also yeah I agree with others. Right now this thread would be easier to read and discuss in if there were more specific examples. Right now everything is so rarified it's hard for me to get at the issues.
I was actually hoping that other people would bring examples of problematic content they've encountered and dealt with. Like, what kinds of things work to address problems and what don't. Are there ways in which people have used these problems to produce a better game, or role-play a interesting character?
mdt provided an example of a potential means by witch to circumnavigate some problems. Vivianne Laflamme also gave the example of a wuxia-style rpg that worked to recognize and distance itself from harmful portrayals of Chinese culture.
Let me give two one examples.
The first is a game design example. To be brief (because I think most people are familiar with this story), the first iteration of Erastil had some major problems in that his alignment seemed at odds with some of his personality characteristics. To put it bluntly, v1.0 Erastil was a bit of an backwards misogynist and believed
...while women can be strong, they should defer to and support their husbands, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children (consequently, there are few female priests in his church). Independent-minded women, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother command their attention.
Now, while there has been much debate over Erastil, the fact is that v1.1 is (arguably) much better. In Faiths of Purity his explanation no longer focuses on a preoccupation with keeping women submissive. In fact, he is now cast as being very concerned with the well-being of children, which makes the thought of a Erastilian paladin more coherent in my mind.
It appears that behind this change (of which these publications were about a year apart) some sort of process of identification of problematic content and reformulation of Erastil took place. In my opinion this is a good thing. Further, it is worth recognizing that this kind of process will be needed in the future, because it seems naive to think that there will never be problematic content ever again.
Second example to come as I think of a way to present it without writing an entire essay :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also yeah I agree with others. Right now this thread would be easier to read and discuss in if there were more specific examples. Right now everything is so rarified it's hard for me to get at the issues.
The example in the OP is the Juju mystery and the Vodun religion. In particular, Sean K. Reynolds suggests* that the mystery was rewritten to more closely resemble the actual religion. For those who missed the thread Reynolds's quote came from before it was locked, the thread was largely about nonevil undead and Golarion. The biggest change made to the mystery was to remove the ability to create nonevil undead.
There's a few points to go off of from here. Should we try to make things in fantasy roleplaying settings accurately reflect the real world? This has already been discussed somewhat in this thread. My opinion is that the answer is largely no. How do we know when an aspect of a foreign culture has been accurately represented? Here Said's orientalism is useful. The article by Deepa D linked above also has an interesting perspective. Is the representation of Vodun by the Juju mystery harmful? What views of African religions are reflected in this? How does this fit in with the (very western) notions of morality that are imbedded within the alignment rules?
*not asserts. See Reynolds's post below.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be brief (because I think most people are familiar with this story), the first iteration of Erastil had some major problems in that his alignment seemed at odds with some of his personality characteristics. To put it bluntly, v1.0 Erastil was a bit of an backwards misogynist
If ALL "good" beings believe all the same things in all potential moral/ethical situations, then there wouldn't be a pantheon of gods for Golorion; there would be a Zoroastran duo. In order to logically allow for a multiplicity of "good" gods who disagree on things, it means at least one of them will inevitably disagree with the early 21st c. U.S. liberal majority view on at least one topic as well.
To be brief (because I think most people are familiar with this story), the first iteration of Erastil had some major problems in that his alignment seemed at odds with some of his personality characteristics. To put it bluntly, v1.0 Erastil was a bit of an backwards misogynistIf ALL "good" beings believe all the same things in all potential moral/ethical situations, then there wouldn't be a pantheon of gods for Golorion; there would be a Zoroastran duo. In order to logically allow for a multiplicity of "good" gods who disagree on things, it means at least one of them will inevitably disagree with the early 21st c. U.S. liberal majority view on at least one topic as well.
Well, at least in my book misogyny is counter to "Good." so it isn't that he deviates from what other "Good" aligned deities believe, but that he believes something "Evil" from the perspective of some women and men.
While it is clear that some people will disagree over whether misogyny is "Good," the fact is there is a process in which this problem was addressed.
I had a similar situation occur in a game I ran earlier this year. We were in a flexible setting, and I allowed players to bring whatever elements they'd like from Golarion or 3.5 settings. One of the players was interested in playing a priest of Abadar, and this was inspired in apart by an experience he had with an Abadarian NPC (I think it was from "Seven Days to the Grave").
He didn't like the flavor which painted Abadarians as "dirty capitalist pigs," but liked the idea of cleric who protect large communities and are good leaders. In fact, he saw his character as being motivated to adventure because of these things. So, his character was largely shaped by a conflict he saw between being Lawful Good and capitalism. I thought is was rather clever, and his character was enriched by this extra context.
So... from this specific examples, an obvious direction some people can take is to consider contradictions they've noticed in certain settings or fluff and the new characters these contradictions inspired.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm finding thejeff's "that's not traditional on Golarion" explanation of the Erastil shift to be a lot more compelling than Annabel's "that's not good in my book" explanation, to be honest.
Let me hasten to add that I, personally, find misogyny to be "not good." However, I'm aware that there are any number of people who fervently believe the opposite (because of their religion or cultural traditions or whatever), and I'm realistic enough to understand there's not really an authority that agrees with me that also compels them to believe as I do.
@Justin Rocket
You've ignored the entire context around the sentence "I don't think it's enough to say, 'let each game table decide for itself,' because I don't think we as a community should simply abandon each game table to their own devices."
...In fact, I think that talking about these issues with the wider gaming community has the capacity to start making these things apparent so that "each game table decide for itself." Further, I think that by discussing how we have individually handled these issues (both when it's handled well or handled poorly), other gaming tables can draw on the tools, ideas, and strategies presented here. I don't think it's enough to say, "let each game table decide for itself," because I don't think we as a community should simply abandon each game table to their own devices. We publish rulebooks, adventures, and stories because we want to share these things among the gaming community. Why can't we do the same with ideas about problematic content?...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, say we get everyone together to discuss things. At the end of the day, there will be disagreement, so whose interpretation of "proper" application of Said's intellectual construct of "proper use" are we going to accept as the "right" one, for each example that comes up? And who's going to make sure the other tables pay attention to those decisions and incorporate them into their own thinking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've lived in the US all my life, and traveled elsewhere. The Wiki usage seemed far more familiar to me than yours.
The only times I've seen morality linked only to religion is when religious people have tried to claim atheists couldn't be moral. And they certainly didn't mean we couldn't be immoral either.
I guess we have different experiences. I've lived in the south and the midwest most of my life, and nobody I've ever met has every talked about Morals in anything other than a religious context, and every Ethics class I ever had at university was very firmly divorced from Religion and very firmly stated as not having anything to do with Morals.
I wonder if perhaps the people using Ethics and Morals interchangeably have perhaps never had an actual Ethics course?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term Moral and Immoral are inherently linked to religious debates. Giving charity to the poor is Moral. Stealing is Immoral. Sex out of marriage is Immoral.Your usage is at odds with e.g. how wikipedia uses the terms.My usage is consistent with the way it's used in the US, and everywhere I've ever lived, and most of the places I've visited that spoke english.
How wikipedia uses it probably has a lot to do with it being different cultures contributing to it.
Everywhere I've lived in the US (and that's quite a few places) Ethics and Morals are two completely different animals. Same when I was in London. Never came up when I was in Singapore or Hong Kong.
It's pretty disgusting and prejudicial to claim that morals are derived from religion. That some people make the connection only shows how deep the prejudice against the irreligious goes. While you may not believe Wikipedia's authority to define a word, both dictionary.com and Mirriam Webster agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only times I've seen morality linked only to religion is when religious people have tried to claim atheists couldn't be moral.
I loved it when a self-professed "Devout and Born-Again Christian" explained to me at length that, as an atheist, I therefore had no morals. I later learned that he was cheating on his girlfriend with an equally "born again" married woman.
I'm finding thejeff's "that's not traditional on Golarion" explanation of the Erastil shift to be a lot more compelling than Annabel's "that's not good in my book" explanation, to be honest.
I don't think that thejeff's explanation is in conflict or contradicts what I was talking about. There is no reason that the issue of the traditionalist position of Erastil can't be both critiqued from the perspective of issues about misogyny and issues about Golarion verisimilitude.
In fact, the two takes issues Erastil, and the player I mentioned who's concern over Abadar produced a dynamic cleric, they all share the common issue over what is designated as good/evil and how that plays into the complex ideas about morality and the verisimilitude of Golarion. I don't think that these issues are separate. In light of the fact that the identification of the out of place patriarchal Erastil is dependent on the fact that some problematic traditionalist account of gender are absent from Golarion. The absent of these accounts is not arbitrary, as the Paizo staff have explicitly stated that they have worked against sexism in their game design.
In thejeff's explanation, the form of sexism that v1.0 Erastil was already ruled out of Golarion because of concerns over the "not goodness" of misogyny. It's just that v1.0 went under the radar, and picked up misogyny from our world that is out of place on Golarion.
OTOH, is there anything about which that couldn't be said? Plenty of people have fervently believed in the goodness of racism, torture, slavery and pretty much anything else we generally agree is evil. Could you see a Good god of torture and racial slavery?
At a table full of the avid xenophobic masochists you're allusing to, yes, that would be appropriate. At my table, and presumably yours as well, it would not.
I always viewed it more as morality beingthe 'what' and ethics being the 'how'
I consider the rewrite of Erastil interesting. If Pathfinder didn't have alignment, then giving Erastil some curmudgeony view of sexual relationships would actually make for a richer flawed character (Kind of like how Pharasma is Pro-life, or the schism in Sarenae's church). But because Pathfinder has alignment...that leads to all sorts of weird implications and forces gods/outsiders into very narrow categories. Obviously you could cast Erastil as neutral, but for whatever reason that was not done.
Since Good is not something vague and culturally defined (like, say...real life), but a real quantifiable element of the Universe, it makes a lot of elements impossible. Although I find it interesting that there are some elements that nonetheless exist, such as slavery, or the fact that you even have sapient species that are almost entirely evil.
The absent of these accounts is not arbitrary, as the Paizo staff have explicitly stated that they have worked against sexism in their game design.
So, bear with me, are you saying the Paizo staff determine what is objectively "good" in the Saidian sense? (If not, who does?) Is the rewriting of the Juju mystery is therefore another example of an objectively "better" use?
Because, although I agree with them in general about sexism, in any number of other cases I might not.
The absent of these accounts is not arbitrary, as the Paizo staff have explicitly stated that they have worked against sexism in their game design.So, bear with me, are you claiming the Paizo staff determine what is objectively "good" in the Saidian sense, and we should all listen? Because, although in this instance I agree with them, in any number of others I might not.
No. Both because I haven't argued that Orientalism is directly related to their work regarding sexism, and because I don't think the phrase "good in the Saidian sense" even means anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A comment above also reminded me of one weird aspect of keeping alignment as real: It actually allows one to treat genocide and racial slavery as an acceptable possibility, as long as the individuals you are oppressing are evil.
That too me has some pretty disturbing connotations.
Yet since Pathfinder is a game, you need a reason for it to be acceptable to slaughter armies of mooks and take their stuff. You don't need to worry about making restitution with the goblin's family after you hack apart the head of the household, nor worry about whether you should have given negotiation a bigger chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Both because (1) I haven't argued that Orientalism is directly related to their work regarding sexism, and (2)because I don't think the phrase "good in the Saidian sense" even means anything.
(1) Then why raise the latter as your example in a thread purportedly about the former?
(2) You cited Said as being your go-to guy for what's "appropriate use." So I'm using "Saidian good" as shorthand for "appropriate according to Said's model."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some reading on Ethics vs Morality.
All of these were found just googling, and all 3 are better at saying what I'm talking about than I am. Basically, it comes down to Morals being more Religious because Morals are about what is good 'from a higher purpose' whereas Ethics is more about what is the correct thing to do based on a 'social framework'.
Basically, if your decision comes down to what you believe (god's law, your own personal version of morality), then you are making Moral or Immoral decisions.
If your decision comes down to what your social framework dictates, then you are making Ethical decisions.
Best example I've seen. A devout Catholic defense attorney knows her client committed a murder, and deserves to be punished. She is also a lawyer, and has an Ethical mandate to provide the murder the best possible defense. Assuming she has tried to withdraw from the case, but has been refused by the Judge, she has two options.
A Moral decision would be to throw the defense and make sure the murder goes to jail. And someone making a decision based on Morals would tell her she made the right decision. An Ethicist will tell her she made the wrong decision, because she let morals and emotions overcome her.
The Ethical decision would be to fight as hard as she can for the Murderer, because that is what her job is within the social framework of court, to provide the defendant the best defense she can. And someone who makes their decisions from an Ethical standpoint will tell her she made the right decision. A Moralist will tell her she made the wrong decision, because she didn't see to it that the murderer was punished.
The only times I've seen morality linked only to religion is when religious people have tried to claim atheists couldn't be moral.I loved it when a self-professed "Devout and Born-Again Christian" explained to me at length that, as an atheist, I therefore had no morals. I later learned that he was cheating on his girlfriend with an equally "born again" married woman.
That's a great story, but I didn't say the thing you quoted. :)
So the alternative is to not talk about things, right? Just let each group work everything out on it's own. No larger discussion of issues.
I love how people jump directly from "We should talk about these things" to "Who's going to enforce it?"
Because, if while you're talking, you tell them that the way they think is "wrong," you sort of need some means of backing up your claim. Or, if you accept that you have no means of enforcement, then you can talk all you want, but you'll be talking at the people who disagree with you, not to them. A bunch of avowed misogynysts are not going to "come around" to your way of thinking because of a bunch of philosophical talk about Orientalism.
That's a great story, but I didn't say the thing you quoted. :)
Oops.... quotation fail.
"I never said most of the things I said." --Yogi Berra
The absent of these accounts is not arbitrary, as the Paizo staff have explicitly stated that they have worked against sexism in their game design.So, bear with me, are you saying the Paizo staff determine what is objectively "good" in the Saidian sense? (If not, who does?) Is the rewriting of the Juju mystery is therefore another example of an objectively "better" use?
Because, although I agree with them in general about sexism, in any number of other cases I might not.
Oh, in your reformulation of your question, the answer is still no.
In part because I don't even know what "objectively good" or "good in the Saidian sense" means.
But I also answered "no" because I don't think that Said's Orientalism was the motivation for this change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, in general, I think throwing around the term Orientalism was just confusing to most people, although it was amusing to see how many people jumped on the "But the Japanese/Chinese/whoever were racist too!" bandwagon.
Turns out, this is just another "How to make a PC game" thread like all the veterans have seen a bunch of times before.
But, it's got a lot of people I've never noticed before. I think I'll let the newbies have the thread.
(For those interested: Orientalism by Edward Said)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for published works? Since we're talking about Erastil here. And you seem to be objecting to the change on larger grounds than "I know some groups would think that was good." I understood you to want a broader scope for Good within the game world, that would allow things many of use wouldn't think of as good. Was that correct?
Not quite. My thought is this: Paizo can think any use they want is "appropriate," and publish it as such, and still sell stuff. They don't need Said's work on Orientalism for that.
One group of consumers can then turn around and say, "These Pah-Zoh folks don't know nuthin' 'bout it, cuz my great-grand-daddy tol' me that Juju was all about scorin' chicks, not talkin' to animals. So I'm changin' it, 'cuz they done got it wrong." And they can do what they want with it, and also ignore Said's work on Orientalism to their hearts' content.
Another group might subject each revelation to a complex theoretical model involving cultural input and power imbalances and post-modernism, and come up with a different assessment. And they can play it that way. And they will never convince the first group that they're "wrong," nor will they convince Paizo of it. Their claims that it's somehow important to standardize views from table to table lack any purchase in pragmatic terms.
It's only in a few cases where the vast majority of the fan base agrees on a particular issue (e.g., "mysogyny is bad") that Paizo has to worry about whether their stance is good, bad, or even coherent. In every other case, it's irrelevant what Said, or anyone else, would say about what they're doing.
No. Both because (1) I haven't argued that Orientalism is directly related to their work regarding sexism, and (2)because I don't think the phrase "good in the Saidian sense" even means anything.(1) Then why raise the latter as your example in a thread purportedly about the former?
(2) You cited Said as being your go-to guy for what's "appropriate use." So I'm using "Saidian good" as shorthand for "appropriate according to Said's model."
1. Because I think that there is a lot of worthwhile issues that can be solved using similar or analogous tools. Sexism, racism, etc often have related parts and thus can sometimes be approached using similar tactics.
2. I never said that Siad was my go-to guy for "appropriate use." In fact, I've mostly left ideas about "good" and "bad" use vague because I suspected (and it has become very obvious as this thread wares on) that a lot of people get very up-tight when they suspect that someone is giving moral prescriptions (see Justin Rocket and your comments).
I think Orientalism is a useful tool for understanding knowledge production in the west as it pertains to a history of colonialism and global inequality that is reflected not on in our material reality but also knowledge about the orient. I introduced Orientalism in the beginning because I thought it would get the "juices flowing" around the topic and give people something to grasp when relating the seemingly large distance between fictional accounts of culture and real human history of racism, colonialism, and inequality.
But I didn't suggest Orientalism as a starting point because I think Said has "got it all right" or because I think Orientalism is the guidebook to representing or depicting other cultures.
And for published works? Since we're talking about Erastil here. And you seem to be objecting to the change on larger grounds than "I know some groups would think that was good." I understood you to want a broader scope for Good within the game world, that would allow things many of use wouldn't think of as good. Was that correct?Not quite. My thought is this: Paizo can think any use they want is "appropriate," and publish it as such, and still sell stuff. They don't need Said's work on Orientalism for that.
One group of consumers can then turn around and say, "These Pah-Zoh folks don't know nuthin' 'bout it, cuz my great-grand-daddy tol' me that Juju was all about scorin' chicks, not talkin' to animals. So I'm changin' it, 'cuz they done got it wrong." And they can do what they want with it, and also ignore Said's work on Orientalism to their hearts' content.
Another group might subject each revelation to a complex theoretical model involving cultural input and power imbalances and post-modernism, and come up with a different assessment. And they can play it that way. And they will never convince the first group that they're "wrong," nor will they convince Paizo of it. Their claims that it's somehow important to standardize views from table to table lack any purchase in pragmatic terms.
It's only in a few cases where the vast majority of the fan base agrees on a particular issue (e.g., "mysogyny is bad") that Paizo has to worry about whether their stance is good, bad, or even coherent. In every other case, it's irrelevant what Said, or anyone else, would say about what they're doing.
Well, at that point you're just exploiting your customers as fact-checkers. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to avoid portraying the Other only from your own (sub)cultures viewpoint is important. And hard.
Especially because a lot of Americans are Other to other Americans. And a lot of the people within their sub- sub- sub- sub-culture are still ultimately Other to them. When it comes right down to it, every individual person is something of a subculture of one. So we'd need to start with basic empathy for others' views, not some big east vs. west thing. And, unfortunately, empathy isn't something you can teach over the messageboards.
Because, if while you're talking, you tell them that the way they think is "wrong," you sort of need some means of backing up your claim. Or, if you accept that you have no means of enforcement, then you can talk all you want, but you'll be talking at the people who disagree with you, not to them. A bunch of avowed misogynysts are not going to "come around" to your way of thinking because of a bunch of philosophical talk about Orientalism.So the alternative is to not talk about things, right? Just let each group work everything out on it's own. No larger discussion of issues.
I love how people jump directly from "We should talk about these things" to "Who's going to enforce it?"
You're right, in a way. If you're dealing with actual avowed misogynists or racists, it's probably pointless.
It can be far more useful when talking to people who aren't, or don't want to be, racist or misogynist, but might not see how some common tropes look from the other side. [emphasis added]
Orientalism is useful in this context, even if it doesn't apply directly, since it's all about the difference between looking at the East from a Western perspective, whether romanticized or vilified, rather than from inside or some hypothetical impartial viewpoint. Trying to avoid portraying the Other only from your own (sub)cultures viewpoint is important. And hard.
This 100 times over! This is exactly what I think is the overall goal of talking about issues such a Orientalism. I think "[talking about issues] is pointless" is a very pessimistic and unhelpful position.
I know that I make and effort to not spend time with avowed misogynists or racists, and I certainly don't play pathfinder with them. But racist and misogynistic things are part of our culture, and they are bound to come up when being social for 4 to 8 hours a week roleplaying. Part of the question I asked at the beginning of this thread was about how do we "as game designers, GMs, and players" deal with the relations between real world issues and their analogues when the arise in roleplaying games. I don't assume that everyone is always on the same page with these issues, but I do assume that the people I play with have to tools, or can develop the tools, to discuss and understand these issues.
The example in the OP is the Juju mystery and the Vodun religion. In particular, Sean K. Reynolds asserts that the mystery was rewritten to more closely resemble the actual religion.
Just to clarify, I didn't assert anything. I suggested it as a possibility, along with another possibility, but made no assertions that either was the case:
"The second [version of the juju mystery] is actually valid for PFS play (the first one was never allowed in PFS), so you actually have more options than before. Hey, perhaps that's why the change was made. Or perhaps it was made to make the juju concept actually be more like the real-world vodun religion that inspired it, instead of the intended-only-for-NPCs version in City of Seven Spears."
A comment above also reminded me of one weird aspect of keeping alignment as real: It actually allows one to treat genocide and racial slavery as an acceptable possibility, as long as the individuals you are oppressing are evil.
That too me has some pretty disturbing connotations.
Yet since Pathfinder is a game, you need a reason for it to be acceptable to slaughter armies of mooks and take their stuff. You don't need to worry about making restitution with the goblin's family after you hack apart the head of the household, nor worry about whether you should have given negotiation a bigger chance.
Yeah, I have always thought that about the alignment system. It's failure to actually do the "real" work of ethical concepts of good and bad makes it really messy in game.
I was reading a 3.5 splat book called Hero's of Horror, and it had a part on the implication of alignment in Horror genre of story telling. The book actually suggests that to effectively do a Horror kind of game where the "goodies" are hard to distinguish from the "baddies" a DM might just have to do away with alignment all together. It was an interesting take on problems with the alignment system and how they conflict with certain kinds of narratives.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the bigger question is whether having a class which uses zombies is offensive. Must the perspective of zombie creators label them "evil" and "offensive"? Might not those labels be Western? Might it not be possible that the existence of a foreign people with foreign values in the text be a way to introduce players to cultural relativism?
I've been arguing that, all week. And it seems I'm not alone, given the positive response to my posts.
Removing the possibility of non-evil undead not only makes no sense, from in-game cosmological precedents, but shuts down many potential story paths.
The Pharaoh's Eternal Guard, embalmed with him, to protect him from evil.
Arthur and his Grail Knights, slumbering under a barrow mound, awaiting their call to protect Albion.
The good wizard, prolonging his lifespan beyond mortal limits, to finish his philanthropic research.
All evil.
Or else they're fudged into being a different creature type than undead, despite that being exactly what they are.
|
|
I will, however, say things like, for example, "for any cultural small detail I didn't fill in presume generic east European. For say, food, drink, types of music enjoyed whatever, if I didn't mention it, I give a generic "filler" culture as the padding.
And doesn't that give an advantage to players who are familiar with that culture, and a disadvantage to players from other cultures?
Of course it does, but you need something to go there, right? Do you notice how the default is Europe, and the other cultures are the exotic ones? That's Said's point.
But is that a problem?
If no-one in the group is from that 'exotic' culture, who is being offended?And if there is a member of that 'exotic' culture in the group, or someone who has widely traveled and/or worked there, the group would surely have absorbed their friend's accurate knowledge of that culture, and the problem would be averted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But is that a problem?
If no-one in the group is from that 'exotic' culture, who is being offended?
Whether or not someone is offended is immaterial to the issue. The reinforcement of the faulty stereotype is a problem for the holders of the stereotype as well as for its target. A homophobic culture is not any better, if there is no homosexual behaviour. If it were, the perfect answer to homophobia would be to get rid of all homosexuals.
To put it simply and bluntly: the problem resides with the perpetrators, not with the victims.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it's the hubris of starting with the assumption of one's own moral infallability that bugs me here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it's the hubris of starting with the assumption of one's own moral infallability that bugs me here.
Making and stating a moral judgement is not an implicit assumption of infallibility. Any such judgement should always be open to argument.
Here's own in support of my stated position:
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?
Two main reasons:
a) Social factors - group pressure, cultural taken-for-grantedness, fear or repression, ... - can influence the behaviour of a person, even without that person realizing it.
b) Minimizing misconception and false beliefs is itself good and valuable, making behaviour that engenders or reinforces false beliefs and misconceptions morally reprehensible, even if that behaviour only immediately affects the persons behaving in that way.
Both of these reason can of course be subject of argument themselves.
Along similar lines: Denying subjectivism (necessary for reasons of practical consistency) does not equal the assertion of one's own moral infallibility, it is merely denying subjectivism.
I guess it's the hubris of starting with the assumption of one's own moral infallability that bugs me here.
No one has assumed that they are morally infallible here.
No one has assumed that they are morally infallible here.I guess it's the hubris of starting with the assumption of one's own moral infallability that bugs me here.
I take offense at being spoken for!
I'll have you know I'm Morally Infallible!
I might be unethical at times, but I never make any morally wrong judgements!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to writing dirty jokes about women, toaster ovens, and sea weed...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?
I look at the Jyllands-Posten affair a few years back and immediately see very strong reasons why an offended party is the least reliable of all possible arbiters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should whether or not someone actually takes offence at misrepresentation not be the arbiter of its moral value?I look at the Jyllands-Posten affair a few years back and immediately see very strong reasons why an offended party is the least reliable of all possible arbiters.
While the absence of offence does not make something acceptable or good, the presence of offence does at least constitute some kind of evil. Though, I would argue, that if the offence is not justified, it constitutes a very minor evil and if it is justified than the real problem is not the offence but what was taken offence at. The offence then mostly signals the presence of a more substantial evil. And furthermore, one might argue that if taking offence is justified, than it is also mandatory. That is: If I was right to take offence at what you did, everyone who didn't take offence at it, should have.
But of course, the parties taking offence are as entitled as everyone to participate in moral discourse. At best one might say that strong feelings of being offended might cloud the judgement.
But my point was not about who should decide, it was about what should count as reasons and evidence for a moral judgement.