cole or Sera around unless I play the "choose the right choice" game with them (which is a valid RP option for a manipulator of course) 

[Mornmagor]

@Medhia_Nox i certainly will respect her if she stands by her opinion. I don't want really to mold her, indeed, just to answer back when appropriate.

 

Now, if she becomes able to see another point of view, and at least understand why some things happened as they did, well i guess there's no harm in that.

 

She will still stand by her opinion.

 

I have a feeling i'm gonna clash with a lot of people in DA:I :x

[Medhia_Nox]

@Mornmagor:  And I'm not even against molding "some" characters because, in truth, some people are very open to taking on a stronger person's viewpoints.

[Keroko]

I don't.

 

The thing you need to remember is that the Libertarian position wasn't to abolish the Circles, but to remove them from Chantry control. That is the goal two of my pro-mage mages (the Warden and the Inquisitor) would have supported, and would've tried to achieve without going to war if at all possible. They were never among the instigators of the rebellion. My human Inquisitor had a relatively pleasant life in her Circle and given the choice, all she would've done was to smuggle forbidden books and write secret treatises about the Chantry's falsification of history. it was not to be...and when the rebellion started *and* an extremist templar arose as a leader, going back to the status quo ante became impossible. 

 

Chantry control - mages to be ruled by an ideology predisposed to revile them - has always been my main problem with the existing system, rather than the existence of a system of mandatory training and a "mage police" as such. I'm not even against a ruie that says mages need to be accompanied by someone who can counter their magic should they become possessed - if that person could be a friend and trusted companion rather than a traveling jailor intrinsically hostile to the idea of magic. I think most mages would rather be dead than possessed, and wouldn't be averse to the idea under changed circumstances.

 

But that only loops us back to Viviene's point: The idea that mages can be removed from Chantry control without issue assumes mages exist in a vacuum. They do not. Mundane people are terrified of mages, and the idea that the mages are under Chantry control was all that kept them from burning every child that shows magical capabilities on a stake.

[LaughingWolf]

But that only loops us back to Viviene's point: The idea that mages can be removed from Chantry control without issue assumes mages exist in a vacuum. They do not. Mundane people are terrified of mages, and the idea that the mages are under Chantry control was all that kept them from burning every child that shows magical capabilities on a stake.

 

That last part is pure speculation. We don't actually know what would happen if mages were free. You can't persecute an entire race simply because of what might happen.

[Catche Jagger]

That last part is pure speculation. We don't actually know what would happen if mages were free. You can't persecute an entire race simply because of what might happen.

 

It is what is likely to happen. I cannot say for sure what would happen if the mages were freed, but I can say what would be the most likely scenario. The common folk do have a strong fear of magic and mages (not without reason) and without some sort of system to keep things in check, it is highly likely that extremist organizations would rise up and decide that all mages need to be killed (kind of like the Red Templars...)

[Xilizhra]

But that only loops us back to Viviene's point: The idea that mages can be removed from Chantry control without issue assumes mages exist in a vacuum. They do not. Mundane people are terrified of mages, and the idea that the mages are under Chantry control was all that kept them from burning every child that shows magical capabilities on a stake.

If they would be so wantonly murderous, why would they deserve to not be the ones under control?

[Apostate.]

Templar Pro-Circle endgame = ?

(I mean what would less crazy-ish Templars do after a victory over Mages?)

[Keroko]

That last part is pure speculation. We don't actually know what would happen if mages were free. You can't persecute an entire race simply because of what might happen.

 

If they would be so wantonly murderous, why would they deserve to not be the ones under control?

 

You're arguing for what's morally right. Fear rarely leads to rational, moral actions. Many mundanes fear mages. We've been told this in every Dragon Age game we've played. This fear went from "I don't like that mage, he could be up to something" to "Oh gods please don't blow me up!" following Anders' little stunt.

 

Frightened people are well known to act impulsively, and rarely in support of the object of their fears. Viviene understands this, which is why she is rather upset that the vote to split from the Chantry even happened. Because it only increased that fear, and thus made life in Thedas for mages more dangerous.

 

Fair? Not at all. But it is reality. A reality Viviene understands all too well.

[Xilizhra]

You're arguing for what's morally right. Fear rarely leads to rational, moral actions. Many mundanes fear mages. We've been told this in every Dragon Age game we've played. This fear went from "I don't like that mage, he could be up to something" to "Oh gods please don't blow me up!" following Anders' little stunt.

 

Frightened people are well known to act impulsively, and rarely in support of the object of their fears. Viviene understands this, which is why she is rather upset that the vote to split from the Chantry even happened. Because it only increased that fear, and thus made life in Thedas for mages more dangerous.

 

Fair? Not at all. But it is reality. A reality Viviene understands all too well.

Well, if such fear would lead to so much murder, then bring on the damn magocracy.

 

I'm willing to give Vivienne the benefit of the doubt about us potentially having the same goals and only disagreeing about the means. If so, we'll probably be able to work together reasonably well.

[Mornmagor]

So, how does the Tevinter Imperium handle Mages, and what's its statistics of Mages gone abominations?

 

Because, if they don't have Circles, and still don't have more abominations than the Circles, i'd say we have a problem with how things are handled.

[herkles]

So, how does the Tevinter Imperium handle Mages, and what's its statistics of Mages gone abominations?

 

Because, if they don't have Circles, and still don't have more abominations than the Circles, i'd say we have a problem with how things are handled.

 

Actually the Tevinter Imperium has a mage circle IIRC. The difference is that joining the mage circle of tevinter is a prestigious thing. of course tevinter has other issues with its mages, such as blood magic being rather common in tevinter. 

[Mornmagor]

If i remember correctly, they don't have ties with the Chantry in their Circles, right? They don't have Templars to police things. It's a Magocracy.

 

Thing is, i haven't heard a lot of stuff about abominations in Tevinter, or Mages going wild officially.

 

If it's true, then i wonder that role does the Templar police play in our Circles, and if it was something redundant all along.

[herkles]

If i remember correctly, they don't have ties with the Chantry in their Circles, right? They don't have Templars to police things. It's a Magocracy.

 

Thing is, i haven't heard a lot of stuff about abominations in Tevinter, or Mages going wild officially.

 

If it's true, then i wonder that role does the Templar police play in our Circles, and if it was something redundant all along.

 

Actually they do have chantry ties in tevinter circles, the imperial chantry. Which is very similar to the Andrastian Chantry except that they believe they are mage suprimist so magic is elevated to a higher status in their chantry. 

 

Templars do exist, here is what the wiki says on them. 

 

 

Mages in the Tevinter Circle are controlled by high-ranking magisters instead of templars.

 

According to Fenris, templars are controlled by magisters and exist only to enforce the law. It does seem that the Imperial templars must act if a mage crosses the line and uses forbidden magics; they can even use the Right of Annulment. However, where that line is, is unclear since the use of blood magic seems to be common among the upper class, despite being officially forbidden.

 

Since the restoration of the mageocracy, the templars are under the authority of the magisters and thereby the Circle of Magi. Lord Seeker Lambert van Reeves was formerly an Imperial templar and claimed that, in fact, the Templar Order has no real power there.

 

The majority of Imperial templars lack the ability to counter magic. They are primarily soldiers

[Mornmagor]

It seems roles are reversed there.

 

It's Mages that call the shots, and actually control the Circle, using Templars where appropriate. Circle seems to be your way up as well.

[herkles]

It seems roles are reversed there.

 

It's Mages that call the shots, and actually control the Circle, using Templars where appropriate. Circle seems to be your way up as well.

 

Well Tevinter is a Magocracy so yea of course it is also an empire that relies extensively upon slavery and a good number of the mages use blood magic, so it has its own problems too