Morality in pathfinder vs. the real world.


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Now, if you go back a thousand years, law and civilization = Good, chaos and barbarians = Bad, was basically what moral thinking represented.

Not if you asked the barbarians. Which just reinforces your point, really...


Billybrainpan wrote:

Hello there everyone. I am writing a paper comparing the morality of games like pathfinder and D&D to that of reality. I have put together a quick survey and would love to get as many peoples opinions as possible. Below are the questions, if you have any other questions you would like to ask people or related things that might be helpful feel free to share.

1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

1. No, they are separate.

2. Anything? No, things don't have alignments.
3. Very rarely.
4. No, character should be kept separate from out-of-character
5. Yes, we are all human. Keeping things completely seperate is infeasible for a human player.
6. Eventually, though one act doesn't necessarily cause an immediate shift.
7. It doesn't equate to real life at all.


mplindustries wrote:
We don't have to be able to define objective good and evil for it to exist. Humans were around for thousands of years before we could define DNA, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist or that humans couldn't see its effects in the world.

^ My point precisely. It is an intellectually fallacy to say that something is not true if one cannot formulate an adequate test to determine such.

Partially contradicting what I said above, it is obvious that some things are evil. Unjustifiable murder, rape, pedophilia.

To those who disbelieve the notion of objective morality, do you think these things can be justified by perspective? Is it ok to rape someone or walk up and shoot them just for laughs?

If no, then how can you claim for sure that objective morality does not exist, even if it only covers a few things?

If your answer is instead yes, then... wow, just wow. Really? Might I ask how you came to said conclusion?

I am aware the sentences above are something of a trap, but consider: how could the words be a trap unless they can, at least partially, disprove the logic being used by whomever is reading this?


SultanOfAwesome wrote:

Partially contradicting what I said above, it is obvious that some things are evil. Unjustifiable murder, rape, pedophilia.

To those who disbelieve the notion of objective morality, do you think these things can be justified by perspective? Is it ok to rape someone or walk up and shoot them just for laughs?

Except, it's still not that simple. As you raised paedophilia, we then have the question of what is an acceptable age of consent? Even in a single country the United States, there is large variation on where the line is drawn. In some countries it goes down as low as 12. Can a 12 year old make an informed decision about such acts. Likewise, your use of the term unjustifiable murder implies that there is justifiable murder, which many will disagree with vehemently. Some states sanction executions, whereas more and more are saying it is morally unacceptable- to the point of saying State Governors are accessories to murder. Elsewhere in the world, IS will claim that they are doing God's work by executing Christians. Sunni and Shia muslims, and Roman and Protestant Christians have histories of killing one another justified by virtue of their faith.

Most agree that murder is an evil act. The problem is, we all have a different set of criteria to differentiate murder from justifiable homicide.


I use the term unjustified murder because most do not understand the difference between murder (Which is always evil and never justified, no matter how you look at it) and and other forms of killing, such as execution (Which is considered just retribution visited for murder and rape in older definitions in most of the Judeo-Christian world).

By your last statement, you acknowledge that there IS objective morality, but that people can't agree on the details of it. That is more the salient issue at hand, since I was mostly replying to comments that there is no objective morality.

Still, using ISIS as an example to try to prop up subjective morality as a theory is poor theory-crafting, given how repulsive their actions have proven.


SultanOfAwesome wrote:
Still, using ISIS as an example to try to prop up subjective morality as a theory is poor theory-crafting, given how repulsive their actions have proven.

That is the point though, isn't it? If their actions were repulsive to everyone, well, there wouldn't be misguided people crossing the world to join up with them, surely? If they have sufficient members and armaments to control large areas of Iraq, Syria and other places and are labelling themselves as a state (and Caliphate) by which all morality is to be judged, I'm not sure how that becomes 'poor theory-crafting' just because we don't like the premise. Morality is always objective. As an example, if preemptive bombing attacks on places that support terrorism are justified, would the RAF have been justified for bombing Boston for their support of the IRA? Of course most would argue not, but there is no single universally agreed line either side of which we can all define right and wrong.


foolsjourney wrote:


Morality is always objective.

I assume you meant 'subjective'. Otherwise I'm seriously misreading your posts. ;)


We can determine some objective evil starting from the fact that all the livings are hardwired in avoiding pain and death. Yeah this is not intrinsic in the order of the universe as "biological forms actively try not to die" is just a random mutation that happened in what we call evolution, just really really early in the history of life in our planet (otherwise we would not be here as life would have been extincted soon in some dumb way); yet this is a fact and as a fact what happens is objective: all the livings on Earth by instinct actively try tho avoid death and pain is an unpleasant feeling. So the most encompassing moral code should have as a paramount that killing is evil (and all the societies still consider it a bad thing, the difference is how much bad any of them consider it, for example the tribe considers human sacrifice of their members as a necessary evil as they deem the ire of their deities something worse) and that we should avoid inflict pain if it's avoidable.

From there is just up to debate what action is worse than another but these two facts are constants that only sadistic people eschew and they know to be wrong.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
foolsjourney wrote:
That is the point though, isn't it? If their actions were repulsive to everyone, well, there wouldn't be misguided people crossing the world to join up with them, surely? If they have sufficient members and armaments to control large areas of Iraq, Syria and other places and are labelling themselves as a state (and Caliphate) by which all morality is to be judged, I'm not sure how that becomes 'poor theory-crafting' just because we don't like the premise. Morality is always objective. As an example, if preemptive bombing attacks on places that support terrorism are justified, would the RAF have been justified for bombing Boston for their support of the IRA? Of course most would argue not, but there is no single universally agreed line either side of which we can all define right and wrong.

This doesn't actually prove that morality is subjective, though.

First, the fact that different people have differing opinions on an issue doesn't mean one of them isn't right. Physicists argue all the time, but there's only one way the physics actually work, we just don't know what it is yet.

Second, that's one of those 'can't prove a negative' impossibilities. Our understanding of the world is woefully incomplete, we don't even understand our own genetic code in any meaningful way (not the whole thing anyway), never even mind the aforementioned laws of physics. And morality is in many ways a more difficult to measure topic than those are. It's entirely possible that there is indeed some objective, and possibly even objectively enforced, code of morality. We have no proof that such a thing exists, but there's definitionally no proof it doesn't.

Now, what your argument does make a good point on is that, if such an objective morality exists, we have no way whatsoever to empirically determine what it is. And thus can't state objectively that any particular moral code is right.

We can say that we believe in such a code, or have faith in it, but we can never truly know that our code is objectively right. And claiming otherwise is hubris and folly.

So I believe, with all my heart, that there is an objective moral right and wrong in the world, and that people who willingly go and work for ISIL? What they're doing is wrong. I have deep and abiding faith that this is true.

But I don't know that it's true, and claiming I do risks falling to the same fanaticism as the people I'm condemning.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
foolsjourney wrote:


Morality is always objective.
I assume you meant 'subjective'. Otherwise I'm seriously misreading your posts. ;)

Indeed. My bad.

Silver Crusade

SultanOfAwesome wrote:

I use the term unjustified murder because most do not understand the difference between murder (Which is always evil and never justified, no matter how you look at it) and and other forms of killing, such as execution (Which is considered just retribution visited for murder and rape in older definitions in most of the Judeo-Christian world).

You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".

If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
1) that is, by definition, unfalsifiable and also pretty much uninteresting. "Well, there is this thing that exists. We don't know anything about it and there is no evidence for it but it exists. And you can't prove it doesn't."
2) There is arguably absolutely zero evidence that it exists and lots of evidence that it doesn't. Given that the claim is unfalisiable that does NOT disprove it but the vast preponderance of evidence shows that it is unlikely to exist.

If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Selling children for sex goes on in Afghanistan and Iraq today. I remember reading an article about a marine at a checkpoint having to wave through a man with his two sons, bringing them back from a sex session for money. He knew it, couldn't do anything to stop it. Goes on all the time.

Rape is considered a form of payment in some armies, especially the more uncouth rebel factions in Africa.

Murder? Murder has its own special connotation, and could easily be described as 'killing for evil purposes.' So, yes, murder is evil. There are plenty of cultures, however, that allowing killing for purposes we would consider evil (religious killings, primarily, or stoning women who have sex or marry without the family's consent), and so don't consider the act 'murder'.

I mean, in Pakistan, someone can denounce a non-Muslim for insulting the Koran, and he'll be lynched by a mob for it. They consider it a just killing, and we consider it murder.

==Aelryinth

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
foolsjourney wrote:
SultanOfAwesome wrote:
Still, using ISIS as an example to try to prop up subjective morality as a theory is poor theory-crafting, given how repulsive their actions have proven.
That is the point though, isn't it? If their actions were repulsive to everyone, well, there wouldn't be misguided people crossing the world to join up with them, surely?

Basing moral theory on the idea that good is attractive to everyone and evil universally repulsive seems to rather defeat the purpose of having moral theory--if everyone were good and had good impulses, we wouldn't need to define or think about a moral code. Thinking about ethics is necessary precisely because our impulses and moral sentiments are sometimes ambiguous, often confused, and eminently pervertable. (As to the last one, a lot of people reflecting on recent social media hatestorms have recently observed that it feels good and righteous to be part of an online lynch mob--a near perfect example of perverted moral sentiments lending support to immoral action).

A perfectly reasonable interpretation of people crossing the world to join IS/ISIL/ISIS (taken as an example of evil for the purpose of this discussion) is that evil people are drawn to evil causes and organizations but enjoy the opportunity to cloak their actions in the language of righteousness.

digression regarding detect good:
(In game, the latter tendency makes detect good problematic in a way that detect evil is not. Milton's version of Satan may be willing to explicitly say, "Evil, be thou my good," but most people who embrace Evil still not only want to call it good but also want to at least publicly hold on to some virtues and practices that actually are good. Just because the cult of the demon toad queen likes kicking puppies and sacrificing babies does not mean that they oppose honesty and friendship within their own cabal).

On the other hand, a purely subjective (or inter-subjective) view of morality does not explain why they are wrong to do what they do. It might explain why people with a different subjective or intersubjective set of ethics might oppose them. It would allow them to adopt a Napier style solution to the dilemma (You follow your beliefs and we will follow ours. Build a funeral pyre for the widow and we will build a gallows to hang you on it). (Note--not a direct quote). However, it cannot explain how the opposition of the latter group is any more right than the practices they oppose (IS since we're using the same example). In the end a subjective (or intersubjective) theory of morality has to conclude that the opposition is not justified by a universal or shared standard and is indistinguishable from amoral (and IMO immoral) propositions like "Justice is the interest of the stronger," "might makes right," or "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must."

Community Manager

A reminder to keep it civil in this thread, please-and-thank-you.


pauljathome wrote:

I'm going to start with two caveats.

1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only

2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters

Billybrainpan wrote:


1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

Game world - Some correlation.

Quote:

2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

Game World - varies immensely by campaign.

Quote:

3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

Game World - With rare exceptions yes.

Quote:


4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

In theory, no.

Quote:


5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.

Quote:


6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.

Quote:


7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?
It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated

I agree with Paul.

Morality in pathfinder is influenced by our world, but the game world is a separate entity with its own philosophies, rules and active divine agents defining what is good and what is evil. This is an incontestable fact, but it also makes things a lot simpler. If only our world was so clear-cut and societies and cultures weren't in constant argument over what is good and evil.


pauljathome wrote:
If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

Then those societies are filled with sociopaths, are they not? Is that not one of the traits that allows people to ignore human suffering so they can do as they please?

How can any SANE individual consider rape to be moral? How can someone who doesn't accept that someone else can?

As a rape survivor, I find the entire notion appalling and inhuman.

I personally think a society has gone down the proverbial drain when people can start making such claims. By saying that there is no set morality, then one can excuse anything, get away with anything. The only thing that could result from the logical extreme of that is absolute anarchy.

I know people don't like to admit that they are wrong and they don't want to seem hypocritical calling someone else's ideology wrong, but the fact remains that some things are universally right and some things are universally wrong. And if a society supports things that are universally wrong, then they are wrong as well. It's really that simple.


Problem is, that is speaking from emotion, and while you can certainly build a system of morality from emotion, it isn't universal and isn't objective in any sense other than 'it exists and people can recognize that it does'. The very fact that there is no universally agreed upon morality, at least not that I am aware of, is pretty strong evidence that there isn't a universal morality system.
Not to make light of rape or defend it in any way - I find it abhorrent - but whatever I feel about the subject and whatever I think should be done about, it's still my feelings and not a universal, objective truth that Rape Is Bad. Declaring something to be an objective, universal truth based on your feelings is not only wrong objectively but can lead to unfortunate situations, like questioning the sanity of those who disagree with you.


But if one cannot consider even such basic things like human decency as being universal, then what is the point of society? What is the point of laws? Why doesn't everyone just run around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else? Because if there is no such thing as objective morality and that state of savage anarchy suddenly becomes the predominant schema, then what?

I don't mean to presume overmuch about anyone's personal history, but it seems like those who have not suffered because of someone else's immoral actions in a major way prefer to say that morality is subjective. Every victim that I have ever seen believes that there IS a set morality. Why is that? Because a lack of that morality in the person that caused their pain. Such is not merely an emotional reaction, but a logical one.


Ange de la Nuit wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

Then those societies are filled with sociopaths, are they not? Is that not one of the traits that allows people to ignore human suffering so they can do as they please?

How can any SANE individual consider rape to be moral? How can someone who doesn't accept that someone else can?

As a rape survivor, I find the entire notion appalling and inhuman.

I personally think a society has gone down the proverbial drain when people can start making such claims. By saying that there is no set morality, then one can excuse anything, get away with anything. The only thing that could result from the logical extreme of that is absolute anarchy.

I know people don't like to admit that they are wrong and they don't want to seem hypocritical calling someone else's ideology wrong, but the fact remains that some things are universally right and some things are universally wrong. And if a society supports things that are universally wrong, then they are wrong as well. It's really that simple.

I have a good deal of trouble applying definitions of mental illness to broad swaths of cultures throughout history.

Most often of course in the past rape was considered a heinous crime, but the definition of what constituted rape have varied widely. Marital rape, for example, only became illegal in the US over the last 50 years or so. Before that it was generally considered a wife's duty to submit to her husband. I don't think that means the general population of the US was insane before then.

Frankly, it's been less common in history* for women to control their sexuality than for it to be controlled by men. Arranged marriages, childhood marriages, shaming (or stoning!) for sex outside of marriage, concubinage, etc.

We now consider this evil. Many in the past, and some still today, consider the sexual immorality of modern culture evil. Writing off either as insane is problematic to me.

*prehistory and some more modern tribal societies were sometimes different. Civilization seemed to tend towards control of women until very recently.


Ange de la Nuit wrote:

But if one cannot consider even such basic things like human decency as being universal, then what is the point of society? What is the point of laws? Why doesn't everyone just run around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else? Because if there is no such thing as objective morality and that state of savage anarchy suddenly becomes the predominant schema, then what?

I don't mean to presume overmuch about anyone's personal history, but it seems like those who have not suffered because of someone else's immoral actions in a major way prefer to say that morality is subjective. Every victim that I have ever seen believes that there IS a set morality. Why is that? Because a lack of that morality in the person that caused their pain. Such is not merely an emotional reaction, but a logical one.

Saying there is an objective morality doesn't really accomplish anything because we don't agree on what it is. I haven't actually thought to try to correlate believers in objective morality with victims, so I can't comment on that specifically. The more obvious correlation to me is between believers in objective morality and believers in religions of one kind or another. The problem there is that many (but not all) of those religions enshrine I consider evil as moral goods and things I consider perfectly acceptable as evil.

Law doesn't have to have anything to do with objective morality, though it often pretends to. Utilitarianism can be a good, if subjective guide. Societies pass laws prohibiting running "around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else", because societies that do so are more stable and functional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A limerick often repeated by Alan Watts comes to mind

There once was a man who said, Though
It would appear that I know that I know
What I would like to see
is the I that sees me
When I know, that I know, that I know


thejeff wrote:

The more obvious correlation to me is between believers in objective morality and believers in religions of one kind or another. The problem there is that many (but not all) of those religions enshrine I consider evil as moral goods and things I consider perfectly acceptable as evil.

Law doesn't have to have anything to do with objective morality, though it often pretends to. Utilitarianism can be a good, if subjective guide. Societies pass laws prohibiting running "around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else", because societies that do so are more stable and functional.

Quite right.

There's a significant difference between being a believer in absolute, universal morality, which I am, and believing that penalties for flouting such should be enforced across the board in society at large. Innumerable "violations" (obviously in quotation marks because not all people agree on the universality of certain acts' evil) of the "moral law" or "natural law" (the same, acknowledging many don't even think those two exist) are, as a matter of law and its enforcement, unquestionably best left to the violator and his or her own conscience. Truly believing in free will for all who are sapient and competent means that people have the fundamental right to do as they wish, even to the point of self-destruction, so long as they're harming no one but themselves. Do I think, for example, that people should regularly consume truly massive quantities of alchohol? No. Do I have the moral right to stop them by force of arms or law? In my opinion, no—at least not until they try to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired (which is another issue entirely).

That's why the question of objective morality is best left to philosophers and theologians, rather than judges and attorneys. I want a law that says murder is wholly unacceptable, and punishable in severe fashion. I do not want a law that says gay unions are unacceptable, because while I might object to such on certain personal grounds, based on religious beliefs, those grounds should have nothing to do with the rule of law. The distinction between that which should be enforced by law and that which, if believed a violation of morality, should be taught you by mom and dad and/or preached from the pulpit are clear and, in my opinion, proper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ange de la Nuit wrote:

But if one cannot consider even such basic things like human decency as being universal, then what is the point of society? What is the point of laws? Why doesn't everyone just run around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else? Because if there is no such thing as objective morality and that state of savage anarchy suddenly becomes the predominant schema, then what?

I don't mean to presume overmuch about anyone's personal history, but it seems like those who have not suffered because of someone else's immoral actions in a major way prefer to say that morality is subjective. Every victim that I have ever seen believes that there IS a set morality. Why is that? Because a lack of that morality in the person that caused their pain. Such is not merely an emotional reaction, but a logical one.

I think you are too blinded by emotion to see the issue. As you say, people who have been subject to bad things think differently than those who haven't because their emotions are controlling their thoughts. Since it became personal, you have a much greater emotional connection to said Things. You have admitted what people have is a reaction to things causing them pain, which, while understandable, is not the same as universal standard of morality.

As for logic, I really dislike it when people use this term when what they really mean is 'makes sense to me'. It's one of the reasons I dislike Vulcans in ST. Things people think are logical are really only logical if you accept the premise they give (and not always then), which may or may not be objectively true or even sensible. In this case, we can agree that a victim of a crime generally feels the perpetrator acted immorally, but this still doesn't prove anything other than that the victim feels what s/he feels. It does nothing to prove the existence of a universal or objective morality that isn't "I dislike being hurt and want to blame someone".

On the subject of why don't people run around murderrapingstealingwhatevering all the time, well, it does happen. There are a soul-crushingly large number of cases where all these bad things happen, even on a large scale. It doesn't happen everywhere all the time by everyone for a variety of reasons, which boil down to a very strong tribal and procreational instinct in humanity. You talk about assumptions of universal human decency but the lack of a universal standard doesn't automatically mean everyone would go out and do unpleasant things to eachother. If it did, therewould be a universal standard of behavior (and no human race left). The lack of a universal standard means that there is not, at least to my knowledge, a single set of behavioral rules or even a single rule, that everyone ascribes to. It does not mean that there are not some rules which are more common than others, nor that there are not some which are more fair than others (ignoring arguments about what constitutes fairness). It does mean that any arguments about universal standards as the basis of morality is demonstrably false, it means that appealing to universal standards won't get us anywhere. You are free to create moral systems that you desire to be universal, and we may very agree on most or even all points, but that doesn't change the fact these are personal feelings on the subject, preferably strained through the sieve of logic to iron out inconsistencies and unintended consequences.


Terquem wrote:

A limerick often repeated by Alan Watts comes to mind

There once was a man who said, Though
It would appear that I know that I know
What I would like to see
is the I that sees me
When I know, that I know, that I know

Watts is a great read and perfection through quotes like this.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ange de la Nuit wrote:
But if one cannot consider even such basic things like human decency as being universal, then what is the point of society? What is the point of laws? Why doesn't everyone just run around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else? Because if there is no such thing as objective morality and that state of savage anarchy suddenly becomes the predominant schema, then what?

Uh...this doesn't follow logically at all. Society and laws are very subjective constructs put together the way they are so that people can indeed function in groups without the 'running around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing'. They are a social contract between all the people in that society. And functional ones have existed that condone mass murder and other behavior that I (and, I suspect, you) find utterly abhorrent, including everything from genocide to infanticide, to slavery, to various forms of rape.

Now me, I believe in objective morality, and I believe those societies were objectively wrong, but I don't know that that's true, I can't prove it, and they certainly functioned to prevent the kind of random violence you speak of (most societies are fine with violence if used within certain approved channels like the military).

It can certainly be argued with some objective evidence (and I even would argue) that our current society is better and more pleasant for the vast majority of its citizens than the societies I speak of above, and thus a better designed and organized society...but even that is on a purely practical, rather than moral, level with the way that such violence is curbed in our society providing measurable benefits to the society as a whole.

I'd actually argue that, absent such evidence of it being of practical use, trying to legislate morality is a bad idea. Too many people disagree with what is and is not moral and are thus hurt by such laws.

Ange de la Nuit wrote:
I don't mean to presume overmuch about anyone's personal history, but it seems like those who have not suffered because of someone else's immoral actions in a major way prefer to say that morality is subjective. Every victim that I have ever seen believes that there IS a set morality. Why is that? Because a lack of that morality in the person that caused their pain. Such is not merely an emotional reaction, but a logical one.

I've known people who have suffered such trauma and believe in subjective morality. So...yeah, tragic as having been the victim of such things is, it doesn't mean that your argument is any less based on emotion.

I agree with you that rape is awful, and objectively so...but someone earlier in this thread felt the same way about abortion (or said they did). Them I disagree with.

I personally believe that the line defining objective morality is the removal of choice, with someone having absolute autonomy over themselves and what happens to them and anything that intentionally infringes on that being wrong and evil. Thus, I'm of the opinion that rape and torture, given their nature as profound violations of this principle, are basically the worst things ever, while it would be preventing an abortion that was wrong.

But y'know what? Not everyone agrees with me, and I can't prove my opinion in any empirical fashion. And that means that, from any logical perspective, all it is, and all it can be, is my opinion.

I'm also a very religious man. I believe deeply in my faith and absolutely believe that it is right. But I sure as hell can't prove it. That's what makes it faith, not knowledge. And faith, like love, is an irrational act. Like one's opinion on morality or religion, one's opinion that the person they love is the best person ever is likewise not objectively true in any provable sense.

Now, the religion, the morality, and the opinion of the person you love might all be objectively true, but we lack the tools to prove it, so from a practical perspective, we must regard them as subjective, since many people have differing opinions on these subjects, which cannot all be right.


Hmmm... a fair point I suppose, and one delivered respectfully on the Interwebz!

EDIT: I was not being sarcastic, I honestly feel that people were respectful enough!


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Ange de la Nuit wrote:

But if one cannot consider even such basic things like human decency as being universal, then what is the point of society? What is the point of laws? Why doesn't everyone just run around naked raping, killing, and cannibalizing everyone else? Because if there is no such thing as objective morality and that state of savage anarchy suddenly becomes the predominant schema, then what?

I don't mean to presume overmuch about anyone's personal history, but it seems like those who have not suffered because of someone else's immoral actions in a major way prefer to say that morality is subjective. Every victim that I have ever seen believes that there IS a set morality. Why is that? Because a lack of that morality in the person that caused their pain. Such is not merely an emotional reaction, but a logical one.

I think you are too blinded by emotion to see the issue. As you say, people who have been subject to bad things think differently than those who haven't because their emotions are controlling their thoughts. Since it became personal, you have a much greater emotional connection to said Things. You have admitted what people have is a reaction to things causing them pain, which, while understandable, is not the same as universal standard of morality.

As for logic, I really dislike it when people use this term when what they really mean is 'makes sense to me'. It's one of the reasons I dislike Vulcans in ST. Things people think are logical are really only logical if you accept the premise they give (and not always then), which may or may not be objectively true or even sensible. In this case, we can agree that a victim of a crime generally feels the perpetrator acted immorally, but this still doesn't prove anything other than that the victim feels what s/he feels. It does nothing to prove the existence of a universal or objective morality that isn't "I dislike being hurt and want to blame someone".

On the subject of why don't people run around...

Nope. If you want go that route you can't call rape and murder bad things. They could be thought of as good thins by someone. So why judge?


RDM42 wrote:
Nope. If you want go that route you can't call rape and murder bad things. They could be thought of as good thins by someone. So why judge?

Of course I can. I can even provide reasons for doing so. While still acknowledging that other cultures have disagreed.

And not condemning them as entirely sociopathic for doing so, which would mislead me on other parts of their culture.

Understanding that my opinions are not objective truth also leaves me open to accepting that I might be wrong about some things, which seems hard for many wed to objective moral standards. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about murder and rape, but there are certainly things that are more borderline.


thejeff wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Nope. If you want go that route you can't call rape and murder bad things. They could be thought of as good thins by someone. So why judge?

Of course I can. I can even provide reasons for doing so. While still acknowledging that other cultures have disagreed.

And not condemning them as entirely sociopathic for doing so, which would mislead me on other parts of their culture.

Understanding that my opinions are not objective truth also leaves me open to accepting that I might be wrong about some things, which seems hard for many wed to objective moral standards. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about murder and rape, but there are certainly things that are more borderline.

Then you do believe in objective morality. You just have some differing ideas about where the lines are drawn. Claiming all morality is purely subjective by nature has to involve engaging in a bit of sophistry.


RDM42 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Nope. If you want go that route you can't call rape and murder bad things. They could be thought of as good thins by someone. So why judge?

Of course I can. I can even provide reasons for doing so. While still acknowledging that other cultures have disagreed.

And not condemning them as entirely sociopathic for doing so, which would mislead me on other parts of their culture.

Understanding that my opinions are not objective truth also leaves me open to accepting that I might be wrong about some things, which seems hard for many wed to objective moral standards. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about murder and rape, but there are certainly things that are more borderline.

Then you do believe in objective morality. You just have some differing ideas about where the lines are drawn. Claiming all morality is purely subjective by nature has to involve engaging in a bit of sophistry.

I don't find the terms useful.

If there is an objective morality, we don't and probably can't know what it actually is, so I don't see how the concept is helpful.

It's very useful in practical terms to justify imposing your preferred version on other people, but that's not what we're talking about.


RDM42 wrote:
Nope. If you want go that route you can't call rape and murder bad things. They could be thought of as good thins by someone. So why judge?

Pretty much what thejeff said.

Unless you can prove the existence of a universal, objective standard for morality, 'good' and 'bad/evil' are just another way of saying 'something some people like/dislike'. People as a whole cannot entirely agree on first of all the definition of rape and murder, and second whether it's bad thing in general. My definition of both is pretty broad and I consider the definition mostly correct and the actions wrong and I can give reasons for it, but blindly claiming I am right because I'm right because I believe isn't going to convince anyone that I am right, especially if I give my reasons as 'according to universal and objective principles which are self-evident but lots of people can̈́'t seem to understand this and I'm right and you're wong'.

By all means, try to find universal and/or objective standards of behavior but until then the best way to go about things is find out what the purpose of any given morality is and try to make it work towards that goal. Ignoring that not everyone thinks of things in the same way is not helpful in any way and probably leads to more problems than solutions (except final solutions).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

If there is an objective morality, we don't and probably can't know what it actually is, so I don't see how the concept is helpful.

Would you then say morality is sufficiently malleable that such actions that are customarily deemed reprehensible, such as murder and rape, may in certain circumstances be not only acceptable, but preferred? If one cannot even say, "Murder is evil/wrong" without such being called into question, how is any rule of law anything other than cultural and/or situational?

If that's your point, however, then I comprehend.


Jaelithe wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If there is an objective morality, we don't and probably can't know what it actually is, so I don't see how the concept is helpful.

Would you then say morality is sufficiently malleable that such actions that are customarily deemed reprehensible, such as murder and rape, may in certain circumstances be not only acceptable, but preferred? If one cannot even say, "Murder is evil/wrong" without such being called into question, how is any rule of law anything other than cultural and/or situational?

If that's your point, however, then I comprehend.

I think they're always wrong. I find it unlikely that anything would change my opinion on that. OTOH, I'm not convinced that simply condemning past and even present cultures with different moral codes as evil is helpful. For current ones, we can try to persuade them to adopt our standards, as they will try to persuade us to take up theirs.

Murder and rape are actually both bad things to base this on since they're legal terms basically meaning killing and sex a culture doesn't approve of. Few to no cultures approve of murder or rape, they just define the terms differently. 50+ years ago in the US a man couldn't rape his wife. A man would still actually be horrified at the thought of rape, even if, by modern definitions, he was raping his wife. Murder is specifically non-legal killing. To the extent that those laws line up with cultural attitudes, murder won't be acceptable.


That's certainly my opinion on the subject, however much I wish it were otherwise.
Rather, I wish my particular set of morals were universal and objective - wishing for [i]a[/a] universal objective set of morals could leave you with something you'd find quite unpleasant.


In pf we have alignment.

In our world we have political and ideological alignment. It can get very complicated.

In pf we can cast detect evil.

In our world we can through careful analysis "cast" detect ideology. Some ideologues are evil, some think they are doing good, some are mostly good but excuse the evils of their political alignment.


The only objectively Evil act I can reliably confirm is beginning an alignment debate.


Some just want to watch the forums burn.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Some just want to watch the forums burn.

Those people usually start politically charged threads. :P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?
No, though there's a natural tendency to see one's own side on the law/chaos axis as "more good."

2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?
In PF, yes, though not many things. Anything with an alignment subtype is inherently aligned - if you were somehow to redeem a demon such that it obeyed a non-evil morality it would still retain a physical connection to evil that would make it respond to effects like Smite Evil - and if you somehow removed that subtype you've fundamentally changed the demon such that it's now something entirely different. IRL I'm not sure. I don't think anyone is evil enough that they can't be redeemed, but certainly many people aren't redeemed. I feel that certain actions are always evil, but intellectually I've seen convincing arguments that even these can be justifiable under extreme circumstances (eg killing someone in the direct defense of yourself and others is not considered murder).

3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?
I'm of the opinion that the morality of an action is at least partly dependent on its consequences, but also partly dependent on intent. It's not evil to feed someone peanuts if you are unaware of their severe allergy. Therefore in theory we can come up with a pretty good approximation of the morality of an action based on the foreseeable consequences of the action from the viewpoint of the actor. (I say in theory because it's often difficult to determine what was or should have been known. Do you have an obligation to ask about nut allergies before feeding someone nuts?) In a PF example,

4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?
5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

It's possible for a person to play a character with an entirely different morality. However many people (including myself) generally prefer to play characters with a morality sympathetic to our own, and even when we try to take on a different moral viewpoint find ourselves reflexively reacting in certain ways. Character morality can even affect player morality eg if the player comes to sympathize with an alternative point of view or uses the character as a model (I've heard people say they aspire to act the way their paladin characters would). None of this is wrong.

6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?
7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

Generally I agree with the people who have stated that evil acts don't make you evil, evil people perform (more and worse) evil acts. However it is possible for minor acts of cruelty to erode your sense of empathy which does make you more evil in the sense that you are more able to accept or justify evil acts. Alignment is in this way and others a simplification of morality, but it's not as bad a system as some make it out to be.


Does anyone have a problem with me (anonymously) quoting you?

Grand Lodge

Trying to set up laws based on morality is deliberately seeding a minefield.

However you can still outlaw heinous acts such as rape, and murder, on other basis besides morality, by defining the rights of a person and community, and crimes as violations of those rights.

You can define ethics as a set of standard for fair play in person to person, person to group, and group to group interactions and exchange.

There's a LOT you can do in defining ethics, crime, and punishment, without stepping into the minefield of legislating morality.


Wasn't it Aristotle who offered the opinion that there is no actual "evil" in men, that even the evil things that are done by men* are things that are done by men who convince themselves they are doing right?

* I mean "men" here in the sense of mankind, and include women and men in this generalization

Liberty's Edge

Billybrainpan wrote:
Does anyone have a problem with me (anonymously) quoting you?

Sure, go for it.

LazarX wrote:

Trying to set up laws based on morality is deliberately seeding a minefield.

However you can still outlaw heinous acts such as rape, and murder, on other basis besides morality, by defining the rights of a person and community, and crimes as violations of those rights.

You can define ethics as a set of standard for fair play in person to person, person to group, and group to group interactions and exchange.

There's a LOT you can do in defining ethics, crime, and punishment, without stepping into the minefield of legislating morality.

Agreed entirely.

Terquem wrote:

Wasn't it Aristotle who offered the opinion that there is no actual "evil" in men, that even the evil things that are done by men* are things that are done by men who convince themselves they are doing right?

* I mean "men" here in the sense of mankind, and include women and men in this generalization

Here I disagree, many people who do Evil think they are doing right...but not all of them by any means. Many would admit that what they are doing is wrong, but either they feel they have no choice, or they just don't care.

Getting people to admit they are Evil is much more rare, but admitting that a particular thing that they do is morally wrong? That happens.


It is not uncommon for people to disagree with Aristotle.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Morality in pathfinder vs. the real world. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion