|
Stability.The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.What is the purpose of morality?I'd argue that while stability is definitely a positive result of morality (generally), I think it's a bit too cynical to think that's its purpose.
After all - many wars etc have been fought for reasons of morality. And wars are hardly the same as stability. (I'm not going to weigh in on which ones etc here - too controversial for a Pathfinder message board.)
Call me cynical, then. I don't believe any of the morality peddlers actually believe it themselves.
|
Is stability is good for society, or for the system itself? A government and its people are not the same thing. It is good for the government, the system itself, to have stability, since that stability is the basis for its existence. The government hence enforces the laws to promote that stability. But it's not necessarily true that it is a good thing for the people living in that society. Take for example Cheliax. I think it would be fair to argue that injecting a bit of chaos into that nation that operates under the pretense of Order At Any Cost could potentially produce a net good by stopping the evil inflicted in the name of law.
Well, first of all, I am talking about societies not governments.
Second, what's good for society is not always what's good for the individual.
Third, I agree that to have a healthy society you must have an occasional injection of chaos in order for the society to evolve. The effective difference between Absolute Entropy and Absolute Stagnation is nil.
|
I said Morality is Absolute and what we call morality is driven by religion. There is a difference between morality and what we call morality. So no there is no contradiction in my statement.
I would say that, if we accept that Morality is relevant at all, the answer to whether it is absolute or not (a point which I agree can not be proven either way) is in fact very relevant.
We are using what we call words to have what we call a discussion about what we call morality. So a discussion about some abstract absolute that we don't call morality is what we call irrelevant.
I am sorry, but I seriously do not get the point or relevance of your arguments.
Fair enough. I don't care enough to try to explain myself further, so I will drop it. However, I would say that this discussion has gone vary far from what this thread was about. Perhaps the discussion of real world morality, etc. should be taken to a different part of the boards.
|
With regards to the title of this thread... it doesn't matter what your alignment is, in pathfinder alignment is an absolute, not relative thing. A good act is good regardless of what the character performing the acts alignment is. The act itself is good, evil, chaotic, lawful or neutral. The alignment of the perpetrator of the act doesn't change this.
|
|
With regards to the title of this thread... it doesn't matter what your alignment is, in pathfinder alignment is an absolute, not relative thing. A good act is good regardless of what the character performing the acts alignment is. The act itself is good, evil, chaotic, lawful or neutral. The alignment of the perpetrator of the act doesn't change this.
While you are correct that alignment in Pathfinder is absolute, the problem and conflict comes from the fact that you have a real world GM using real world relativistic morality to interpret what that absolute morality actually is.
Fixed that for youThe purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.What is the purpose of morality?If you really want to know, one possible answer can be found in "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche.
I dispute that.
If you have not read "On the Genealogy of Morals" you are in no position to say whether the reasoning of the work is disputable or not.Of course, if you have read the work, your opinion could still be wrong. But that is the case with all opinions.
Nonsense. Nothing exists without a reason. Including morality.Its a tautology. Why should you do the thing you should do answers itself.The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.What is the purpose of morality?
I agree with Trollbill's conclusion, or one of them, but not the reasoning.
It is a tautology to say you should do what you [morally] should do. Whether morality itself has a purpose is a separate question, and one I have given the answer to in a previous post.And Trollbill, if everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of the universe?
|
|
Fixed that for youThe purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.What is the purpose of morality?If you really want to know, one possible answer can be found in "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche.
I dispute that.
If you have not read "On the Genealogy of Morals" you are in no position to say whether the reasoning of the work is disputable or not.
Of course, if you have read the work, your opinion could still be wrong. But that is the case with all opinions.
You are really asserting that the only answer to "what is the purpose of morality?" is found in that book? That absolutely all dissenting answers to that question are wrong? That the book is indisputably correct?
OK then. I guess we disagree.
|
|
Nonsense. Nothing exists without a reason.Its a tautology. Why should you do the thing you should do answers itself.The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.What is the purpose of morality?
What about Ricky Jervais?
Including morality.
I think it depends on what you mean by reason and purpose. Its quite possible to exist for a reason (that something caused you to happen) without existing for some higher reason. Conversations like this tend to equate the two.
|
On the original topic here is my method for determining evil (or other alignment type) acts.
Step one, Ignore the character sheet of the Character performing the action (including current alignment and class)
Step two, is the action (insert alignment)
Step three, is action worthy of a change of alignment and/or has the character committed a lot of actions of that alignment in the session (or campaign if its not PFS) (if no stop here)
Step 4, check characters current alignment (still ignoring classes at this point) and if they don't match warn the player, and depending on the players actions make an alignment change as required.
the important parts are to remember that the PC's current alignment or class has nothing to do with determining if the act if worthy of an alignment change, and only there current alignment matters to determine if that change will matter. I have seen GM's enforce stricter alignments policy's on Paladins/Clerics because its mechanically more relevant to them, however IMO this should never be a factor in if its worthy of a change.
pauljathome- No I don't really think that nobody can possibly dispute the
position put forth in "On the Genealogy of Morals". That would be rather... extreme.
Nietzsche's analysis of the moral impulse is very singular and extremely important imho [and not just mine].
And to the question "What are morals for?" if you go beyond fairly obvious, even trite answers, you won't find much beyond what is written by Nietzsche.
|
|
And to the question "What are morals for?" if you go beyond fairly obvious, even trite answers, you won't find much beyond what is written by Nietzsche.
Except for the works of Kohlberg, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, John Newton, Richard Dawkins and many others of course.
EDIT: How could I have forgotten Sartre?
|
|
Again on original topic rather than philosophy argument:
@Philderbeast - do you take motivation/player explanation for why it's being done into account at all? A LE Paladin and a CE Barbarian of Rovagug might very well do the same thing at times... for vastly different reasons.
About that paladin of Asmodeuous....:)
|
|
Again on original topic rather than philosophy argument:
@Philderbeast - do you take motivation/player explanation for why it's being done into account at all? A LE Paladin and a CE Barbarian of Rovagug might very well do the same thing at times... for vastly different reasons.
yes I do, but at that only come in to the determining if its worth an alignment infraction. if its evil, its going to be evil regardless of why they are doing it, however if they are doing it because its for the greater good it may not be worth an infraction, but if they keep doing evil things..... I'm sure you see where this is going.
|
|
yes I do, but at that only come in to the determining if its worth an alignment infraction. if its evil, its going to be evil regardless of why they are doing it, however if they are doing it because its for the greater good it may not be worth an infraction, but if they keep doing evil things..... I'm sure you see where this is going.Again on original topic rather than philosophy argument:
@Philderbeast - do you take motivation/player explanation for why it's being done into account at all? A LE Paladin and a CE Barbarian of Rovagug might very well do the same thing at times... for vastly different reasons.
The problem is something I may have mentioned earlier in this thread (or was it in one of the other similar threads?). An evil action is evil, good, chaotic, or lawful not because of the action itself, but the circumstances and reasoning behind an action.
If you kill someone to save an innocent's life it could be considered a good action. If you kill someone as a part of a government sanctioned execution, it is a lawful one. If you kill someone in a fit of rage it maybe an evil one. If you kill someone due to some vigilante reasoning, it could be considered a chaotic one.
There are very few (if any) in game actions that may be considered a single alignment regardless of circumstances. It is again, normally those circumstances that thereby link that action to an alignment.
|
About that paladin of Asmodeuous....:)Again on original topic rather than philosophy argument:
@Philderbeast - do you take motivation/player explanation for why it's being done into account at all? A LE Paladin and a CE Barbarian of Rovagug might very well do the same thing at times... for vastly different reasons.
'doh, tyop, but everyone got what I meant ^_^
I think the real answer is, "Bad Idea for PFS due to inevitable table variation."
-j
|
|
yes I do, but at that only come in to the determining if its worth an alignment infraction. if its evil, its going to be evil regardless of why they are doing it, however if they are doing it because its for the greater good it may not be worth an infraction, but if they keep doing evil things..... I'm sure you see where this is going.Again on original topic rather than philosophy argument:
@Philderbeast - do you take motivation/player explanation for why it's being done into account at all? A LE Paladin and a CE Barbarian of Rovagug might very well do the same thing at times... for vastly different reasons.
The problem is something I may have mentioned earlier in this thread (or was it in one of the other similar threads?). An evil action is evil, good, chaotic, or lawful not because of the action itself, but the circumstances and reasoning behind an action.
If you kill someone to save an innocent's life it could be considered a good action. If you kill someone as a part of a government sanctioned execution, it is a lawful one. If you kill someone in a fit of rage it maybe an evil one. If you kill someone due to some vigilante reasoning, it could be considered a chaotic one.
There are very few (if any) in game actions that may be considered a single alignment regardless of circumstances. It is again, normally those circumstances that thereby link that action to an alignment.
IRL I would totally agree with you. However game world, I don't because of the rule precedence set forward by spells. For example:
Casting infernal healing is an evil act. period. Even though the only use for that spell is the (seemingly) good act of healing, it is always an evil act to use infernal blood powers to heal someone. Doing an evil thing (using the power of evil blood) for good reasons still equals evil by the rules of the game. So that tells me that intent matters for nothing in the world of pathfinder, acts have absolute alignments associated with them with no regard to the who or why they are performed.|
|
So a Cleric of Rovagug could slaughter a band of Lamashtan cultists as part of an unholy war and blood sacrifice to her dark master, and risk an alignment shift toward good? Because if a band of PCs took out an evil cult, most would be praising them.
This. The example you (gnoams) gave is a non factor because the spells themselves call upon evil energies; this is a very specific example. There is nothing within ANY book which states killimg is evil or stealing is chaotic. This is why intent matters.
And to the question "What are morals for?" if you go beyond fairly obvious, even trite answers, you won't find much beyond what is written by Nietzsche.Except for the works of Kohlberg, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, John Newton, Richard Dawkins and many others of course.
EDIT: How could I have forgotten Sartre?
Uh, are you sure.
Certainly the persons you cite discuss morals, what moral conduct is and how it can be identified. But do they discuss what morals are for?I don't think Kant, Plato or Aristotle do.
Richard Dawkins does I think, its a while since I read him.
I am not familiar with Kohlberg or Newton and not with Sartre in enough detail to answer this question.
|
|
And to the question "What are morals for?" if you go beyond fairly obvious, even trite answers, you won't find much beyond what is written by Nietzsche.Except for the works of Kohlberg, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, John Newton, Richard Dawkins and many others of course.
EDIT: How could I have forgotten Sartre?
Uh, are you sure.
Certainly the persons you cite discuss morals, what moral conduct is and how it can be identified. But do they discuss what morals are for?
I don't think Kant, Plato or Aristotle do.
Richard Dawkins does I think, its a while since I read him.
I am not familiar with Kohlberg or Newton and not with Sartre in enough detail to answer this question.
I'll verify that Plato and Aristotle discuss what morals are for. For Plato and Aristotle morals were a system of rulings to ensure that a just (as in justice) city could come about and be held in perpetual existence ideally, and keeping a person as a stable and functional individual within any society practically. So in short morals were for A) theoretically bringing the City in Speech (Utopia), which in Plato's "Republic" concluded to be impossible, and B) making and keeping an individual of sound mind and action to function in any society without experiencing the "Regression of Regimes" that occurs in cities, but on the level of their soul.
Well, Ms Pleiades, it appears I was mistaken and stand corrected.
And as I have read Plato's "Republic" it seems my memory has been failing me.
However, none of this is the kind of analysis you will find in the Genealogy. I think these philosophical matters have been explored in enough detail on what is supposed to be a thread about a RPG, especially as it was kicked off by a question by someone who was probably just trying to be difficult.
I do commend the Genealogy to the erudite people I have been discussing this with. It is often held as Nietzsche's major work, and anyone with a real interest in moral philosophy really has to read it, it is the case against.
Of course not everyone shares my enthusiasm for Nietzsche and most people find the Geneaologie totally outrageous, but that is as may be.
|
|
And Trollbill, if everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of the universe?
I do not believe humanity has reached a state of consciousness where they can currently answer that question. That does not, however, mean it does not have a purpose.
Fortunately, however, it appears the Minbari have reached that level.
We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way that we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the universe trying to understand itself.
Alternately,
42
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP If you think it will cause problems it probably will. I have had only one experience of being told I would get kicked out of the society if I did something. I was playing a NG character in the liberty's edge faction and I was told that simply mugging a slaver who I was angry with would be an evil act. Not killing, simply forcibly taking money from. When he admitted to all his evil acts. I don't really play that character much anymore, because of this incident. If I can't go around killing slavers and freeing slaves why does that faction even exist?
|
|
And Trollbill, if everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of the universe?I do not believe humanity has reached a state of consciousness where they can currently answer that question. That does not, however, mean it does not have a purpose.
No, but it does mean that the statement that everything has a purpose is more than a little suspect and can't be used to dismiss another idea.
|
|
And Trollbill, if everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of the universe?I do not believe humanity has reached a state of consciousness where they can currently answer that question. That does not, however, mean it does not have a purpose.No, but it does mean that the statement that everything has a purpose is more than a little suspect and can't be used to dismiss another idea.
Could you clarify just exactly what idea I was dismissing? I don't mean quote the line I was responding to. Rather explain it better as at this point I am not 100% sure the idea you were trying to get across.
|
|
Could you clarify just exactly what idea I was dismissing? I don't mean quote the line I was responding to. Rather explain it better as at this point I am not 100% sure the idea you were trying to get across.And Trollbill, if everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of the universe?I do not believe humanity has reached a state of consciousness where they can currently answer that question. That does not, however, mean it does not have a purpose.No, but it does mean that the statement that everything has a purpose is more than a little suspect and can't be used to dismiss another idea.
You used it to dismiss the idea of morality as a tautology, since that wouldn't allow for it to have a higher purpose.
|
|
You used it to dismiss the idea of morality as a tautology, since that wouldn't allow for it to have a higher purpose.Isn't claiming it is a tautology dismissive in the first place?
No. Its pointing out the difference between is an ought.
Asking ought questions about morality makes it a tautology. Morals are what you ought to do. Asking why you ought to do what you ought to do is the tautology.
Why IS there morality is best explained through evolution i think. Its a good aid to group fitness. Like anything else that evolved, a moral sense can be really screwy when doing something thats completely horrible gains you a lot of benefit. -
|
|
You used it to dismiss the idea of morality as a tautology, since that wouldn't allow for it to have a higher purpose.Isn't claiming it is a tautology dismissive in the first place?No. Its pointing out the difference between is an ought.
Asking ought questions about morality makes it a tautology. Morals are what you ought to do. Asking why you ought to do what you ought to do is the tautology.
Saying you ought to do something simply because you ought to do it is a non-answer and is thus dismissive. It's the intellectual version of "because I say so."
Why IS there morality is best explained through evolution i think. Its a good aid to group fitness. Like anything else that evolved, a moral sense can be really screwy when doing something thats completely horrible gains you a lot of benefit. -
It's not quite as screwy when you look at it as long term vs. short term gain.
|
|
Saying you ought to do something simply because you ought to do it is a non-answer and is thus dismissive.
It's the intellectual version of "because I say so."
Its not a non answer if that what morality is. Pointing that out isn't dismissive.
Because asking what is the purpose to morality is like asking if you've stopped fluffing your owl yet-its presuming that it HAS a purpose. Normally some sort of higher one.
Your rational for it having a purpose is that everything has a purpose, but you can't prove that statement.
It's not quite as screwy when you look at it as long term vs. short term gain.
Some very morally reprehensible things, like killing your neighbors and taking their stuff any time you have a power disparity*, have worked for longer than we've been a species.
The is/ought dichotomy here breaks down on two levels. First is the inside/outside of the monkeysphere where you treat people in your tribe one way and people outside of your tribe another way. This gives you most of the benefits of cooperation and reciprocal fitness while still allowing massive gains from pillaging others. Its very much still with us unfortunately.
The other is what people feel is right vs. what can be reasoned to be right. Some things people take for granted because of culture and or biology are really messed up if you examine them critically.
*aka, adventuring
|
|
Saying you ought to do something simply because you ought to do it is a non-answer and is thus dismissive.
It's the intellectual version of "because I say so."
Its not a non answer if that what morality is. Pointing that out isn't dismissive.
Because asking what is the purpose to morality is like asking if you've stopped fluffing your owl yet-its presuming that it HAS a purpose. Normally some sort of higher one.
Your rational for it having a purpose is that everything has a purpose, but you can't prove that statement.
You can't prove your point either. Why does that make my comments dismissive and yours not?
|
|
You can't prove your point either. Why does that make my comments dismissive and yours not?
You used the idea that everything has a purpose as a counter argument.
That idea isn't proven, so the counter has no weight, so you're back to step 1.
If my argument that everything exists for a reason has no weight because I can't prove it, then your unprovable argument that I was countering that morality is a tautology also has no weight. You can't honestly claim that I am back to square one without putting yourself back there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my argument that everything exists for a reason has no weight because I can't prove it, then your unprovable argument that I was countering that morality is a tautology also has no weight. You can't honestly claim that I am back to square one without putting yourself back there.
The point of a tautology is to recognize that you're stuck on square one. Nothing lost on my part there.
I suppose you'd have to argue with my definition of morality as doing what you ought to do then.
|
|
If my argument that everything exists for a reason has no weight because I can't prove it, then your unprovable argument that I was countering that morality is a tautology also has no weight. You can't honestly claim that I am back to square one without putting yourself back there.
The point of a tautology is to recognize that you're stuck on square one. Nothing lost on my part there.
I suppose you'd have to argue with my definition of morality as doing what you ought to do then.
Agreed.
Though looking back at this thread I think the only thing provable is the pointlessness of our current discussion.
|
If my argument that everything exists for a reason has no weight because I can't prove it, then your unprovable argument that I was countering that morality is a tautology also has no weight. You can't honestly claim that I am back to square one without putting yourself back there.
The point of a tautology is to recognize that you're stuck on square one. Nothing lost on my part there.
I suppose you'd have to argue with my definition of morality as doing what you ought to do then.
So - sort of a variation on 'The first step towards greater knowledge is to acknowledge that you know nothing'?
|
|
So - sort of a variation on 'The first step towards greater knowledge is to acknowledge that you know nothing'?
If my argument that everything exists for a reason has no weight because I can't prove it, then your unprovable argument that I was countering that morality is a tautology also has no weight. You can't honestly claim that I am back to square one without putting yourself back there.
The point of a tautology is to recognize that you're stuck on square one. Nothing lost on my part there.
I suppose you'd have to argue with my definition of morality as doing what you ought to do then.
But if you know nothing, then how do you know you know nothing?
|
|
More seriously, (well, SLIGHTLY more seriously) what I think this or any other morality question comes down to is internal consistency/lack of hypocrisy. Every individual knows what they want- food, shelter, not to be hit in the head. I know i don't like being hit in the head. From what other creatures tell me and how they act, they don't like being hit in the head either. If its wrong to hit me in the head, then its wrong for me to hit them in the head for the exact same reason, because Beings A and B share a will and a desire.
|
|
More seriously, (well, SLIGHTLY more seriously) what I think this or any other morality question comes down to is internal consistency/lack of hypocrisy. Every individual knows what they want- food, shelter, not to be hit in the head. I know i don't like being hit in the head. From what other creatures tell me and how they act, they don't like being hit in the head either. If its wrong to hit me in the head, then its wrong for me to hit them in the head for the exact same reason, because Beings A and B share a will and a desire.
I agree. My point is that this internal consistency/lack of hypocrisy is necessary in order to maintain a functioning society. And that the benefits of a functional society outweigh the detriments. Thus it has a reason.