And here's where we get into a sticky mess. Marrying a 14-year-old girl was not considered an evil act in the era in which he did it. The idea of marrying a 14-year-old girl, some would argue, was not done with cruelty or intent to oppress; people had absolutely no knowledge at the time that it was an act of cruelty just because of her age.
Ignorance of consequences does not absolve oneself of responsibility.
Moral relativism renders the alignment system pointless.If we were studying this in a history or philosophy context, I agree to a certain extent that we have to view things through the lens of history and in the context that it happened. We're not doing that though, we're judging these people and societies within the terms of the game.
I'd also argue that people weren't really unaware of the oppression they were engaging in. Rather that it was just considered the norm and nothing was necessarily wrong with it. Note, Joseph Smith didn't marry Helen Kimball because the two of them struck up a romantic relationship, with him courting her and eventually cementing the relationship with marriage. He arranged the marriage with the father in order to secure himself an additional bride.
This was a society that treated women as a commodity to be traded in some ways. In this case, Joseph traded prestige and influence within the community in exchange for a new sex partner. They were engaged in the oppression of women, willingly and openly. Joseph Smith add a layer onto the contemporary level of oppression of women by encouraging men to acquire as many of them as they could, instead of the nominal standard of only acquiring one.
Oppression is an Evil act. Even if it is considered normal and within one's right to do so.
that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right ... even things which may be considered abominable to all those who do not understand the order of heaven.
This is a man who invented his own religion in order to justify whatever behavior he chose to partake in. He believed himself to be benevolent and good, to be doing God's work and spreading his word. Just because he believes himself to be good does not automatically give him the Good alignment.
Now, I don't necessarily consider Smith to be an Evil person. Just in my opinion, he participated in enough Evil acts (some of which were condoned by the society around him) that he himself does not qualify as Good. He incited violence, created a system that furthered the oppression of women and capitalized on the norms of the era to fulfill his own desires.
That's the other thing, his sex with young girls is only ONE aspect of him. The other being his implicit approval of violence and encouragement of others to engage in brutal acts. When there started to be power struggles in the Mormon community he approved of the creation of a secret group that would weed out dissenters and problematic people in their community.
Thus far, according to the order of the Danites. We have a company of Danites in these times, to put to right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of every great evil which has hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings and persuasyons [sic]. This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July [—] They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captains over ten.
I'm sure someone will come along and say that this is a falsehood created by anti-Mormon detractors. But this is from a journal of Smith's that is published by a Mormon publishing company.
Also, Smith's brother Hyrum signed the Danite manifesto.
The Danites were extremists and had high representation within the various Mormon militias prior to the trek to Utah. Exact details are scarce about the group, since it was a secret group, but we know it exists and we know Smith knew about it. There was a sermon given by Sidney Rigdon that was used to justify violent actions by the Danites. After it had incited violence, Smith published the sermon as a pamphlet for further distribution. This was during the period of escalation of the 1838 Mormon War.
During Smith's arrest for treason, he began to denounce the Danites and claim no knowledge or influence among them. He continued to denounce them while in Illinois, though he continued to approve of dissenters being forcibly evicted from the Mormon community (the primary role of the Danites).
I don't think it was just one thing that prevents Smith from being considered Good. I think it's a pattern of behavior that persists over a significant period of his life. I don't think he is responsible for every bad thing done within Mormonism. I think he did hold some very liberal ideas of equality and justice (for the period). It was more talk though, and not necessarily evidenced by his actions.
Power corrupts and he gained a lot of power during his life, being the religious leader of a religious community. He used that power in negative ways on more than one occasion.
Funny you should ask that because earlier last month the LDS Church made public disclosure of this very thing. See here - One of Many News Articles
Original article from LDS.org
EDIT: You'll see as you read there, there's good reason to believe that some of his Smith's marriages including the one to a 14-year-old were not sexual.
|
I would say the original United States governed by the original constitution was LG. The more we have moved towards atheism and socialism, the more we have moved to the CE end of the spectrum.
LOL... Ok.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130928022332/bioshock/images/8/85/Wash ingtonmuralBIHD-1.jpg
Good old Bioshock always nails it right on the head.
Ignorance of consequences does not absolve oneself of responsibility.
Moral relativism renders the alignment system pointless.
I don't see how the alignment system can operate under anything except moral relativism, given its reliance both upon intent and upon vagueness in both how it defines good and evil and how it defines each individual alignment. In addition, one of the elements of a lawful character, as defined in the book, is "honor tradition. In fact, "reactionary adherence to tradition" is cited as a downside of being lawful and Lawful Good opens with saying a person of that alignment "acts as a good person is expected or required to act." While Lawful Neutral defines itself by "character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her."
No matter how you shake it, those descriptions of lawful are, by their very nature, moral relativism. Because tradition and law are purely cultural creations.
So, I guess that the alignment system renders itself pointless? Because I don't see any way it can operate with the way the descriptors are written for lawful and good without moral relativism coming into play.
I'd also argue that people weren't really unaware of the oppression they were engaging in. Rather that it was just considered the norm and nothing was necessarily wrong with it. Note, Joseph Smith didn't marry Helen Kimball because the two of them struck up a romantic relationship, with him courting her and eventually cementing the relationship with marriage. He arranged the marriage with the father in order to secure himself an additional bride.
This was a society that treated women as a commodity to be traded in some ways. In this case, Joseph traded prestige and influence within the community in exchange for a new sex partner. They were engaged in the oppression of women, willingly and openly. Joseph Smith add a layer onto the contemporary level of oppression of women by encouraging men to acquire as many of them as they could, instead of the nominal standard of only acquiring one.
Oppression is an Evil act. Even if it is considered normal and within one's right to do so.
that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government...
I think we both agree the man was not good, and definitely agree society at the time could never meet the standard. The issue we disagree on is whether or not his actions with one person could be considered evil. Considering that not going to her family would have been seen as immoral at the time... I can honestly say that trying to be Lawful Good back then would either have required some serious mental gymnastics or enough atonement spells to drain a minor deity of all power.
And this is discussing one man and how society affected him using a nation with an easily-understood moral system for its era. Imagine how much worse it would be if we were talking about it happening in India before the colonial powers showed up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you've eliminated free persons, indentured servants and Indians, you're left with ...?
The Irish?
Ignorance of consequences does not absolve oneself of responsibility.
Moral relativism renders the alignment system pointless.I don't see how the alignment system can operate under anything except moral relativism, given its reliance both upon intent and upon vagueness in both how it defines good and evil and how it defines each individual alignment. In addition, one of the elements of a lawful character, as defined in the book, is "honor tradition. In fact, "reactionary adherence to tradition" is cited as a downside of being lawful and Lawful Good opens with saying a person of that alignment "acts as a good person is expected or required to act." While Lawful Neutral defines itself by "character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her."
No matter how you shake it, those descriptions of lawful are, by their very nature, moral relativism. Because tradition and law are purely cultural creations.
So, I guess that the alignment system renders itself pointless? Because I don't see any way it can operate with the way the descriptors are written for lawful and good without moral relativism coming into play.
Thinking about it, there is an aspect of relativism in alignment, but only in terms of what is and is not Lawful. Something in one society might be considered Lawful, while it isn't in another.
That doesn't apply to the concept of Good though. Just because something is Lawful, does not mean it is Good. We know this by definition, because Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil exist. Therefore, something can be both Lawful and Evil at the same time. The relativism that determines if something is Lawful does not apply to determining if something is Good.
It's also a common story telling device to pit Lawful and Good against each other. A character can follow the rule and do something bad, or he can break the rule and do something good.
So I agree, if we look back, we use the standards of that day to determine what is and is not Lawful. That has no impact on whether it is Good or not.
The two aspects of the alignment are different and to qualify for Lawful Good, it must adhere to BOTH aspects independently.
Lawful Good for some definitions of law and goodness.
Let's be mindful of what the subjective nature of alignment brings to the conversation.
This is old-hat for philosophers -- there will be no resolution here.
The sooner we all accept that, the more civil this discussion will be.
{. . .}
It also has the fun benefit of letting the devout of one faith lay the opposing alignment smackdown on another faith who are nominally of the same nine-point alignment but very different moral philosophies in the fluff.
That's what I proposed Anathematize for (although I'm afraid some other spell may already have that name, although I can't find it in the PRD). Analogous to Instant Enemy, but for Holy Warriors(*)/Inquisitors/Warpriests. This lets you have both absolute and relative alignments, superimposed.
(*)Paladins, Antipaladins, and the equivalents for other alignments, if ever implemented.