|
The problem is that the first definition, which you considered irrelevant to the discussion, is how I define morality. I don't believe in absolute moral rules, so for me, that definition is required to discuss what "good" and "evil" are. Taboos aren't about good and evil, they limit the definition to social pressures and remove conscience and sentiment from the discussion. I consider them not only necessary, but integral. If adding "guided by individual sentiment and personal conscience" to the end of the definition helps, that would be even more descriptive.
You're using a descriptive definition of morality to answer prescriptive answers to question of what should be done. You can't actually arrive a coherent conclusion using those means.
Consider the following: The question is "Is it evil to crucify dead bandits alongside the road to terrorize others into forgoing banditry?"
Using a descriptive definition of morality, the only possible answer that one can come up with is "It depends the relative morality of the time and place." That's not a particularly useful answer, by which I mean it doesn't seem to answer the question satisfactorily.
It becomes more problematic when we are confronted with the question in the context of Dungeons & Dragons, because the question presumes a world of objective morality that transcends time and space. We know that the world of D&D is not one of subjective, relativistic morality because every nation is not Lawful Good. Tyrannical states, such as Cheliax, are still Lawful Evil despite acting in accordance with their own relative moral beliefs.
So clearly we need a normative definition of morality. You seem to recognize this when you attempt to add "guided by individual sentiment and personal conscience," because obviously making the claim that you should always do what your society thinks is right is a trap that leads to you being forced to endorse the Holocaust.
Unfortunately, that still leaves us with the conclusion that a serial killer ("personal conscience") who thinks women should be cut to pieces ("individual sentiment") has morals, and that by hacking apart hookers he is acting in a moral fashion from his own perspective.
That's a very weird definition of morality, and would seem to require you to answer the OP's question with "Depends on the time, place, your individual sentiments and personal conscience."
Which again, isn't a particularly useful answer. Clearly what's needed is a methodical approach that allows us to address the question in a rational manner and arrive at a sound conclusion that can serve to direct action.
Obviously I think they ("good" and "evil") are subjective terms open to different interpretations, and it would be presumptuous and a bit arrogant of me to believe that my interpretations are the only correct ones.
Yes, it would be arrogant of you. It also makes it impossible for you to act on any sort of moral judgement without, apparently, indulging in arrogance. I find it very counter-intuitive that requires one to believe oneself arrogant for thinking it is wrong for the serial killer mentioned above to hack apart hookers.
How dare you impose your opinions on what is right and wrong on him? You don't know that you're correct. Perhaps he's right, perhaps the moral thing to do is cut out hooker's hearts and wear them as hats. That's his opinion, and you can't prove otherwise!
No it doesn't. Although I believe morals are personal and individual, they are subjective, and not absolute and therefore subject to change.
This makes discussion of these concepts vital. Just like any personal value, discussion brings learning, mutual understanding, empathy, and sometimes compromise and agreement. These are all worthy reasons for addressing moral questions.
Just because we can't come to an objective answer doesn't mean the process isn't worthwhile, never mind impossible.
The problem is not that we can't come up with an objective answer, it's that we can't come up with a normative answer. We can't come up with an answer that tell us what to do. Fundamentally we need an answer that informs action, but the process you are describing only seems to inform further (possibly endless) speculation.
Let's assume that the OP, a cleric of a NG god, is asking the question because he desires to avoid doing evil. Do you agree that is a fair assumption? If it is a fair assumption, then we could rephrase the OP's question as such: "If I wish to avoid doing evil, should I crucify dead bandits alongside the road to terrorize others into forgoing banditry?"
I'm trying to understand how you can possibly hope to answer this normative question with a descriptive definition of morality. I can't see how you arrive at any answer that is rational and informs action without invoking some sort of principle of action, and once you do that you're treating morality as normative and have contradicted your own claims.
goblin dogs hyena's and gnolls will also be attracted to the dead body and may likely start eating it as well and attracting those to the road is not the best idea either.
Ah, the Blustering Blowhard Rebuttal! Seriously. Your arguments don't make a lick of sense to me, but you present them very forcefully.
The bolded part was added by me to correct your statement. Unless you decide to specify how my arguments happen to be invalid, it is a particularly arrogant and ignorant thing to assume they make no sense rather than you simply being unable to find sense in them.
That's not what universality means. Universality is the idea that if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us.
Which is exactly what I was saying - I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it as meaning "do you really think everyone WILL do that in the same situation" rather than "does it make sense for everyone to do that in the same situation". Now, feel free to go back and read what I said with that in mind.
First of all, I've said repeatedly that I'm not talking about objective morality.
But Kant is. Kant's moral system imagines itself objective, so by declaring yourself a Kantian absolutist, you are declaring yourself a believer in objective morality. Additionally you have repeatedly railed against subjective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective - full stop.
I really can't follow your argument. It doesn't seem to be in response to my argument at all, and it seems like you're attacking a strawman. Rather vigorously I might add.
It is entirely possible that I am attacking a strawman for the simple reason that you HAVE NO POSITION on the topic - you now claim to neither believe in subjective morality or objective morality, and the only other option is to simply disbelieve in morality as a whole (the only time something can escape membership in a binary category system is non-existence). Declaring something to be axiomatic is not a "third option" - axioms are just chosen assumptions, not universal truths as you seem to imagine they are. If the foundation of a system of morality was a universal truth, and there were no mistakes in the process of deriving the moral system from that universal truth, then the system of morality would be completely and absolutely objective.
The problem is not that we can't come up with an objective answer, it's that we can't come up with a normative answer. We can't come up with an answer that tell us what to do. Fundamentally we need an answer that informs action, but the process you are describing only seems to inform further (possibly endless) speculation.
This is a really bad argument - it is tantamount to saying that because one path is hard, it is wrong. Additionally you're once again trying to handwave away the subjective/objective dichotomy... and to obfuscate the fact that you're really pushing the idea of objective morality while claiming you don't believe in such a thing.
Just because someone doesn't believe in objective morality doesn't mean that all discussion of morality they may partake in is useless - it simply means that they won't agree with your objective moral systems, and will instead define morality in terms of group consensus and individual rationalization. You seem horrified by the idea that someone might THINK moral something that you find immoral, and that the existence of such cases invalidates subjectivity. It really, really doesn't... it just means you have a tough time in a world where people aren't clones of you.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that we're arguing quite a bit about whether or not there is a universal morality. I grant you that's debatable in our world, but in the game in question, it is not. To quote the Book of Vile Darkness from 3.5, "Of course there's assumed to be an objective morality in most fantasy settings, otherwise spells like 'Detect Evil' wouldn't work."
Since that objective standard is set for the purposes of the game, whether it would be practical for the real world or not, we're given what defines "Evil" characters. A description of a Lawful Evil character from the PHB:
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes
what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct
without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition,loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He
is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but
is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to
their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or
social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises." (Emphasis mine.)
Compare this to Lawful Good:
"Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good
person is expected or required to act. She combines a
commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight
relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps
those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful
good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion."
The LG is a little less clear on this, but by the antithetical nature of the two alignments it can be reasonably assumed that if a LE character cares nothing for dignity or life, then a LG character MUST.
It has been mentioned in too many guides and books to count (You might compare/contrast with the guides Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds) but not giving the dead what is considered 'proper respect'---i.e., killing of necessity, not displaying them, arranging proper burials when appropriate---is part of treating others with dignity.
In any case, I've never been a fan of the "This is a MEDIEVAL setting" justifications as if we were truly abiding by medieval standards of morality, all adventurers would be men and any woman who spoke or attempted to lead would be burned as a witch. Obviously the morality presented in most, if not all, campaign settings is meant to adhere to a post-Enlightenment philosophy of ethics. Hence why torture was okay (particularly in service to the church) in the dark ages, but is still considered an evil act by the standards of the game, even when performed against an evil creature in service of a good deity.
|
|
Unless you decide to specify how my arguments happen to be invalid, it is a particularly arrogant and ignorant thing to assume they make no sense rather than you simply being unable to find sense in them.
That's rich coming from the guy who opened with "Ah, the Chewbacca Defense." You accuse me of obfuscating stupidity, I accuse you of being a blowhard. Seems fair to me.
That's not what universality means. Universality is the idea that if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us.Which is exactly what I was saying - I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it as meaning "do you really think everyone WILL do that in the same situation" rather than "does it make sense for everyone to do that in the same situation". Now, feel free to go back and read what I said with that in mind.
I did not misinterpret anything, you misspoke. You said "everyone would always perform that same action." Of course I interpreted that as meaning "everyone will always perform the same action." Would is the past present participle of will. Don't accuse me of misreading for reading what you actually wrote rather than what you meant to say.
First of all, I've said repeatedly that I'm not talking about objective morality.But Kant is. Kant's moral system imagines itself objective...
No, it doesn't. Kant specifically formulated his argument so that it holds true regardless of whether there is or is not an objective reality.
...so by declaring yourself a Kantian absolutist, you are declaring yourself a believer in objective morality. Additionally you have repeatedly railed against subjective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective - full stop.
Because you say so?
It is entirely possible that I am attacking a strawman for the simple reason that you HAVE NO POSITION on the topic - you now claim to neither believe in subjective morality or objective morality, and the only other option is to simply disbelieve in morality as a whole (the only time something can escape membership in a binary category system is non-existence).
Or maybe you're presenting a false dilemma and it's not either/or. I hold the position that morality is like math, which is neither objective nor subjective. You know what Einstein said about math?
"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality."
It seems to me that we're arguing quite a bit about whether or not there is a universal morality. I grant you that's debatable in our world, but in the game in question, it is not. To quote the Book of Vile Darkness from 3.5, "Of course there's assumed to be an objective morality in most fantasy settings, otherwise spells like 'Detect Evil' wouldn't work."
Monte Cook likes evil to be a real force and Dave Noonan does not. They both wrote extensively for Wizards of the Coast. They both have been highly influential to the game. Both believe that spell casting functions under their view of alignment. Yet, not both of these men can be correct. Of course, the Book of Vile Darkness is irrelevant (and wrong) in regards to Pathfinder. Here is the definition of Alignment in Pathfinder.
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Emphasis mine. The rules specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional. That is subjective morality. It cannot be objective because objective morality is predicated on definable and comparable standards and cannot be inconsistent without also being incorrect. Objective morality presupposes enslavement (or at the very least a strong predisposition) to a definable and salient force.
Subjective morality presupposes free will and choice. That is the only kind of morality that could ever be useful in a game about choice. Every time the game implies that evil is a tangible force it is factually wrong.
The rules specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional.No, they don't.
I just read the alignment rules again (it's been a while). I didn't see anywhere it said this in the alignment section, but a lot of other fun stuff...
The rules specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional.No, they don't.
Yes, they do. A general personality is subjective. A personal philosophy is subjective. If animals and other creatures are incapable of moral action it is only because they lack the ability to make the choice to do so. In a world where "few people are completely consistent" to their alignment it is only because they are have the free will to do so. If it were objective you would conform to a standard. Otherwise, the standard would be wrong. Nothing meaningful is gained by implementing objective morality in a game that presupposes free will, choice, and customization. It is a contradiction to even suggest (in regards to the game) that objective morality would even allow for such things.
The rules specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional.No, they don't.Yes, they do. A general personality is subjective. A personal philosophy is subjective. If animals and other creatures are incapable of moral action it is only because they lack the ability to make the choice to do so. In a world where "few people are completely consistent" to their alignment it is only because they are have the free will to do so. If it were objective you would conform to a standard. Otherwise, the standard would be wrong. Nothing meaningful is gained by implementing objective morality in a game that presupposes free will, choice, and customization. It is a contradiction to even suggest (in regards to the game) that objective morality would even allow for such things.
It does say that "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."
And
"..but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment." (the exception is class, spells, and items with repercussions)
But it does not "specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional", not in so many words anyway ;)
It does say that "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."And
"..but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment." (the exception is class, spells, and items with repercussions)
But it does not "specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional", not in so many words anyway ;)
You are correct. My choice of words were poor and for that I apologize. Allow me to amend my previous statement:
"The game heavily implies that morality is subjective by giving us a definition that could not be otherwise. Alignment is stated as being personal, inconsistent, and volitional. These points are not consistent with objective morality and therefor the only logical conclusion is that alignment, and by extension, morality in Pathfinder is subjective."
You're using a descriptive definition of morality to answer prescriptive answers to question of what should be done. You can't actually arrive a coherent conclusion using those means.
You misinterpret what I am doing. I am not answering questions. I'm questioning answers.
You believe you have the definitive answers to moral questions. I doubt there are definitive answers to moral questions.
Consider the following: The question is "Is it evil to crucify dead bandits alongside the road to terrorize others into forgoing banditry?"
Using a descriptive definition of morality, the only possible answer that one can come up with is "It depends the relative morality of the time and place." That's not a particularly useful answer, by which I mean it doesn't seem to answer the question satisfactorily.
I would say "it depends", but the morality of the time and place is not why it depends.
You seem to think I consider all moral claims equally valid, that is not the case, I just don't subscribe to a perfect moral claim and acknowledge that time and place affect moral codes. In my mind, morality is a matter of degrees. There are two extremes (the extreme good and the extreme evil) which encompass nothing you will ever see in reality. Everything else is shades of grey, some darker, some lighter, and always changing based on circumstance, and all imperfect due to personal bias, ignorance, or lack of empathy on my part. Circumstance is exceedingly important, and the reason an "is X evil?" claim almost always needs an "it depends" answer. I can explain that more...
For example, if you said it was moral to burn suspected witches, I would not consider your moral claim valid, because it is based on ignorance of natural laws. Moral claims based on ignorance must be invalid.
That said, if you knew the natural laws but were complacent in the burning of suspected witches anyway, then your action would be more immoral than those who were ignorant of those laws. Knowing better leaves us no excuse for not doing better. The key here is sentiment. You KNOW you are burning the innocent, while the superstitious believe they are punishing the wicked. These are not equal crimes.
In this case, I could feel fairly confident in saying that burning witches is generally evil (though I wouldn't use an absolute, because I am not omniscient), but if asked how evil, I would need to say, "it depends"
Therefore, it becomes clear that with knowledge we gain greater ability to assess moral claims. It stands to reason that as humanity continues to gain knowledge, our ability to assess morality in turn will improve. However, inversely, as long as knowledge builds, we will never be in the perfect position to claim certainty or absolutes. Absolutes require absolute knowledge, which we just don't have and will never have.
I would also outright reject any moral claim that involved no victim. Homosexual acts for example have no victim, so we can't logically consider them immoral. (being offended and being victimized are two radically different concepts)
It becomes more problematic when we are confronted with the question in the context of Dungeons & Dragons, because the question presumes a world of objective morality that transcends time and space. We know that the world of D&D is not one of subjective, relativistic morality because every nation is not Lawful Good. Tyrannical states, such as Cheliax, are still Lawful Evil despite acting in accordance with their own relative moral beliefs.
Again, not all moral claims are equally valid even with subjective morality.
I do however suspect that the designers intend an objective morality to exist within the gameworld.
However, setting those objective morals in your individual campaign will be subjective. My evidence for that is this thread and all the other "Is X evil?" threads. If there was an objective morality in place for the game we could say a definitive yes or no, and probably point to the page number for evidence.
In other words, we use our subjective morality to set an objective reality. Even then, the morality is only hypothetically objective, as GM's are going to end up taking things like intent, sentiment, empathy, and other "fuzzy" circumstances into account when answering the "is this good or evil?" question.
Edit:
P.S. You mentioned that you had never seen Kant's philosophy refuted. You mean to your satisfaction? I've been flexing google muscles the past few days, it looks like Ayn Rand wrote lots about Kant (and Hume) and was not complementary of either. She was an objectivist, and believed that objectivism refuted Kantianism completely and utterly.
Frankly, she seems to deal in absolutes too, so is coming at Kant from a flawed position. I'm inclined to doubt both positions.
|
|
Yes, they do. A general personality is subjective. A personal philosophy is subjective.The rules specifically call out morality as personal, inconsistent, and volitional.No, they don't.
So is an opinion on art. But you know what none of them are? Morality.
If animals and other creatures are incapable of moral action it is only because they lack the ability to make the choice to do so.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the reason Kant excludes animals from the list of possible moral agents.
In a world where "few people are completely consistent" to their alignment it is only because they are have the free will to do so.
We both agree on that point. But you seem to fail to see the obvious implication of that statement. If people fail to be consistent, then the possibility must exist that one could act consistently with an alignment. Which means there must be some standard to conform to...
If it were objective you would conform to a standard. Otherwise, the standard would be wrong. Nothing meaningful is gained by implementing objective morality in a game that presupposes free will, choice, and customization. It is a contradiction to even suggest (in regards to the game) that objective morality would even allow for such things.
Um...okay. I'm not sure if I agree with you there, since morality requires a concept of free will to be meaningful, which remains true if morality is objective or subjective. But I'm not arguing that morality is objective. So yeah.
The argument Kant uses actually extends from the concept of free will - that rational and autonomous agents are moral agents because they can choose to act. The ability to choose between the rational and the irrational is what makes a moral agent a moral agent. It's also what makes separates an end unto itself (a person) and not a means to an end (a tool).
Kant's argument in a nutshell is that you can't treat an end unto itself (i.e. a person) as a means to an end without contradicting your claim to being a rational, autonomous being.
I won't go through the whole argument, but an important point he makes is that it is impossible for imperfect moral agents to act perfectly good, because their imperfection creates contradictions between good acts that would be possible for a perfect being.
Consider Superman and a USMC marine.
If the marine is on patrol in Afghanistan and he and his unit are ambushed by Taliban fighters who open fire, the marines are forced into a conflict between two competing goods: preserving their own lives and preserving the lives of the Taliban fighter. They must choose one evil over another. However, they are justified in choosing the Taliban over themselves because the Taliban are forcing them to make the choice.
But consider Superman in the same situation. He is not justified in killing the Taliban, because they cannot hurt him. He is not being forced to choose between his life or their lives. He can choose to ignore them entirely (and likely would do just that, unless there were potential innocent victims at risk).
We hold Superman to a higher standard because he is a higher being, with powers that bring him closer to the idealized, perfect being. While not omnipotent, Superman exists on a scale entirely beyond the human ken. He is nigh invulnerable, and so if he reacted to being shot with automatic rifles by punching everyone's head into orbit (which he could do), we would be horrified.
The only being we could expect to be perfect -- that is expect to always act with the intention of doing the highest good -- is a being that is, for all intents and purposes, a God. That being would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immortal.
The only being we could expect to be perfect -- that is expect to always act with the intention of doing the highest good -- is a being that is, for all intents and purposes, a God. That being would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immortal.
Which do not exist in Pathfinder.
|
|
You believe you have the definitive answers to moral questions. I doubt there are definitive answers to moral questions.
No, I believe there are definitive answers to moral questions. Not that I know them.
You seem to think I consider all moral claims equally valid, that is not the case, I just don't subscribe to a perfect moral claim...There are two extremes (the extreme good and the extreme evil) which encompass nothing you will ever see in reality...
See, that's almost exactly what Kant argued. That you don't see perfect good and perfect evil in reality, because perfect good requires a perfect moral agent. Even the gods in Pathfinder aren't perfect beings.
Likewise, you couldn't see perfect evil because its logically impossible. In order to be perfectly evil, a being would have to be immortal, omnipotent and omnipresent. It would have to exist everywhere at all times and do all possible evil things. But it would also be forced to kill itself - killing a rational, autonomous being is evil, you are a rational, autonomous being, so you must kill yourself, and a being that kills itself cannot be immortal, therefore you cannot logically exist.
Everything else is shades of grey, some darker, some lighter, and always changing based on circumstance, and all imperfect due to personal bias, ignorance, or lack of empathy on my part. Circumstance is exceedingly important, and the reason an "is X evil?" claim almost always needs an "it depends" answer. I can explain that more...
For example, if you said it was moral to burn suspected witches, I would not consider your moral claim valid, because it is based on ignorance of natural laws. Moral claims based on ignorance must be invalid.
Stop, wait. Natural laws? Regardless of the validity of natural law arguments (highly questionable), you can't claim that you are making moral judgements from a position of subjective morality while using a natural law argument. Allow me to quote Wikipedia: "Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior."
That's your objective morality.
Therefore, it becomes clear that with knowledge we gain greater ability to assess moral claims. It stands to reason that as humanity continues to gain knowledge, our ability to assess morality in turn will improve. However, inversely, as long as knowledge builds, we will never be in the perfect position to claim certainty or absolutes. Absolutes require absolute knowledge, which we just don't have and will never have.
I agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shelyn called. She's never heard of Immanuel Kant or David Hume.
BUT, she also wanted me to tell you to stop crucifying the bodies of dead bandits.
Ah... Moral Debate, having been and always will be a popular yet controversial subject of gaming ever since alignment was turned into an in-game mechanic.
I'm not going to argue on whether or not displaying crucified bodies along a road is good or evil. However, Shelyn being a colorful goddess of love, beauty, and art would be very disturbed by rotting corpses sitting out for all to see. She's even got this thing about being extremely merciful. You're better off with Iomedae than Shelyn.
Edit: and that's still pushing it.
So is an opinion on art. But you know what none of them are? Morality.
Art isn't listed as part of the definition of alignment. Unfortunately, as bad as it is, general personality and and personal philosophy are part of that definition. In reality neither are morality (though they are closely related as they are informed by morality). But, like it or not, in Pathfinder that is what morality consists of. You know why? Because that's what the rules say the definition of alignment is.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the reason Kant excludes animals from the list of possible moral agents.
I don't see how that is 'odd' in the least. Morality necessitates that this is the case.
We both agree on that point. But you seem to fail to see the obvious implication of that statement. If people fail to be consistent, then the possibility must exist that one could act consistently with an alignment. Which means there must be some standard to conform to...
Morality as a concept is subjective. However, once morality is ascribed specific values, implementing that code of values is objective because there is a standard to conform to. Morality is a natural consequence of making the most fundamental choice you could ever make; to live. Morality is the code of values that describe the principles or actions necessary to implement that choice. The only standard you can conform to is the standard you have set for yourself. Being inconsistent means doing something which goes against your basic values. There is no 'mystical' objective standard and there cannot be without removing choice.
However, in Pathfinder, we are given Alignment. An abstraction of real world morality divided into 9 vague groups and attributed with subjective properties. And within the definition of Alignment it states that people are inconsistent in regards to their alignment. How they are inconsistent or what they even mean by inconsistent isn't defined.
Um...okay. I'm not sure if I agree with you there, since morality requires a concept of free will to be meaningful, which remains true if morality is objective or subjective. But I'm not arguing that morality is objective. So yeah.
I didn't say that you had made any argument at all. Because...well...up until now none of your arguments have been directed at me. You have only challenged my premise.
Kant's argument in a nutshell is that you can't treat an end unto itself (i.e. a person) as a means to an end without contradicting your claim to being a rational, autonomous being.I won't go through the whole argument, but an important point he makes is that it is impossible for imperfect moral agents to act perfectly good, because their imperfection creates contradictions between good acts that would be possible for a perfect being.
I'm quite familiar with Kant's arguments. I outright reject the “phenomenal” world being a distortion or that man's ability to conceptualize, envision, or observe is in itself a distorting factor or that man is incapable if fully understanding the world around him. I reject the idea that man's concepts are a delusion which man has no escape from or that reality is inaccessible to human reason. I reject the idea that reason or science is limited in scope or perception. I reject the idea of a "noumenal” world.
I also reject the idea that if your action is motivated by duty, a categorical imperative, then it is moral regardless or whether or not it benefits you, someone else or no one. If you perform that action and your motivation is anything BUT duty it is either amoral or immoral. I reject self-abnegation. I reject any ideology that attacks both the efficacy of a man’s mind and objective reality at a metaphysical level.
I do not say this to be rude or to antagonize. I do not mean to, in anyway, imply that you are a bad person or that I am superior. I say these things so it is clear exactly where I stand in regards to Kant and his ideas.
I am willing to continue to debate the specifics of morality as it concerns Pathfinder. However, if you would like to continue to discuss Kant and his ideas I request you start another thread (or I can start one). Not because it is off topic (I don't believe that it is). But rather to give the argument the respect and attention it deserves.
That's rich coming from the guy who opened with "Ah, the Chewbacca Defense." You accuse me of obfuscating stupidity, I accuse you of being a blowhard. Seems fair to me.
Your statement, in response to pretty much everything related to morality was to cite what you feel is the central axiom in Kant's philosophy, to declare that it is impossible to refute, and then to just handwave all the steps that go from that to any conclusions you might use that are topically relevant. Because of that, I absolutely did (and do) accuse you of obfuscation, though I suspect it related less to stupidity than it does an inability to actually argue your case.
So, in short, your statement was "if the kantian axiom I mentioned is irrefutably true, which I declare it to be, then everything kant has ever said is irrefutably true, which it is, precluding any need for me to elaborate.".
Obviously I found that pretty silly.
I did not misinterpret anything, you misspoke. You said "everyone would always perform that same action." Of course I interpreted that as meaning "everyone will always perform the same action." Would is the past present participle of will. Don't accuse me of misreading for reading what you actually wrote rather than what you meant to say.
If I meant what you say I meant, then my subsequent examples would make no sense. If I meant what I say I meant, then they make perfect sense. This is all part of general reading comprehension - if your understanding of Statement A makes the subsequent Statement B make no sense, then your mind should reflexively question your understanding of Statement A and attempt to reinterpret it.
So all you're doing now is arguing phrasing to avoid addressing any actual points. That, again, suggests to me an inability to argue the point you believe to be true.
No, it doesn't. Kant specifically formulated his argument so that it holds true regardless of whether there is or is not an objective reality.
I notice you never actually go into any detail. I wonder if you can universalize that: unqualified negation of statements in any discussion. Are you a consciously immoral person, or simply not as kantian as you claim?
Because you say so?
If you believe that a concept such as morality can be something other than subjective or objective, then by all means explain how that is possible. Either something exists completely separate from the individual's perceptions and is thus objective, or it exists as an interpretation modified or created by the individual's perception, and is subjective. They are mutually exclusive, but all-encompassing when relating to aspects of the human condition.
Or maybe you're presenting a false dilemma and it's not either/or. I hold the position that morality is like math, which is neither objective nor subjective. You know what Einstein said about math?
This could be a great place for me to echo your "Because you say so?" bit, but instead I'll simply ask you to qualify the statement.
Mathematics and Logic are objective - that is to say, they deal with the performance of completely objective operations. The results, however, are not guaranteed to be objective truth as they are only as "good" as the premises on which they are based.
|
Interestingly enough, just because you call a force Good or Evil, that doesn't mean it is synonymous with the concepts of good and evil.
Even in the context of the game, [evil] is not the same as the alignment evil, and neither necessarily has anything to do with real-world conceptions of evil.
Just like 'level' means multiple things in the context of the game (spell level, character level, caster level, etc.), and none of that has anything to do with whether it's 'level' enough to balance a cup of water upon...
|
|
For purposes of the GAME, it is. You also have to remember that D%D was created by a generation with a different take on the morality plane than the present one, a generation in which most people believed that good and evil were real concepts not tennis balls to be bandied about by sophists.If you want a game where good and evil are merely subjective arguments, play Storyteller, if you want a game where no one gives a damm, play Shadowrun or Cyberpunk or any Avalon Hill based fantasy rpg.
I find it interesting that you think the difference between people's morality is a generational one.
Also, I made no claim about what game I want, so kindly stop telling me what to play.
Stop, wait. Natural laws? <snip>
That's your objective morality.
I don't know what you are talking about. Witches don't actually exist, we know this because of scientific knowledge. Magic not existing is an objective truth, but it's not a moral question.
Am I using an unclear term with "natural laws"? Perhaps I should use "Physical laws"?
No, I believe there are definitive answers to moral questions. Not that I know them.
Fair enough, you don't know them but you believe they exist.
I don't believe they exist. I believe greater knowledge gives us a better frame of reference to answer these questions, but that's as far as it goes.
That you don't see perfect good and perfect evil in reality, because perfect good requires a perfect moral agent.
For me as well, these concepts are theoretical and personal. I don't even know if I subscribe to a hypothetical perfect moral agent.
You say a perfect immoral agent couldn't logically exist, but a perfect moral agent could. You then say a perfect moral agent is omniscient, which seems like something that would be a logically impossible state.
If there is no perfect immoral being, or perfect moral being, even hypothetically, how can their be absolute good or evil. Extreme yes, absolute no.
Concepts like "killing is wrong" I would personally agree with generally, but that would be because of an evolutionary desire to avoid dying mixed with personal empathy and knowledge. It "feels" wrong. That's circumstantial. If someone I loved was in pain, and dying, and begged me to ease their suffering, it might not "feel" wrong to me anymore, because of an evolutionary desire to avoid pain mixed with empathy and knowledge.
|
|
That's rich coming from the guy who opened with "Ah, the Chewbacca Defense." You accuse me of obfuscating stupidity, I accuse you of being a blowhard. Seems fair to me.Your statement, in response to pretty much everything related to morality was to cite what you feel is the central axiom in Kant's philosophy, to declare that it is impossible to refute, and then to just handwave all the steps that go from that to any conclusions you might use that are topically relevant. Because of that, I absolutely did (and do) accuse you of obfuscation, though I suspect it related less to stupidity than it does an inability to actually argue your case.
Or perhaps I just want to avoid spamming the thread with a hundred page argument from first principles, when I can simply point those interested to the the original author. If you want Kant's full argument, read Kant.
If I meant what you say I meant, then my subsequent examples would make no sense. If I meant what I say I meant, then they make perfect sense. This is all part of general reading comprehension - if your understanding of Statement A makes the subsequent Statement B make no sense, then your mind should reflexively question your understanding of Statement A and attempt to reinterpret it.
Man, get real. You're accusing me of poor reading comprehension because I read what you wrote instead of exercising my non-existant psychic powers and reading what you meant to write. That's nonsense.
I notice you never actually go into any detail. I wonder if you can universalize that: unqualified negation of statements in any discussion. Are you a consciously immoral person, or simply not as kantian as you claim?
And I notice that you are holding me to a standard you do not hold yourself too.
Mathematics and Logic are objective - that is to say, they deal with the performance of completely objective operations. The results, however, are not guaranteed to be objective truth as they are only as "good" as the premises on which they are based.
This statement seems to contradict itself.
|
|
The by those standards the game contradicts itself by having spells such as Dispel Evil, Unholy Blight, or classes such as Paladins and their opposites to to mention good and evil as subtypes for creatures with real effects and consquences attached to them.. The mere EXISTENCE of these classes and spells define Good and Evil as tangible forces that have real meanings outside of philosophical debate.
This is actually just what I was about to write.
While I know 3.5 material doesn't have canon relevance to PF, I was merely quoting what it had written as it seemed to clear the issue up. If "Evil" and "Good" are subjective according to the game universe, alignment-based abilities and spells wouldn't work, there wouldn't be aligned outer-planes, and spells with descriptors like "Evil" and "Good" would be moot.
I've read some interesting reinterpretations of alignment-and full disclosure, I prefer to run and create adventures with Grey/Grey morality-but insofar as the RAW are concerned, Good/Evil are tangible forces tied to immutable laws of the cosmos.
Ultimately, it's up to the DM, of course, but if you're playing according to traditional standards established by most published material, then it's objectively nongood to use the dead for purposes of intimidation.
While there is definitely some allowance for moral debate between good characters---A Lawful Good Paladin who fights for justice would probably clash somewhat with a Lawful Good Cleric with a pacifist bent over which method is more effective---there does come a point in which the disagreements are too great to effectively treat both as the same alignment.
The by those standards the game contradicts itself by having spells such as Dispel Evil, Unholy Blight, or classes such as Paladins and their opposites to to mention good and evil as subtypes for creatures with real effects and consquences attached to them.. The mere EXISTENCE of these classes and spells define Good and Evil as tangible forces that have real meanings outside of philosophical debate.
The game DOES contradict itself by having spells such as dispel evil. I said as much. Creatures born from the latent morality of a plane, morality based damage reduction, aligned items (unless they are intelligent), etc. Those are a contradiction. They do break the games own rules on alignment. That is a fact. The rules for what alignment is must come before the rules for how things interact with said rule. If you give the game a definition for alignment that is subjective and entirely incompatible with objectivity you cannot create rules that treat alignment as a tangible thing without being factually incorrect. Detect alignment is a contradiction. There are a number of ways to fix this. The most common method is to put your hands over your ears and say "la la la." That's fine, but it means that nearly everyone who has ever played D&D has house ruled alignment. Sometimes without even realizing they were doing so.
That said, it is entirely possible to have "tangible concepts" within subjective morality. For example, instead of being born from evil, demons could instead be born from hatred, violence, and anger. Those things aren't necessarily evil, but they often are and they could fuel demons regardless. If you have ever seen Ghost Busters 2 then you will know that you CAN have objective concepts without resorting to objective morality. Liquid hate is fine, but liquid evil goes against the rules for alignment.