171 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

Moral relativism is so tiresome.

[SonnyKohler]

... I thought you believed in respecting people's religion?

Yes.  You can respect them, but, if you conquer and subjugate a weaker people then feel free to do whatever you like.  It may not be fair, but at least it's honest.

[SonnyKohler]

Moral relativism is so tiresome.

"Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

 

An your statement is a crock.  "universal moral truths" are what is defined by the power that is.  Not all "moral truths" are the "moral truths" or everyone.

 

Example:  I, for one truly couldn't give a flyin' fig about someone's sexual proclivities.  There are many who would disagree and that disagreement is based on their own particular moral code.  Which is the moral relativism?

 

Moreover, why is the Judeo-Christian ethos the only "true" "moral truth"?  Anyone who believes that should just be smacked.

[Heimdall]

Yes. You can respect them, but, if you conquer and subjugate a weaker people then feel free to do whatever you like. It may not be fair, but at least it's honest.

And totally devoid of respect.

[Heimdall]

Example: I, for one truly couldn't give a flyin' fig about someone's sexual proclivities. There are many who would disagree and that disagreement is based on their own particular moral code. Which is the moral relativism?

Neither, your moral code apparently doesn't include prescriptions about other people's sexual activities whereas the other person's does. Those are two different moral codes, one being more tolerant of other's behaviors, not moral relativism.  Moral relativism is believing that the intolerant person has every right to be intolerant.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

Moreover, why is the Judeo-Christian ethos the only "true" "moral truth"?  Anyone who believes that should just be smacked.

When did The Baconer imply that it was?

[vbibbi]

I mentioned this is another thread recently: Yet another reason I'm sad they cut Shokrakar as a companion. Her views of the Qun, and experiences compared to Bull's, would have certainly given us better insight.

Wow I hadn't heard of this cut character before. Interesting.

 

I wonder if most/all of Trespasser was originally planned to be included in the base game, and the Qunari would have had more of a presence than just IB. Shokrakar could have been involved in the expanded Qunari plot.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I will throw my two scents on respect and respecting religions:-

 

Respect is something that must be earned, not freely given.

 

I don't respect people based on their religions and their faith. In fact, if someone professes to me that they are religious, I would lose my respect for them.

 

Why ? For the same reason I do not respect people who believe in astrology or alchemy or feng shui or creationism or flat earth theory. Religious people have decided to forgo their ability to think, to use reason and evidence because they wish to conform or they are afraid of their own mortality or because they are afraid of the reality that the world is harsh and nihilistic, that there is no heaven or hell or someone watching over you. The unwillingness to accept this is a form of intellectual and mental weakness that to me, deserves no respect.

 

There's also the fact that people typically follow the religion of their parents or their community, which means there was no critical thinking involved (just conformity) and that to me is not worthy of respect.

[SonnyKohler]

And totally devoid of respect.

True, but respect is earned, not an obligation.

[Artona]

Respect is something that must be earned, not freely given.

I'm sorry for people who don't know you. They surely didn't earn you respect, so you don't give it to them, right? 

 

For the same reason I do not respect people who believe in astrology or alchemy or feng shui or creationism or flat earth theory. 

 

Yeah. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Astrology, alchemy, etc., are incorrect theories WITHIN scientifical method, and that's the reason you disrespect set of views that are using a different apparatus whatsoever? Do you also disrespect view that Darth Vader is the best villain of all times because of that?

 

Religious people have decided to forgo their ability to think, to use reason and evidence because they wish to conform or they are afraid of their own mortality or because they are afraid of the reality that the world is harsh and nihilistic, that there is no heaven or hell or someone watching over you.

 

Wow. First of all, I'm pretty sure you say that religous people "decided to forgo their ability to think" because you read st. Augustin, st Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Ockham, Socrato; all of them are morons with no ability to think critically, right ? 
Next - okay. Present me analitical proof that world is "harsh and nihilistic". Then - because I'm sure you have one, since you're so sure - present me analitical proof of materialistic nature of world. Go on .
And - wanting religion to apply scientifical ways (such as evidence) proves that you really don't know what you are talking about. 
 

The unwillingness to accept this is a form of intellectual and mental weakness that to me, deserves no respect.

 

You are really no different from "if you don't believe in Jesus you are bad person and you'll justly burn in hell", you know?

 

There's also the fact that people typically follow the religion of their parents or their community, which means there was no critical thinking involved (just conformity) and that to me is not worthy of respect.

Firstly, conformism doesn't exclude critical thinking. There are numerious reasons why conformism is good - the most obvious and basic one is obvious notion that without it society would be impossible to construct. Do you pay also in bronze coins, no to "follow your parent or your community" in grocery, or are you unworthy of respect either ?

 

EDIT: And I don't think term "rational" means not what you think it means, since religions are in general more rational that sciences, since their method absolutely lacks any empiria. 

[SonnyKohler]

Neither, your moral code apparently doesn't include prescriptions about other people's sexual activities whereas the other person's does. Those are two different moral codes, one being more tolerant of other's behaviors, not moral relativism.  Moral relativism is believing that the intolerant person has every right to be intolerant.

Okay then I'm a moral relativist.  Everyone is allowed their own intolerance and bigotries.  I may not agree with them and I may argue against them, but they have the right.

 

Wait... did I not just blow my own argument out of the water?  Darn it!  I hate when I do that.

[SonnyKohler]

I'm sorry for people who don't know you. They surely didn't earn you respect, so you don't give it to them, right? 

 

 

Yeah. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Astrology, alchemy, etc., are incorrect theories WITHIN scientifical method, and that's the reason you disrespect set of views that are using a different apparatus whatsoever? Do you also disrespect view that Darth Vader is the best villain of all times because of that?

 

 

Wow. First of all, I'm pretty sure you say that religous people "decided to forgo their ability to think" because you read st. Augustin, st Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Ockham, Socrato; all of them are morons with no ability to think critically, right ? 
Next - okay. Present me analitical proof that world is "harsh and nihilistic". Then - because I'm sure you have one, since you're so sure - present me analitical proof of materialistic nature of world. Go on .
And - wanting religion to apply scientifical ways (such as evidence) proves that you really don't know what you are talking about. 
 

 

You are really no different from "if you don't believe in Jesus you are bad person and you'll justly burn in hell", you know?
Not necessarily.  Respect is earned from me by your actions.  I respect certain people for their actions but not others.  Does that make sense?
 

Firstly, conformism doesn't exclude critical thinking. There are numerious reasons why conformism is good - the most obvious and basic one is obvious notion that without it society would be impossible to construct. Do you pay also in bronze coins, no to "follow your parent or your community" in grocery, or are you unworthy of respect either ?

Often, no, I am not worthy of respect.  I can truly be a reprehensible person sometimes.

 

EDIT: And I don't think term "rational" means not what you think it means, since religions are in general more rational that sciences, since their method absolutely lacks any empiria. 

[SonnyKohler]

I will throw my two scents on respect and respecting religions:-

 

Respect is something that must be earned, not freely given.

 

I don't respect people based on their religions and their faith. In fact, if someone professes to me that they are religious, I would lose my respect for them.

 

Why ? For the same reason I do not respect people who believe in astrology or alchemy or feng shui or creationism or flat earth theory. Religious people have decided to forgo their ability to think, to use reason and evidence because they wish to conform or they are afraid of their own mortality or because they are afraid of the reality that the world is harsh and nihilistic, that there is no heaven or hell or someone watching over you. The unwillingness to accept this is a form of intellectual and mental weakness that to me, deserves no respect.

 

There's also the fact that people typically follow the religion of their parents or their community, which means there was no critical thinking involved (just conformity) and that to me is not worthy of respect.

Very well thought out.  Thank you.

 

I agree, however, I base my respect on actions so someone's religiosity rarely is a factor nor is their belief in astrology, alchemy, feng shui, creationism or flat earth theory.  I have known many people who fervently believe in any or all of those things that I do respect due to their actions and their belief in those things simply doesn't factor in.  I suppose it's all relative?

[BansheeOwnage]

True, but respect is earned, not an obligation.

Kind of an odd thing to say for someone who insists we should inherently respect other cultures/religions.

[Artona]

 

 

Not necessarily.  Respect is earned from me by your actions.  I respect certain people for their actions but not others.  Does that make sense?

 

Of course that makes sense. But Bayonet Hipshot said that base of his/her respect is agreement to his metaphysical vision of universe (unproven and kinda amusingly grim, let me add). Is it alright? I guess so. Is it alright that I find it disgusting, arrogant and juvenile? I guess it's alright as well. 

 

 

Often, no, I am not worthy of respect.  I can truly be a reprehensible person sometimes.

 

You can view yourself as such, but once again - I find it realy childish to disrespect conformism just because, since probably the most conformist thing in the world is language. How can you follow the crowd and use words just because they use them !

[SonnyKohler]

Kind of an odd thing to say for someone who insists we should inherently respect other cultures/religions.

Respect has a number of definitions:

 

1)  Respect of ones right to hold a set of beliefs (i.e. cultures/religions) regardless of how I feel personally about those cultures or religions

 

-or-

 

2)  Respect, as in admiration.

 

To me the two are mutually exclusive.

 

i.e. I respect your devotion to the ********* faith, but I do not respect your dismissive ignorance and outright bigotry towards others who do not share your religious persuasion.

 

I know it sounds contradictory, but, it's just the way I roll. 

[SonnyKohler]

Of course that makes sense. But Bayonet Hipshot said that base of his/her respect is agreement to his metaphysical vision of universe (unproven and kinda amusingly grim, let me add). Is it alright? I guess so. Is it alright that I find it disgusting, arrogant and juvenile? I guess it's alright as well. 

 

 

You can view yourself as such, but once again - I find it realy childish to disrespect conformism just because, since probably the most conformist thing in the world is language. How can you follow the crowd and use words just because they use them !

I'm confused by the supposition that I am disrespecting conformism.  I hope that is not the impression that I give.  I am one of the most fervent believers in cosmetic conformism you will ever meet.  I believe that the most powerful method of subversion is to have the mass believe you are conforming and to maintain that belief by them as you pursue your own goals.

 

Does that make sense?

[Heimdall]

True, but respect is earned, not an obligation.

Then why should we respect the Qun?  How has it earned our respect?

[TheKomandorShepard]

Compared to rest of Thedas, Qunari are able to provide you with safety, good care, low levels of prejudice and you won't become victim of nobility that is above the law, their only downside is lack of freedom that common people in places like Tevinter or Orlais don't have much anyway or it just plain sucks. It is most technologically advanced and efficient culture in Thedas.

 

Qunari may be aggressors in this conflict, but not only they have tendencies to conquests in Thedas.If i had to chose to be farmer in Orlais and farmer par vollen , i would go with Qunari.

[The Baconer]

Moreover, why is the Judeo-Christian ethos the only "true" "moral truth"?  Anyone who believes that should just be smacked.

 

I wouldn't know. Why is it? 

[Artona]

 

 

I'm confused by the supposition that I am disrespecting conformism.  I hope that is not the impression that I give.  I am one of the most fervent believers in cosmetic conformism you will ever meet.  

 

I do not think you do - I was simply explaining my own position (and fierce response to BayonetHipshot). What a qui pro quo .

 

 

 

I believe that the most powerful method of subversion is to have the mass believe you are conforming and to maintain that belief by them as you pursue your own goals.

 

Maybe it is. 

[SonnyKohler]

Then why should we respect the Qun?  How has it earned our respect?

Well they must have done something!  I can respect their dedication, their organization, their accomplishments, the abilities... Oh, I don't know, there have to be any number of things.

 

I respect their horns.

[Dai Grepher]

Another thing I'd like to add.

 

I think Koslun's statement about mastery of the self is a good tenet. He's talking about having discipline and exercising restraint. He's saying that you have choice. You get to define who you are, but only if you have control over yourself. And if you can master yourself and control your own life, then you can change the world.

 

The Qunari have twisted this to mean that you must master every part of your being to fulfill whatever purpose given to you. Not doing this is the same as being savage. A thing. Those who reject this are Tal-Vashoth. Those who have lost themselves completely and are beyond hope. And so those under the Qun are brainwashed or intimidated into a system of control.

[BansheeOwnage]

Wow I hadn't heard of this cut character before. Interesting.

 

I wonder if most/all of Trespasser was originally planned to be included in the base game, and the Qunari would have had more of a presence than just IB. Shokrakar could have been involved in the expanded Qunari plot.

Here's a link to the thread I read a long time ago, showing her character summation:

 

http://forum.bioware...nari-companion/

 

(She sounds awesome to me, and much more interesting than some of the companions we got )

 

My guess is yes to all of that, and that it's part of what they had to cut in order to get DA:I out on time. It explains a lot of things, like Corypheus' fairly anti-climactic defeat - he was a decoy villain.

 

Respect has a number of definitions:

 

1)  Respect of ones right to hold a set of beliefs (i.e. cultures/religions) regardless of how I feel personally about those cultures or religions

Well, in that sense, I respect people's right to believe whatever they please. I don't, however, think that their belief entitles them to any special treatment, and does not trump the rights of others. In other words, people should not be allowed to mistreat others based on religious teachings, just as people should not be allowed to mistreat others for non-religious reasons. I know that example is very vague, but I'm speaking in general here.

[sniper_arrow]

Kind of an odd thing to say for someone who insists we should inherently respect other cultures/religions.

 

Don't let the pink avatar profile fool you next time.