225 réponses à ce sujet

[Vordish]

@147

 

Yes, of course its possible to have "morals" without believing in a diety. I never said you couldn't. What I did say, however, is that your supposed morals would not be greater than mine if a God did not exist. Therefore, you would be no more righteous than I and EVERYTHING would be permissible because everything would be subjective.

 

I haven't judged anyone. What I have said is that Solas is a liar, a cheat and a willing mass murderer. That much is obvious and if you wish to get into a debate concerning what the scriptures state then I would be more than willing to take it PMs.

[Aravasia]

Your argument is flawed specifically because you haven't defined exactly by what standard your judging any such situation by.

 

It is impossible to debate morality without debating the existence of God first. God is what defines morality. God is what defines what you can/should or cannot/should not do.

 

If you take the position that there is no God then your argument is meaningless because every situation is subjective and open to interpretation. Objectively; you would be no more correct than I would concerning anything.

 

If God does exist, however, then that changes everything. Morality is always subject to the absolute authority. The "absolute authority" without a God telling you what to do is always yourself...because "you" will always be the one who decides what is ultimately right or wrong for you to do.

 

Circular arguments are circular.

 

I believe in God(meaning the Almighty and Christ Jesus in the Bible) and Their standard as to what everyone should be obeying. In my studies of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament I have seen no justification thus far for torture nor would I find any justification for what Solas is willing to do as presented in DAI.

 

Besides...letting someone else make the decision to sin and commit an atrocity does not mean I am responsible for his choice or his actions. If that truly were the case then everyone is responsible for everyone one way or another. I see no evidence to justify that stance.

 

I agree with the lack of a true objective morality. While morals do vary between individuals, intrinsically, most humans' morals evolve from a desire for the survival of our species and life in general. In other words, ethical actions are generally in-line with those that help life thrive, while in-ethical actions are those which harm life. While, certainly, this is not a universal moral principle, it is a highly common principle across the basis of morality. There are debates on whether this principle could be related to the oxytocin hormone, in which case, it would be a congenital in all but humans with a mutation. 

 

On this basis, in my scenario described above, torturing one person, for the survival of an entire populace would likely be considered the moral action. Even though torturing is harmful to life, the death of thousands is considered more harmful.

 

Of course, intrinsic morality would only be one factor, if it is a factor at all. Morals likely as well evolve from an environmental and societal standpoint. With a religion based on punishment of the individual for misdeeds, no matter the circumstances in which it had been preformed, I can see why you would disagree.

[Aravasia]

@147

 

Yes, of course its possible to have "morals" without believing in a diety. I never said you couldn't. What I did say, however, is that your supposed morals would not be greater than mine if a God did not exist. Therefore, you would be no more righteous than I and EVERYTHING would be permissible because everything would be subjective.

 

I haven't judged anyone. What I have said is that Solas is a liar, a cheat and a willing mass murderer. That much is obvious and if you wish to get into a debate concerning what the scriptures state then I would be more than willing to take it PMs.

As a side note, how would the belief in God provide an objective morality? Belief is, in its nature, a subjective opinion. It may be your belief that the moral code defined by your religions scriptures is objective in its essence.. but that is just your subjective opinion, and thus, would have no greater value than others' subjective morals. The only difference is that you define your morals from an outside source. 

[Vordish]

@153

 

The answer is in first establishing if there is a God. If so, then you establish whether or not that God has a way of life for you to follow; once you answer those then your question can be truly answered.

 

If there is no God...then everything is subjective. If there is a God and that God doesn't care how you live your life...everything is still back to being subjective. If there is a God and He does have a way of life for you to follow; then you are required to obey because the God that created you has the right to command you to do so.

 

If you disagree for that way of life and still wish to follow yourself or someone else; you are allowed to do so but the consequences, in time, might not be what you want.

 

Everyone is stuck with the same scenario; believe or not and obey or not. Everything else is meaningless.

[KaiserShep]

It's never quite clear which life plan is the right one. Too many mouthpieces have their own versions. 

[Aravasia]

@153

 

The answer is in first establishing if there is a God. If so, then you establish whether or not that God has a way of life for you to follow; once you answer those then your question can be truly answered.

 

If there is no God...then everything is subjective. If there is a God and that God doesn't care how you live your life...everything is still back to being subjective. If there is a God and He does have a way of life for you to follow; then you are required to obey because the God that created you has the right to command you to do so.

 

If you disagree for that way of life and still wish to follow yourself or someone else; you are allowed to do so but the consequences, in time, might not be what you want.

 

Everyone is stuck with the same scenario; believe or not and obey or not. Everything else is meaningless.

But how does this place an objective morality? Most people judge others by their own ethical beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong, but, it would seem that the only difference is that you believe an outside source (God) judges in your stead. However, the existence of such a judge is still only a subjective opinion, and as such, would have no objective value over other subjective opinions on morality. 

 

 

Edit: Wait, I see that you mentioned earlier that the scenario had no value if you believe in subjective morals, versus believing in God. I believe what would better define this description is that it would have little value if you believe in subjective morality, rather than, if you believe in an objective moral code.

 

However, as I mentioned in my previous post, even those whom recognize morals as subjective still tend to apply and judge others according to their own subjective morals. And, as I described before, there may be an inherent moral trait across all of the human species for the preservation of life. Of course, I do not imagine that this would make such a principle any more objective on a universal scale, because then, we could always come across another species whom does share this trait, and thus, could not be judged by it.

Modifié par Aravasia, 15 septembre 2015 - 05:13 .

[Illegitimus]

I don't think he plans on anybody surviving. Felassan wouldn't have bothered trying to keep Solas away from the power of the Eluvians otherwise.

 

Oh don't be silly.  He certainly plans on someone surviving.  Felessan was just sympathetic to Briala and doesn't want her and her people to be sacrificed.  

[Vordish]

@156

 

You claim that the existence of God as a judge is subjective opinion. That essentially means that you do not believe He is provable to exist which means we are back to square one; everything is subjective.

 

You either have the absolute authority of a God to tell you how to live your life or your have the only other authority that exists; you. After all...you are the one that has to choose to follow explicitly only yourself, another person or group of people in this world or God.

 

Once again; circular arguments are circular.

[Aravasia]

@156

 

You claim that the existence of God as a judge is subjective opinion. That essentially means that you do not believe He is provable to exist which means we are back to square one; everything is subjective.

 

You either have the absolute authority of a God to tell you how to live your life or your have the only other authority that exists; you. After all...you are the one that has to choose to follow explicitly only yourself, another person or group of people in this world or God.

 

Once again; circular arguments are circular.

See the edit to my above post. I believe what you are trying to say is that the situation varies based on whether you believe in a subjective morality versus an objective morality, to which I made a semi-counter argument to. 

 

 

Edit: And, to steer this slightly back on topic, if the belief in a Christian God and thus the belief an objective moral code is required to make an ethical judgement, than, by your own argument, how can you apply your morals to Solas, if such a God does not exist in that world?

Modifié par Aravasia, 15 septembre 2015 - 05:12 .

[SwobyJ]

@153
 
The answer is in first establishing if there is a God.

There isn't. Okay, step one done.

[Vordish]

@159

 

If you need to have me point out the similarities between the Maker, Chantry, Andraste, Chant of Light, spirits..etc..with the scriptures then perhaps you should do some research for yourself. If you already do know the similarities then get Bioware to officially deny that the Maker represents the DA series version of the Almighty; that would do your case credit.

 

Aside from that; we all write in our fantasy the shadows of ideas and notions that we know of in real life; hence the introduction of Gods, creeds and variations of ideals. Sometimes we do not, but just because we do not does not mean that what exists in the real world isn't true. Debate what you will in that regard, it doesn't actually prove that God doesn't exist.

 

If your going to argue according to my argument concerning God in relation to Solas; then you will have to change the definition of killing, stealing, cheating, lieing among others to make your point. Truth does not change because certain aspects of "religion" or "faith" are introduced into a fantasy setting.

 

Your still stuck at square one; everything is subjective because you claim there isn't evidence for God to exist. Therefore, Solas' claim to righteousness in his actions is no more heinous than the actions of people such as the columbine shooters or the butchering of people in third world countries or anything else for that matter.

 

No murderer, rapist, thief, slanderer, kidnapper or any other such so-called "evil" or anything classified as "good" would ever win precedence because someone out there would have a different opinion on the matter and who are you or I to say that their way of life or their choices/desires/actions are worthy to be punished/condemned/prevented anymore than what you would do?

 

The ends can NEVER justify the means.

[Ieldra]

Yes, of course its possible to have "morals" without believing in a diety. I never said you couldn't. What I did say, however, is that your supposed morals would not be greater than mine if a God did not exist. Therefore, you would be no more righteous than I and EVERYTHING would be permissible because everything would be subjective.

Nope.

(1) What is permissible is determined by your society, not by the individual.

(2) We are constrained by our nature in which kinds of morality a society can adopt if it doesn't want to destroy itself. 

(3) We have natural empathy, which will affect the morality of almost any culture.

 

Apart from that, believing in a god as the source of morality doesn't make it any more or less compelling. The believer usually claims the right to judge others because he sees his beliefs as less arbitrary, but in fact they're as arbitrary - or not - as anyone else's. 

[Vordish]

@162

 

Yet, you ignore the fact that societies can live or die or change. They are not immutable. In addition, society in and of itself is subjective as you do not need sprawling world powers to be in existence to call it a society. The point is that its debatable and that alone is evidence enough.

 

People can choose to go against anything if they so desire. Some people have done so even to their own destruction. Others have done so and still survive. Hence the term "ethnic cleansing". It has actually worked. Yet, if your against such things because it conflicts with what "you" or anyone else desire--there is still no objective way to claim that what those people did is more wrong than if you were to claim it was not.

 

Right, interpretation vs interpretation = interpretation is more valid just so long as God is not in the picture. That is the result of that argument. That is even less compelling that your argument against my own.

[Ieldra]

The ends can NEVER justify the means.

I contest this statement. Expedient decisions towards a specific end hat are unfair to *someone* are made every day in politics, and this expediency is necessary, or nothing would ever get done. As soon as you're called to make decisions that affect a whole community, or country, or the world, quite often your only alternative is to do nothing, or to make a decision where you tread on someone's toes, because for any decision you make, there will be people it treats unfairly.

 

The question is rather which kinds of goals justify which kinds of means. The answer is usually easy if the means are genocide and mass murder, which leads to statements like yours, but most real-world cases are rather less simple.

[Vordish]

Yeah...until it conflicts with something that is truly dear to you and then you, like everyone else, would cry foul.

 

Like I said previously; that type of argument doesn't define the standard that you are using. You have no more right to complain or to call anything right or wrong over someone else.

 

Circular arguments are circular...and tiring.

[Ieldra]

Yet, you ignore the fact that societies can live or die or change. They are not immutable. In addition, society in and of itself is subjective as you do not need sprawling world powers to be in existence to call it a society. The point is that its debatable and that alone is evidence enough.

Belief is also debatable, as is deriving morality from it. Voltaire said it best: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Also, who said that morality must be immutable? In fact, I would expect the standards to change according to circumstances. Different times require different rules. Actually, the study of religious texts should make this abundantly clear, since quite a few of the rules therein are not compatible with the standards adopted by people of the same faith today.
 

People can choose to go against anything if they so desire. Some people have done so even to their own destruction. Others have done so and still survive. Hence the term "ethnic cleansing". It has actually worked. Yet, if your against such things because it conflicts with what "you" or anyone else desire--there is still no objective way to claim that what those people did is more wrong than if you were to claim it was not.

You look for certainty where there's none. That you belief something to be certain doesn't make it so. It just gives you a justification to feel superior, and isn't that a kind of sin in your faith? What there is, however, is a minimum standard derived from our nature as human beings. We came close to defining that with the declaration of human rights.
 

Right, interpretation vs interpretation = interpretation is more valid just so long as God is not in the picture. That is the result of that argument. That is even less compelling that your argument against my own.

I did neither say nor imply that. I said that the presence of a god in the argument doesn't make a difference, either positively or negatively.

[Vordish]

Belief being debatable in relation to the definition of what constitutes a society as a contention in your argument is irrelevant. People can choose and people have followed through with action. It is a historical fact. That will never change.

 

The duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. Whether in actual statute or in other places as mentioned in the scriptures. It is a certain fact, however, that you have a choice between following yourself as your own authority or following something else. Therein lies the issue of an absolute authority concerning morality. That is impossible to ascertain without addressing God first.

 

By even implying, if not outright stating, that the presence of a God does not make a difference either way is akin to saying that you being a parent to a child you bring into this world makes no difference in the fact that you have the right to tell that child how to behave. It is exactly the same thing.

 

Where is your proof that this behavior is more right than what others would say to the contrary? If your going to argue against God telling you how to behave, then you most certainly do not.

[Ieldra]

Yeah...until it conflicts with something that is truly dear to you and then you, like everyone else, would cry foul.

Well of course those unfairly treated by a decision complain. That doesn't mean it's not justified from a bigger perspective. It also doesn't mean it is justified. To get back to Thedas, in a post I made yesterday I said that I'd actually prefer the Veil to be sundered, but can't justify acting on that belief considering the price. So in this case, I don't consider the ends justifying the means even though I agree with those ends.

The thing is there are no hard rules about this. If you attempt to impose them, they'll just be ignored because certains kinds of decisions need to be made.

The duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments.

After this, it's clear it's no use debating with you any further. Our positions are fundamentally incompatible.

[BansheeOwnage]

The first is the scenario I'm talking about. That's the thing that's awful. The switch - from being something to nothing - is what a lot of people's fear of death looks like IRL. Not existing - and they did exist at one point - so very suddenly is curse.

You don't quite understand. In that version of time travel, the Dark Future reverts into having never existed outside of Dorian and the Inquisitor's memories. It doesn't exist for a year then stop. I find that a ridiculous notion myself, but that's one way for time travel to be presented in fiction.

 

I don't think so. The breach wasn't exactly what he wanted. The breach happened when the Inquisitor picked up the foci and gained the anchor (or mark). Solas wanted that for himself.

I think the original plan was that Corypheus nukes himself, Solas grabs the foci and anchor, and then does whatever nightmarish plot he's planning to execute now. Except now I think he's going to have to do it with a blood magic ritual - the death of thousands of elves (the ones who disappear).

I doubt he'll use blood magic on the account that he explains it makes it harder to access the fade. I would also assume that applies with no veil, otherwise he would have learned blood magic, and he says he has not. He doesn't like outright lying if he doesn't have to.

[BansheeOwnage]

If there is no God...then everything is subjective. If there is a God and that God doesn't care how you live your life...everything is still back to being subjective. If there is a God and He does have a way of life for you to follow; then you are required to obey because the God that created you has the right to command you to do so.

It's pretty clear that if there is a god, it doesn't have a path for me to follow. It hasn't asked or commanded me to do anything, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter. If it commanded me to go around being nice, I would, but not for it. If it commanded me to do heinous things, I would not. It would have to take control of my body to do that.

 

Saying an entity has the right to control you simply because it created you is morally disgusting. Who gave it that "right"? Itself? My parents could declare the same thing, but it wouldn't make it justifiable or right.

 

Bottom line is: I would judge a potential god by the same standards I would judge any person. They don't get a free pass because they are powerful, scary, or your creator.

 

I'm also not entirely sure what a god in this world has to do with Solas.

[YueAzure]

To give my answer to the OP.

If I understood Solas's motivations correctly, I would go through with the plan to break down the veil.

In the entire play through's of the DA series, it is apparent that there are many aspects of Thedas that have gone haywire which was not intended to happen.
 

(1) The death of Mythal by the hands of fellow Evanuris which triggers the event of the veil being brought up in attempt to seal away those that would try do to even greater harm to the world including the ancient elves

 

(2) The treatment of the Elven people throughout history after the veil went up. But it isn't just them it is a major factor though

(3) The Spirits becoming demons when entering the physical world since the veil went up. They are no longer what they once were.
     (a) Mostly due to people fearing them. They (the people) were taught to fear and deny which lead to the spirit to become a demon in the physical world.
     (b ) Those that summon a spirit with little knowledge (thanks to continues wars, slavery etc erasing former knowledge) denying the spirits purpose wrapping it into a demon

(4) The Blight, to me the blight is a manifestation in physical form of resentment, hate, rage, greed.

(5) The Taint caused by the blight is infection it even affected Lyrium (a source of power) but in a sense it is also alive

 

(6) The Tranquil people cut off from the fade, but more so evident that it is the world cut off from it due to the veil.

 

These are the following six points I think Solas see's that need to be corrected even if it costs many lives. He feels guilty that his action in making the veil has caused so many to suffer not just the elves, but the world and the spirits. The world cut off from guidance of the spirits that walk along side them back then, the whole spiritual connection to the world. But in the same breath, Solas if he has a good connection with the Inquisitor is secretly hopping that he would be stopped, to be shown there is another way a glimmer of hope. Solas blinded by his guilt has not seen another option aside from forcefully taking down the veil.

 

However since I am not Solas, my inquisitor would do her best to stop him from doing such. Adding more death is not the way. I would hope in the future of DA series that we have the choice to not to kill him. But I understand that if death is the only thing that will save him then so be it.

So sorry about the long post, I am bit tired   
 

[Almostfaceman]

You don't quite understand. In that version of time travel, the Dark Future reverts into having never existed outside of Dorian and the Inquisitor's memories. It doesn't exist for a year then stop. I find that a ridiculous notion myself, but that's one way for time travel to be presented in fiction.

 

I doubt he'll use blood magic on the account that he explains it makes it harder to access the fade. I would also assume that applies with no veil, otherwise he would have learned blood magic, and he says he has not. He doesn't like outright lying if he doesn't have to.

 

Or an even more "plausible" explanation is that there are variable paths or "dimensions" created or exploited by the time "magic". Thus, the "alternate" time line continues on with Coryphypants still in charge and thus it's not wiped out by the choices or actions of the Inquisitor or Dorian. 

[Almostfaceman]

I don't think I need to substitute anything for this scenario.  The scenario itself...Solas's view does have a certain rough logic to it.  Especially how messed up the Dragon Age is.  It was the same quetion first posited by BSG, is humanity worth saving?  Its something so extremly racist it almost bends back on itself whereas if we, as individuals, and as a people are inherently flawed and fallen creatures then maybe the best solution is to wipe the slate clean and start over?  Its certainly an interesting philosophical point, and very understandable.  Dosen't mean I am just gonna let him do it.  But at the end of the day I intend to prove him wrong. 

 

I don't think it's so much "humanity" that's on the line as is the "natural order of Thedas". Solas intrinsically changed the world. The Fade and reality had a "natural" relationship that's been disrupted and has had catastrophic consequences. So is "humanity" or "dwarves" or "races" a result of tampering and raising of the Veil? Unknown at this point. Solas does have a respect for life and for freedom and his relationship with the Inquisitor (if it's a good one) shows him there is a value even in the "tranquil" version of Thedas... we still don't have entirety or scope of what that encompasses. I think it behooves the "other races" to invite or facilitate a "cure" for the cure Solas put in place... Solas's cure was a cure for the cancer that was the "elven gods".

 

I'm interested to see how ballsy Bioware will get with this concept... will they make it possible for a "return" to how Thedas originally was?  

[Aravasia]

 

@159

 

If you need to have me point out the similarities between the Maker, Chantry, Andraste, Chant of Light, spirits..etc..with the scriptures then perhaps you should do some research for yourself. If you already do know the similarities then get Bioware to officially deny that the Maker represents the DA series version of the Almighty; that would do your case credit.

 

Aside from that; we all write in our fantasy the shadows of ideas and notions that we know of in real life; hence the introduction of Gods, creeds and variations of ideals. Sometimes we do not, but just because we do not does not mean that what exists in the real world isn't true. Debate what you will in that regard, it doesn't actually prove that God doesn't exist.

 

If your going to argue according to my argument concerning God in relation to Solas; then you will have to change the definition of killing, stealing, cheating, lieing among others to make your point. Truth does not change because certain aspects of "religion" or "faith" are introduced into a fantasy setting.

 

Your still stuck at square one; everything is subjective because you claim there isn't evidence for God to exist. Therefore, Solas' claim to righteousness in his actions is no more heinous than the actions of people such as the columbine shooters or the butchering of people in third world countries or anything else for that matter.

 

No murderer, rapist, thief, slanderer, kidnapper or any other such so-called "evil" or anything classified as "good" would ever win precedence because someone out there would have a different opinion on the matter and who are you or I to say that their way of life or their choices/desires/actions are worthy to be punished/condemned/prevented anymore than what you would do?

 

The ends can NEVER justify the means.

 

 

Except that, in Tresspasser, we learn that the origin of the Maker derives from Solas. As such, if your in-game morals are defined by what is approved by the Maker, I imagine that Solas approves of his own plans, and therefore, by your logic, you could not disagree with him.

 

I did not intend for my posts to come across as though I was debating on the existence of a God. I am an agnostic, myself, and do not take a resolute stance on either side.

 

It comes across as though you are making the assumption that only you, and others whom follow your faith, have the right to apply their morals to anyone, because everyone else utilizes subjective morals. As I explained previously, your morals are no less subjective than any other other individual's. Actually, I believe that your scriptures may even account for this. Correct me if I am wrong, but does it not necessitate that you are entailed to accept others, while only God is allowed to judge the moral actions of an individual? By that logic, you should not be able to apply your opinion on the morality of any action.

[Aravasia]

The duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. Whether in actual statute or in other places as mentioned in the scriptures. It is a certain fact, however, that you have a choice between following yourself as your own authority or following something else. Therein lies the issue of an absolute authority concerning morality. That is impossible to ascertain without addressing God first.

 

If your God commanded you to murder billions of people without any end goal, would you still obey? This is why deriving your morals from an outside source is detrimental.