Theories of Alignment

[JusticeZero]

I've noticed a trend in alignment discussions. Specifically, there are at least two core theories of how alignments WORK. Those theories are irreconcilable with each other, but each one is coherent.

Because these two stances disagree on a very fundamental assumption, and because most moral questions have some ambiguity to them, the debate between the two is completely impossible to resolve. In all of the complex questions, you have to sacrifice either validity or reliability; there is no simple theory of morality that covers all cases in a way that satisfies everyone. If you sacrifice validity, you will have to accept that some of the quirkier results of the alignment system seem absurd. If you sacrifice reliability, then actions will have different effects on alignment depending on the context, and some of the actors in the setting will wander out into alignments very different from where they are traditionally expected to be.

"There are as many as sixty spices in this meal, and I have no idea where some of them might fall on the alignment spectrum." - Vaarsuvius
First, you have the Physicalist interpretation. This theory states that the alignment system is integral to the physics of the game universe, and the principles that they run on are fixed and concrete. Because they are rigid, it is possible, indeed likely, that some things that are necessary and helpful will end up flagged with alignments that don't represent that actor as a whole.
Some of the things that ping as "Evil" are really nice and helpful, and some things that ping as "Good" are reprehensible. And that's OK. Some people just have to deal with the fact that in spite of being a great person, very nice and charitable, their necessary career choices are going to condemn them to hide from paladins. Other people need to deal with the fact that that glowingly bright holy guy who casually channels the powers of light and holiness might actually be a vile villain who knows how to game the system.
In theoretical terms, the alignment system preserves reliability, but sacrifices validity. The results are predictable, but sometimes seem a bit wonky.

"We were once so close to Heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals proclaiming us 'The nicest of the damned'." - They might be Giants
Second, you have the Ambivalist interpretation. In this view, Good is undeniably Good, by the spirit of the law; Evil is Evil. Most everything has some moral vagueness, so perfect Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos are actually impossible to reach in practice. If you got a large number of people from different backgrounds to judge things, most of them would call Good things Good, Evil things Evil, and so on. On things that people find more open to debate, they fall into Neutral. The actual boundary between Neutral and any non-neutral alignment is foggy and probably best seen as a spectrum.
However, everything has free will. Even demons can do Good things, and can indeed so so much good that they drift through Neutral into Good territory. Detection effects are perfect judges of character. If a devil protests that they aren't evil, check their alignment. They might actually be good. If something DOES ping as Evil, a Good character can smite them at will, because the morality has already been worked out. This means that things that are casually thrown out like "Always evil" are in question.
In theoretical terms, the system preserves validity, but sacrifices reliability. The results are dramatically different in different places and situations depending on how each situation played out, but they always make sense.


All of the alignment debates I remember seeing have come down to these two camps, when in fact it is probably easier to just say "In this setting, alignment is Ambivalist", or "This setting is Physicalist in nature"; once you know which theory is in play, everything else snaps into place.

Thoughts? Am I missing any other major theoretical constructions that people are actually using? Obviously, this isn't the place for people who hold those two theories to start jousting with each other.

[AMFV]

As with anything that takes viewpoints and transforms them into simplified versions. This is vastly over simplified. It is certainly possible to hold both viewpoints, simultaneously, or hold something very close to both. From what I can tell the difference is between people who are not objective moralists in real life, trying to analyze D&D morals. Because without getting into real world morality, I believe morality is like a consistent predictable thing. I don't think it varies; not ever.

So the problem is that you're oversimplifying. One can argue that Good is Good and is fundamental to the nature of the Universe. Furthermore I have yet to see something that is undeniably evil explained as a "good thing" or the reverse, which is only the "I Kill a Redeemed Fiend" scenario, and that one is based off something that is explicitly NOT rules text, but suggested rules text.

[White Blade]

Well, I think there are a lot of things wrong here. There is no reason to assume that everyone an ambivalist would label as evil deserves to be killed.

The assumption of your descriptions seems to be, "The only way to deal with ambiguity within the system is to make people who are actually, IRL good people evil under the system" where I always subscribed to Keith Baker's method, "Lots of people are evil, but ain't all of them terrible". So Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are equally common. Joe Jerkface abuses his wife and lies on his tax return but doesn't deserve to have a crossbow bolt put between his eyes. He might even be a valuable ally and someone we could all stomach getting on with, but nobody is gonna be like, "You know, Joe is a swell guy, let's set him up with my daughter" because that's dumb. Joe is a Jerkface. Right there in the name.

I also agree with AMFV: IRL Moral Objectivists are pretty much always confused by the assertion that you can't get an alignment system that works. "But not everybody will agree" is a completely irrelevant question about morality. Besides which, most often a more accurate phrase would be, "Not everybody will agree about how bad this is" not about whether or not it is bad.

Look, we found the evil no win situation of doom! Okay, firstly, you probably haven't. Ethics is like theoretical physics. But lets imagine you end up here, you unfortunate schmuck, and make this happen at the table. If the table can't all agree about whether the action is evil, chuck it in the neutral bin and move on.

As far as alignment for people goes I divide things up like this:
Good characters are looking out for what is best for everybody.
Neutral characters are looking out for themselves without crushing anybody else
Evil characters are just looking out for themselves (and their group, depending on where they are on the scale)

[JusticeZero]

That's a very Ambivalist response. Certainly at the extremes there is no real doubt; someone who robs from the poor is doing something evil. Nobody is going to argue that the emperess who bathes in the blood of infants every day in hopes of retaining her beauty is committing evil. But then you look at say, a repo man whose job it is to repossess things from people to resolve contracts - they are stealing things, and there can be some ambivalence in the exact situations. It's the parts where things are hazy that is being referred to here.
The fact of the matter is that this is simply a response to the fact that all of the responses in alignment disputes seem to fall into one of the two camps, and then those two camps argue bitterly.

[AMFV]

That's a very Ambivalist response. Certainly at the extremes there is no real doubt; someone who robs from the poor is doing something evil. Nobody is going to argue that the emperess who bathes in the blood of infants every day in hopes of retaining her beauty is committing evil. But then you look at say, a repo man whose job it is to repossess things from people to resolve contracts - they are stealing things, and there can be some ambivalence in the exact situations. It's the parts where things are hazy that is being referred to here.

And there's your problem. You're describing moral relativism. For a moral objectivist, there never is any ambivalence to morality. A Repo Man is not stealing anything, he's fulfilling a contract. It's not theft if they put their property up as a contractual obligation. Again, there no hazy parts, in D&D and in objective morality, things that are wrong are always wrong, regardless of opinion or subjective reasoning. Things that are right are always right.

Edit: Furthermore I disagree with your two positions still. There are significantly more complex viewpoints than that, and as I've pointed out there people who believe that in the real world morality is like a physical entity, and I'm not sure why you can't or won't understand that. I believe that way. And I can understand that you believe differently. And my viewpoint is that most alignment debates are between people who are generally predisposed to moral objectivism and those who are predisposed to moral relativism. Relativists tend to despise D&D's alignment system, since it is objectivist, and objectivists tend to see no problem with it, since it matches their philosophy, which is usually where alignment threads break down.

Furthermore I don't believe that you can't present me with a situation that is morally ambivalent, at least not in any real sense, now there are situations where the right course of action isn't readily apparent, but it never wavers, and intent has nothing to do with it.

[JusticeZero]

The issue is that people will often say that they believe in absolute morality, but when examined, they are adding in a lot of fiddly moving parts and objections to mediate the exceptions.
"Do Not Kill. Animals and bugs are okay. So is self defense. Or to protect others, Or in wartime. Or in some other cases where there are some odd supporting circumstances. Or.."
Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone. However, there are a lot of cases where two groups of do-gooders who are trying very hard to be Good are in bitter conflict with each other.
The system itself has a lot of bits that are hard to resolve in it. Then people argue over those bits. Are there creatures that are always evil? Why? Do they have any ability to affect their own behavior? If they do, are they still evil? How about spells with the <evil> tag? Or channeling energy? Why can't a villainous priest of a neutral god channel positive energy? All these things start a whole lot of debate, because it can involve mechanical things.

Both of the theories presented are defining absolute moral systems when dealing with disputable areas.

[AMFV]

The issue is that people will often say that they believe in absolute morality, but when examined, they are adding in a lot of fiddly moving parts and objections to mediate the exceptions.
"Do Not Kill. Animals and bugs are okay. So is self defense. Or to protect others, Or in wartime. Or in some other cases where there are some odd supporting circumstances. Or.."

There are very few moral systems that do contain some exceptions, but exceptions don't turn morality relative. But it's still the actions itself that define things.

For example: "Do not kill" is an extremely rare moral prohibition. I only know of one religion that has that prohibition. "Do not murder" is fairly common, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the two since people often do. In any case you are now VERY firmly in real world morality, which we can't discuss, if you'd like I'll discuss this over PM, I don't mind discussing real world morality, but for obvious reasons I can't discuss it here.



Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone. However, there are a lot of cases where two groups of do-gooders who are trying very hard to be Good are in bitter conflict with each other.

As was said in the previous thread on alignment, just because Morality is absolute does NOT mean that one cannot have a bad idea or be wrong about morality. There is only one correct morality, but not everybody is correct about it.



The system itself has a lot of bits that are hard to resolve in it. Then people argue over those bits. Are there creatures that are always evil? Why? Do they have any ability to affect their own behavior? If they do, are they still evil? How about spells with the <evil> tag? Or channeling energy? Why can't a villainous priest of a neutral god channel positive energy? All these things start a whole lot of debate, because it can involve mechanical things.

Both of the theories presented are defining absolute moral systems when dealing with disputable areas.

What bits are hard to resolve? There are no creatures that are always 100% evil, as we've been presented with exceptions to many of them, for example the Succubus Paladin. So we know that all beings can be redeemed, because of Asmodus we know that all beings can fall. Evil beings can only channel evil energy because the energy itself is affected by their alignment.

[LudicSavant]

Two things.

1) The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.


A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there.

The argument of "what alignment is act/person/whatever X" is akin to the ongoing philosophical argument as to whether "when a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To a serious philosopher, the answer is obvious. However, despite the answer being obvious, the "classic" question is still taken seriously by some people who didn't get the memo, and still causes pointless debates today.

The obvious answer is thus: The two sides answering "yes" and "no" and eternally going at each others' throats aren't actually arguing about the same thing. One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question.

D&D 3.5e alignment arguments are generally the same way: People are really asking different questions (like "is this action defying the laws of the land" or "is this action organized" or "is this action rational" or any of a thousand other questions), because they have totally different definitions of what each alignment means, yet are treating the discussion as if they're answering the same questions.

The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.


2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.


Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone.

If this actually posed an issue, one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

[JusticeZero]

There are no creatures that are always 100% evil, as we've been presented with exceptions to many of them, for example the Succubus Paladin. So we know that all beings can be redeemed, because of Asmodus we know that all beings can fall.Which is the core demonstration of ambivalism in a nutshell. That is, 'There are absolutes for the alignments; things that are borderline get chunked into Neutral, and entities can make choices to become other alignments regardless of metaphysical lockdown." Your posts just described one of the stances I defined.
Evil beings can only channel evil energy because the energy itself is affected by their alignment.That position is highly debated. Lots of people say that negative and positive energy is just energy. I'm not among them, by the way. If an entity is only able to use negative energy, can they go good acts with it? Sure, it's harder to find the opportunities to..

[AMFV]

Two things.

1) The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.


Which is why we discuss different actions in terms of their value as compared to actions that have known moral components.



The argument of "what alignment is act/person/whatever X" is akin to the ongoing philosophical argument as to whether "when a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To a serious philosopher, the answer is obvious. However, despite the answer being obvious, the "classic" question is still taken seriously by some people who didn't get the memo, and still causes pointless debates today.


To a serious philosopher NO answer is ever really obvious. An obvious answer generally means that you've overlooked something. Furthermore there is some pretty heavy discussion on exactly those basic philosophy precepts to this date.



The obvious answer is thus: The two sides answering "yes" and "no" and eternally going at each others' throats aren't actually arguing about the same thing. One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question.

But what is an auditory sensation? We can certainly imagine one would have occurred, and when one imagines an experience one replicates in part that experience, so then by thinking about a tree falling, I'm experiencing in part that sensation. Now I might not believe that but in Philosophy nothing is ever as simple. Also you didn't define anyone, does that include animals? Does that include trees? I mean they certainly experience the effects of the sound waves, as do rocks.



D&D 3.5e alignment arguments are generally the same way: People are really asking different questions (like "is this action defying the laws of the land" or "is this action organized" or "is this action rational" or any of a thousand other questions), because they have totally different definitions of what each alignment means, yet are treating the discussion as if they're answering the same questions.


Well the laws of the land explicitly don't matter to lawful. Rationalism isn't particularly relevant, as can be indicated by things that are produced later. The question must be asked in terms of defining actions which are presented in many books that come later. For example we know that Slavery is lawful, because the PHB defines it so, and because later sources collude this, that's how we can determine.



The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.


However the problem is that many sources were added later that did answer many of those questions. And it's pretty easy when examining more sources than the PHB to make reasonable conclusions about those facts.



2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.


Now you've hit my serious grumpy button, you've come in here and acted as though you were the authority on philosophy while heavily oversimplifying things and talking down to those of us with different views, and now you are implying that we don't have enough of a scholarship to discuss this. Moral Relativism is a viewpoint, when viewed by those who believe in moral Absolutism, just because it isn't a unified philosophy (and relativism shouldn't be) doesn't mean it doesn't describe specific philosophies.

There are also absolute philosophies, most of them religious in nature. For example certain religious people believe that eating certain foods make you unclean regardless of the circumstances and would prefer death to that, death is preferable, that's absolutism.



By this "logic," one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion.

Here I agree.

[LudicSavant]

To a serious philosopher NO answer is ever really obvious. An obvious answer generally means that you've overlooked something.

Ugh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention the quantum physics thing. People who are not quantum physicists tell me all sorts of things about what quantum physics means and what quantum physicists do. Actual quantum physicists tell me something completely incompatible with those viewpoints. When I study quantum physics myself, I get to finding out that all the pop culture nonsense about it is just that.

2+2=? Obvious answer.
3+3=? Obvious answer. I could easily provide you an infinite series of questions with obvious answers, in which nothing is being overlooked. I could even provide you with an algorithm for arriving at the obvious answers for the following infinite questions. Ergo, not only are many answers really obvious, but an infinite quantity of obvious answers exist. Note that mathematics, like all such fields, is firmly grounded in sound philosophy, and that these are, ultimately, philosophical questions. You could, for instance, possess the philosophy that the answer to the math question is a matter of opinion. This philosophy would also be wrong.

So please... just... spare me the pop culture nonsense about how all questions are deep.


Moral Relativism is a viewpoint, when viewed by those who believe in moral Absolutism, just because it isn't a unified philosophy (and relativism shouldn't be) doesn't mean it doesn't describe specific philosophies. Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence.


There are also absolute philosophies, most of them religious in nature. For example certain religious people believe that eating certain foods make you unclean regardless of the circumstances and would prefer death to that, death is preferable, that's absolutism.

It's only usually religious because we live in a world where the majority of people are religious. Moral absolutism is why ethics is a field, and why we have scientific studies related to determining moral questions.

[atomicwaffle]

Alignment (in game) is about absolutes, there is ultimate good, and there is ultimate evil. Both have in-game manifestations with stats. People of the IRL can't comprehend this because they live in a world of moral relativism, and try to sully in-game alignment mechanics with it BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO BE ANYTHING ELSE!

Part of roleplaying is picking a role and playing it out (shocking i know, but bare with me). Alignment is a tool by which you determine how your character will act. Don't ask "what do i do?" but ask what your character would do.

Before a person even creates a character, i always ask them the following question: Do you want to create a character that is like you or a character that is not like you?

[AMFV]

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence.

Moral Relativism is not a philosophy. It's a descriptor used to talk about an entire series of moral philosophies where there is no universal morality, and it's been used in ethics works that are certainly not anthropologist works from the 1950s.



It's only usually religious because we live in a world where the majority of people are religious. Moral absolutism is why ethics is a field, and why we have scientific studies related to determining moral questions.

I have never heard of a serious scientific study dedicated to a moral question. I've seen scientific studies dedicated to behavior, and how people respond with certain dilemma, the Milgram Experiment for example. But that's behavior, and here is where see moral relativism, you see morality as being defined by behavior and belief. I see morality as defining behavior and belief. Morality for me is an absolute, and there are still examinations of ethics in moral absolutism, it's just different in how ethics are examined. For me morality would not change based on how other people behave, it remains the same. And I think it does for everybody whether or not they acknowledge it.

[Raven777]

2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.

If this actually posed an issue, one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Morality isn't math. Morality is based on opinions and social consensus. To some people, morality is relative. Some things you would find disgusting, some cultures would be entirely fine with. Some dilemmas you would find impossible to resolve, some people might fail to see where the big deal is. Values are always relative to one's goal and one's self, and extrapolated to people and cultures from there. There is no universal objective right or wrong, never was proven to be, and never will be. Philosophers have argued against each other for ~2500 years about that. Arguing otherwise would be arguing one person's moral high ground over another's. The only way to win that debate is to carry and swing the bigger stick.

Now, 'course, D&D works on different foundations, and I think it's pretty evident D&D operates on objective fundamental forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos actually being an enforceable thing.

[JusticeZero]

The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.
The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.Added to this, there are mechanical aspects attached to the alignments. Expanding Neutral to cover the problem cases isn't helpful when most things require positions closer to the poles.

One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question. If Harry the Necromancer uses animated corpses of bandits to farm for a hungry town, is he doing an act that will help save the villagers?" Yes. "Is Harry avoiding actions which use Negative energy to manipulate a corpse?" No, Harry is using Negative all over the place. "Which of those questions is actually the one that the physics of the universe cares about?" Well, that needs to be defined, doesn't it?

2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore.Moral relativism, as a part of a balanced anthropological theoretical diet, is still very much in use today. It's just been refined to get rid of the worst extremes of PoMo paralytic silliness. And PoMo is still a central principle in active use too, just, once again, in a more refined fashion. Most of the theories I work with on a regular basis involve explorations of how morality functions from various different stances to come up with somewhat different end results. I wouldn't call it particularly profound.

By this "logic," one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.I never attempted to "poke holes in the idea of absolute morality". These are frameworks that people use to reconcile a variety of pragmatically challenging cases which do not stand out as being on either extreme, when they don't want to just tell everyone "You're all Neutral. Even the paladin."

[AMFV]

Morality isn't math. Morality is based on opinions and social consensus. To some people, morality is relative. Some things you would find disgusting, some cultures would be entirely fine with. Some dilemmas you would find impossible to resolve, some people might fail to see where the big deal is. Values are always relative to one's goal and one's self, and extrapolated to people and cultures from there. There is no universal objective right or wrong, never was proven to be, and never will be. Philosophers have argued against each other for ~2500 years about that. Arguing otherwise would be arguing one person's moral high ground over another's. The only way to win that debate is to carry and swing the bigger stick.

Now, 'course, D&D works on different foundations, and I think it's pretty evident D&D operates on objective fundamental forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos actually being an enforceable thing.

Nope, morality is based on something else. And whether or not I find something disgusting has no bearing on whether it's moral, but whether somebody else finds it fine, has equally no bearing on whether it's moral. There is a universal right or wrong. Furthermore since you're now claiming that the negative is an absolute that means that you have to prove your viewpoint, not vis versa. If you make the claim then the burden of proof is on you.

As I've said the difference between relative moralists and universal moralists is the root of these alignment problems. For a universal moralist, D&D works exactly how the world does and should. For a relative moralist D&D works in a manner opposite to the real world. Which is why relative moralists find D&D alignments distasteful, but universal moralists find morality to be acceptable.

[LudicSavant]

To some people, morality is relative.

Equivalently valid statement:

To some people, .9 repeating is not exactly equal to 1. The statement is true: Many people don't believe that .9 repeating is equal to 1 (they're wrong, and I can provide a simple proof of this if anyone doubts me, which I don't doubt they will... it seems there's always at least one person on every public forum who finds the idea insane). I've heard many people say it's "just an opinion" that .9 repeating is the same number as one, but that doesn't mean that whether or not .9 repeating is equal to 1 is a matter of social consensus. Right or wrong, the statement can be evaluated as true/false.

As soon as you lend a definition with real definitional value to "good" and "bad," (generally something to the effect of maximizing human well-being / reducing suffering) you can start to measure it. Once you start to measure it, you can use those measurements to make predictions. If your system of making predictions proves useful, you've got a framework for a scientific theory. It's pretty straightforward, really.

I mean, yeah, you can decide to define good and bad in different ways, but then it goes back to the "tree falls in a forest" problem. Generally it's not hard to get people to agree on a usable definition as long as that definition isn't "conforms with the dogma of X religion," similar to how it's generally not that hard to get people to agree on definitions for similarly ambiguous states like "healthy" and "unhealthy" and use those terms in scientific pursuit even though we still can't quite nail down a consistent definition for things as basic as "dead."

In retrospect I feel it was a bad idea for me to mention anything on the topic, as I do not really feel up to the task of taking the time to write out an introduction to modern ideas of moral absolutism / relativism outside of the purview of pop culture and religion, but I can at least provide a link which will do a decent job of introducing anyone interested to the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g

[Raven777]

Nope, morality is based on something else. And whether or not I find something disgusting has no bearing on whether it's moral, but whether somebody else finds it fine, has equally no bearing on whether it's moral.

Please elaborate on that something else. I am sincerely curious. The fact that there is no universal consensus on what defines "moral" and "not moral" is the root of my point.

EDIT : LudicSavant's post explains it well, I think. Sure if you lay down arbitrary axioms, then you can build a coherent moral theory over them. Doesn't mean others will accept your axioms, though. I don't think, say, for example, human happiness counts as something self-evident enough to be an universally acceptable axiom. But others might disagree. Which is my point entirely. :smalltongue:

EDIT2 : Thanks for the link.

[atomicwaffle]

except morality is NOT relative INSIDE Dungeons and Dragons. There are actually absolutes to good and evil that exist inside the game and game mechanics (angels, archons, demons, devils, gods/goddesses). Morality may or may not be relative elsewhere, but inside Dungeons and Dragons it IS ABSOLUTE.

[AMFV]

Equivalently valid statement:

To some people, 0.999999 repeating is not exactly equal to 1. I've heard many people express that opinion, but it doesn't make it valid. I've heard many people say it's "just my opinion" that .9 repeating is the same number as one, but that doesn't mean that whether or not .9 repeating is equal to 1 is a matter of social consensus.

It depends, in most scenarios it is the same number (functionally at least), and treating it as though it's own number actually introduces more error, since rounding errors are a thing. Or observational errors.



As soon as you lend a definition with real definitional value to "good" and "bad," (generally something to the effect of maximizing human well-being / reducing suffering) you can start to measure it. Once you start to measure it, you can use those measurements to make predictions. If your system of making predictions proves useful, you've got a framework for a scientific theory. It's pretty straightforward, really.

The problem is that you can't use that as a framework for absolute morality. Maximizing human well-being is too vague and poorly defined, and so is suffering. I exercise, I put my body through physical pain, my your definition that would be immoral, since I'm suffering. Which is why morality cannot be defined exclusively by it's results.

Furthermore Morality isn't an exact science the same thing that is "good" may not always produce the results as defined by your system, which means that you can't measure it appropriately, and results is not a workable way to define a system of morality.

Lastly, you are supposing, that the purpose of morality is to improve society, which is not an agreed-on assumption, and you'll find that it varies greatly from moralist to moralist whether or not that is the purpose of morality. For example one moralist might say that the purpose of morality is to become more like the divine, or like the truth of things. Another might say that the purpose of morality is to reduce suffering, another might say that the purpose of morality is for self-esteem. Those are not all really not compatible. Which means that if there is universal morality they are not all right.



I mean, yeah, you can decide to define good and bad in different ways, but then it goes back to the "tree falls in a forest" problem. Generally it's not hard to get people to agree on a usable definition as long as that definition isn't "conforms with the dogma of X religion," similar to how it's generally not that hard to get people to agree on definitions for similarly ambiguous states like "healthy" and "unhealthy" and use those terms in scientific pursuit even though we still can't quite nail down a consistent definition for things as basic as "dead."

And I pointed out how that problem is far less simple than you believed it was. Philosophy is not simple and even questions that appear simple are not exactly simple. It's not just a matter of defining the questions it's a matter of disagreement over what things qualify as things at all.

For example, in your tree metaphor, as I said it matters what experiencing auditory effects means, and what qualifies as "somebody". Furthermore the does it make a sound, is not actually a question of results, but rather the action itself, which you clever redefined into terms of results. Does the tree make a sound, is not the same as saying "does somebody experience a sound after a tree falls", or "are there soundwaves after a tree falls" because it shifts the focus of the question, and that changes it, so you aren't rephrasing the question, you're changing it completely.


Please elaborate on that something else. I am sincerely curious. The fact that there is no universal consensus on what defines "moral" and "not moral" is the root of my point.

EDIT : LudicSavant's post explains it well, I think. Sure if you lay down arbitrary axioms, then you can build a coherent moral theory over them. Doesn't mean others will accept your axioms, though. I don't think, say, for example, human happiness counts as something self-evident enough to be an universally acceptable axiom. But others might disagree. Which is my point entirely. :smalltongue:

EDIT2 : Thanks for the link.

The truth of things, I am moral to be more like the truth of things. In my case that's the Divine, for Plato it was something very different. That's as far as I can discuss that without going into real world morality, or what my real world morality is.

Furthermore you make the same mistake every relativist I've ever talked to makes. If morality is to be more like the Divine, and you believe it to be something else, then you are wrong, your viewpoint isn't valid. If morality is relative then everyone's viewpoint is valid... HOWEVER, since my morality does not believe all viewpoints are valid that means that all viewpoints cannot be equally valid, because the second mine was valid, yours would be invalidated. So by your idea that morality is based on personal opinion, all morality has to be invalid, as my morality cannot be valid while somebody's else's is, or you are mistaken.

[LudicSavant]

It depends, in most scenarios it is the same number (functionally at least), and treating it as though it's own number actually introduces more error, since rounding errors are a thing. Or observational errors.
No, it's really the same number in all scenarios. .9 repeating and 1 are the same number. This is very simple to prove.

Argument from associativity of addition

0.9999... = 0.9999... + 0
= 0.9999... + (0.9999... - 0.9999...)
= (0.9999... + 0.9999...) - 0.9999...
= 1.9999... - 0.9999...
= 1.0000... (infinite zeroes = 0)

Argument from continuity of the real numbers
Any real number can be written out as a decimal expansion in at least one way.
Also, for any two different real numbers, you can pick a third number which is between them.
So, if 0.9999... and 1.0000... were different numbers, then it would be possible to find a number which was between them, and write it out.
But it's impossible to write out the decimal expansion of a number between 0.9999... and 1.0000...
Therefore, they cannot be different numbers.
Therefore, they are the same number.

Multiplication proof

Let
x = 0.9999...

Multiply both sides by ten:
10x = 9.9999...

Subtract x from both sides:
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9.0000...

Divide by nine:
x = 1.00000... (infinite zeroes = 0)


The problem is that you can't use that as a framework for absolute morality. Maximizing human well-being is too vague and poorly defined, and so is suffering.

Terms with imperfect definitions are nothing new to science, nor do they prevent it from moving forward with them. The terms in this case aren't particularly more vague than the concept of "health" in medical science.

[AMFV]

Math

Well I concede that point. It was already what I would have intuitively suspected.

[TheIronGolem]

except morality is NOT relative INSIDE Dungeons and Dragons. There are actually absolutes to good and evil that exist inside the game and game mechanics (angels, archons, demons, devils, gods/goddesses). Morality may or may not be relative elsewhere, but inside Dungeons and Dragons it IS ABSOLUTE.

Except that doesn't hold. If you define good and evil as "what the angels/demons do", then that's just naming the sides of a conflict between cosmic forces. The morality of a given course of action is not related to that, even if they share the names of "good" and "evil". Trying to tie the two together just ends up being an exercise in circular reasoning: "These things are good because the Good gods do them, and those gods are Good because they do good things..."

Besides, even the beings of "ultimate" Good or Evil will frequently disagree amongst themselves regarding what the right thing to do is. Morality isn't even objective for them, and they supposedly embody it.

In short, Good and Evil might be absolute, but good and evil are not.

[AMFV]

Except that doesn't hold. If you define good and evil as "what the angels/demons do", then that's just naming the sides of a conflict between cosmic forces. The morality of a given course of action is not related to that, even if they share the names of "good" and "evil". Trying to tie the two together just ends up being an exercise in circular reasoning: "These things are good because the Good gods do them, and those gods are Good because they do good things..."

Besides, even the beings of "ultimate" Good or Evil will frequently disagree amongst themselves regarding what the right thing to do is. Morality isn't even objective for them, and they supposedly embody it.

In short, Good and Evil might be absolute, but good and evil are not.

Good and Evil are good and evil in D&D. You don't define good and evil as "What the Angels/Demons do" since they are capable of doing things that are outside their nature. Good actions are defined, and their motivations are also defined, from that it's easy to extrapolate what is Good or Evil.

Edit : To be more specific what is good is Good, and what is evil is Evil, they are absolutes.

[jiriku]

I think it might be accurate to describe alignment in D&D as either objective or subjective. In D&D, alignment is objective; regardless what anyone might say about whether person x is good or evil, a few detect spells will settle the matter. Anyone who disagrees with the results of the detect spell is simply wrong. It is possible to create a subjective morality in D&D by stripping out alignment, including subsystems of detect spells, aligned creature subtypes, planar alignment traits, alignment-based damage reduction, etc, etc. If you do this and characters disagree about whether person x is good or evil, there is no objective standard available to determine who is right, or if there is in fact an answer to the question at all.

Where I think a lot of DMs get stuck or run into trouble is attempting to build a hybrid system. In a hybrid system, alignment is supposed to function in a subjective way, but (whether by accident or design) there are odd survivals and leftovers from the objective system, like damage reduction or certain spells that harm only people of a certain alignment. To my way of thinking, a hybrid system is bound to run into trouble eventually, because the mechanics of the world conflict with its fluff.

A fourth kind of alignment I've seen used is local alignment. In a local system, good and evil are objective facts only within certain boundaries, like the borders of a kingdom or a specific plane of existence. In other parts of the game world, a different good and evil exist, or good and evil might be entirely subjective. Local alignment is like an objective system, in that game mechanics can give an absolute answer on morality, but like a subjective system, insofar as that answer may not be true in a neighboring province. Local systems typically aren't well thought-out enough and lack sufficient nuance to handle complicated events in a changing game world; they quickly break down when confronted with unusual conditions.

[JusticeZero]

D&D morality is Absolute. However, IN PRACTICE, there is a LOT of grey area. Simply asserting that the gray "is neutral" can make the alignment system non-helpful by expanding "Neutral" to an impractical extent. I just happen to note that people tend to address the grey area using one of two theoretical heuristics. These theoretical structures, I described in the original post. One is to use the metaphysical crunch - the physics of the world - as the defining factor, which tends to result in creatures and effects being mechanically aligned over behavioral factors; the other is to use behaviors and individual moral choices over metaphysics, muddling clean classifications with the action of free will.
The former - which I termed "Physicalism" because it defers to the physics of the world - tends to result in quirks like liches who have converted to pacifism and philanthropy who still radiate Evil.
The latter, I refer to as "Ambivalism" because it relies on case by case judgments of deeds and motives and results in ambivalous classifications where demons are Evil.. mostly, with some exceptions.. and angels are Good.. usually.. maybe not every time. It tends to result in Succubus paladins, good cities that use the voluntary labor of skeletons, and similar.

[TheIronGolem]

Good and Evil are good and evil in D&D. You don't define good and evil as "What the Angels/Demons do" since they are capable of doing things that are outside their nature.

If a being that embodies the force of Good is capable of committing acts that are not good, then that shows the two to be independent. Good might prefer to do good, and Evil to do evil, but they cannot be tightly coupled if such beings are capable of choosing between the two.

If, on the other hand, a being that embodies the force of Good is not capable of committing a non-good act, then it cannot be said to be exercising any moral agency at all, and this therefore shows morality to be unrelated to (and thus independent of) the cosmic forces.


Good actions are defined, and their motivations are also defined, from that it's easy to extrapolate what is Good or Evil.

But how are they defined? You just said it wasn't "what the angels/demons do", so you can't rely on the authority of what the Powers That Be proclaim to be good/evil. Either you're mistaken and that is how good and evil are defined (which leads back to the circular logic problem), or the moral concepts of good and evil are independent of the cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

[AMFV]

D&D morality is Absolute. However, IN PRACTICE, there is a LOT of grey area. Simply asserting that the gray "is neutral" can make the alignment system non-helpful by expanding "Neutral" to an impractical extent. I just happen to note that people tend to address the grey area using one of two theoretical heuristics. These theoretical structures, I described in the original post. One is to use the metaphysical crunch - the physics of the world - as the defining factor, which tends to result in creatures and effects being mechanically aligned over behavioral factors; the other is to use behaviors and individual moral choices over metaphysics, muddling clean classifications with the action of free will.
The former - which I termed "Physicalism" because it defers to the physics of the world - tends to result in quirks like liches who have converted to pacifism and philanthropy who still radiate Evil.
The latter, I refer to as "Ambivalism" because it relies on case by case judgments of deeds and motives and results in ambivalous classifications where demons are Evil.. mostly, with some exceptions.. and angels are Good.. usually.. maybe not every time. It tends to result in Succubus paladins, good cities that use the voluntary labor of skeletons, and similar.

They radiate evil because of the fact that the act to become a Lich is more evil than what he now is. Agan morality is defined by actions. Also you can have Physicalist morality and still have Succubus Paladins. Because you can still have Physicalist morality and have Asmodus fall.

[SiuiS]

You are missing. The third, original viewpoint; that alignment is a cosmic line drawn in the sand and is literally which side you are aligned with; Good and Evil decided to pick teams for dodge ball one day and ended up centuries later with most evil people driven into exile, almost extinct, and the good faction breaking up because some of them thought genocide was cool and righteous and others thought that once evil became a sniveling, crying exile it was no longer Good to pursue and execute them.

That's the original stance. Alignment is not moral at all. The moral axis is ancillary but not integral. Everyone who speaks the aligned tongue of Good decided that being good was what was right for them in the apocalypse war between darkness and light. Everyone who is Evil chose to be Evil with a capital E because helping Gruumsh marauder and murder and helping Lloth subvert sympathetic elves and helping mind flayers dominate the world and killing and eating those who weren't strong enough to fight back sounded fun.

Detect alignment is basically a magical retinal scanner during the Cold War that tells people if you're American ("good"), Russian ("evil") or Swiss ("neutral") and let's them decide themselves how to act thereafter, with the caveat that an evil man I
Sitting at the bar and thinking about how pretty his wife is won't register as evil because he's not actively engaged in his Russian Agenda.

[AMFV]

If a being that embodies the force of Good is capable of committing acts that are not good, then that shows the two to be independent. Good might prefer to do good, and Evil to do evil, but they cannot be tightly coupled if such beings are capable of choosing between the two.

If, on the other hand, a being that embodies the force of Good is not capable of committing a non-good act, then it cannot be said to be exercising any moral agency at all, and this therefore shows morality to be unrelated to (and thus independent of) the cosmic forces.



But how are they defined? You just said it wasn't "what the angels/demons do", so you can't rely on the authority of what the Powers That Be proclaim to be good/evil. Either you're mistaken and that is how good and evil are defined (which leads back to the circular logic problem), or the moral concepts of good and evil are independent of the cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

Mostly through sources such as the BoED and BoVD, which explicitly define certain actions as good and evil.

[TheIronGolem]

Mostly through sources such as the BoED and BoVD, which explicitly define certain actions as good and evil.
That's really just a rephrasing of "what the angels/demons do", though. Also, those books can hardly be considered authoritative on moral matters.

[Phelix-Mu]

The issue is that people will often say that they believe in absolute morality, but when examined, they are adding in a lot of fiddly moving parts and objections to mediate the exceptions.
"Do Not Kill. Animals and bugs are okay. So is self defense. Or to protect others, Or in wartime. Or in some other cases where there are some odd supporting circumstances. Or.."
Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone. However, there are a lot of cases where two groups of do-gooders who are trying very hard to be Good are in bitter conflict with each other.
The system itself has a lot of bits that are hard to resolve in it. Then people argue over those bits. Are there creatures that are always evil? Why? Do they have any ability to affect their own behavior? If they do, are they still evil? How about spells with the <evil> tag? Or channeling energy? Why can't a villainous priest of a neutral god channel positive energy? All these things start a whole lot of debate, because it can involve mechanical things.

Both of the theories presented are defining absolute moral systems when dealing with disputable areas.

Two points:

1.) It's perfectly possible to believe that morality is absolute but be unable to judge a given instance. Human judgement is what's flawed here, not necessarily the belief that morality is absolute. Furthermore, two different people may both believe that morality is fixed, but judge the same situation differently. One or both are wrong, of course, assuming that morality is fixed as they believe.

2.) People that believe something like, let's say, killing is wrong. Well, it's still wrong to such a person to kill in self-defense. It's just acceptable. The person that believes killing is wrong and then kills in self-defense may wrestle with that choice for years, and it's impossible to indict them from the outside for that response to their action (or maybe that is just my tendency to avoid snap judgements on others when I am the outsider). On the other hand, it's a totally different belief to say that killing is wrong, except when there is no other choice. A person with such a belief might kill in self-defense and believe themselves justified, moving on to life's next issue. Or, a person might believe that some killing is justified until they kill someone, and then change their mind.

Due to my point #1, there is no inherent contradiction in any of the people's beliefs in #2, even if they all believe in moral absolutism; a person may believe something absolutely, then realize later they were wrong. Remember, just because one believes that moral absolutism is a thing doesn't mean that one knows what it is in all cases, or that one agrees with anyone else holding the same view.

And frankly, it is this last point that makes alignment debates interesting. What's moral/ethical behavior? We don't know. But, in such discussions, it is generally more productive to assume that, somewhere, there are some principles that are objectively right. Why? Because many such discussions aren't meaningfully advanced by someone positing total moral relativism. If everything is relative, then it really is alright for everyone to believe whatever they want, because right/wrong exist only in our heads or in our cultural context. If no one can be "right," then most debate has a lot of the impetus taken out of it.

As ever, just my two cents here. But I love the trend of alignment discussions. It's totally not sucking up inordinate amounts of my time.

:smallamused:

[JusticeZero]

In fact one of the main things is that a set of tools exist to absolutely measure alignment. We can use spells to measure alignment.
For a physicalist interpretation, that instrument cares more about that that a Succubus is made out of Evil than what the Succubus is doing with her life. That instrument's principles also meter whether she can qualify to be a Paladin, and she can never pass that test without a change of body. But she can do good deeds all day, that's fine.
For an ambivalist, a Succubus has free will to choose her behavior. That behavior will, after overcoming what inertia might be in place, result in an ability to pass the relevant tests of alignment for the new alignment.

[SowZ]

And there's your problem. You're describing moral relativism. For a moral objectivist, there never is any ambivalence to morality. A Repo Man is not stealing anything, he's fulfilling a contract. It's not theft if they put their property up as a contractual obligation. Again, there no hazy parts, in D&D and in objective morality, things that are wrong are always wrong, regardless of opinion or subjective reasoning. Things that are right are always right.

Edit: Furthermore I disagree with your two positions still. There are significantly more complex viewpoints than that, and as I've pointed out there people who believe that in the real world morality is like a physical entity, and I'm not sure why you can't or won't understand that. I believe that way. And I can understand that you believe differently. And my viewpoint is that most alignment debates are between people who are generally predisposed to moral objectivism and those who are predisposed to moral relativism. Relativists tend to despise D&D's alignment system, since it is objectivist, and objectivists tend to see no problem with it, since it matches their philosophy, which is usually where alignment threads break down.

Furthermore I don't believe that you can't present me with a situation that is morally ambivalent, at least not in any real sense, now there are situations where the right course of action isn't readily apparent, but it never wavers, and intent has nothing to do with it.

I actually lean morally objectivist in RL, but vehemently deny that D&D morality is at all linked to ethics or right and wrong just because it is so wildly nonsensical and inconsistent. Not to mention sometimes downright immoral in the ethical conclusions it draws by any reasonably standard. Since there are no actual statutes that D&D morality consistently holds, (actions are Good or Bad arbitrarily,) I have to conclude these are not forces capable of judgement or ethical opinions. They just are.

The labels Good and Evil are just terms like Gravity and The Weak Interaction. Not inherently right or wrong. They just are.

[Sartharina]

I'm a moral rejectionist on the internet(The reason people say those who don't believe in Good and Evil are Evil is merely because they've structured their own definition of "Good" to exclude the behaviors of that person), a moral agnostic IRL(Why is the life of a human worth so much more than the life of a flea?), and moral absolutist in games (Poisonous Paladins are Fallen Failures!).

Of course, I find Absolute Morality works more when it's not defined on preservation of Life (Which is a stupidly futile task. No matter how much you try to save grandpa from Cancer, or stop Little Timmy from getting shot, they're gonna die at some point anyway), but respecting life (Don't create it willy-nilly, and don't destroy it willy-nilly), and preserving souls. If you kill someone... it's more like a sudden eviction, and they find themselves where they were going to be anyway. But actions that blight a soul/mind can be evil. The harder problem is resolving why genociding rats is fine (Even if it's because it's hurting the health or wealth of a chicken coop on a farm, or food stores of a home, or spreading diseases that might be lethal or at least inconveniencing to humans), but shooting someone because they're causing a similar level of discomfort isn't.

In D&D, I find morality to be locally defined from table to table with some input from the creators. However, I also run with a 'relative absolute' morality, in which people ping as an alignment based on the alignments of others around them.

For example, Tarquin is Lawful in the Eastern Continent, despite being a power-mad dictator who acts on his whims. However, he's lawful because his actions are forging order from chaos and overall increasing stability in the region. However, if he were to be transported to rule somewhere like Cliffport, he'd be Chaotic, where his antics would be disrupting the established order and increasing uncertainity in the lives of those in the city.

On the Good/Evil axis... I'm gonna make up a Rakshasa named Muhibar. On her own world, she pings as Lawful Good - He's actively trying to find better ways to improve the lives of the slaves that build the society, speaks out as much as she's legally able to against violent conquests of other worlds and violations of treaties and promises, and tries not to cause undue pain to those he seeks pleasure from. However, in the Material Plane, he'd be Lawful Evil - He still owns lots of slaves, supports violent conquests (Though he prefers strong-armed annexations over drawn-out bloody wars), and forces himself on others for personal gratification.

[JusticeZero]

A completely physicalist interpretation..
Anyway, I am hoping that by actually defining the two theoretical camps and making it clear what each one is working under, that we can have better luck delving into issues instead of just having the two sides flame each other. If we know a world is physicalist, we can work on what that means instead of devolving immediately into an argument about whether the setting is physicalist. Also, Debating on renaming the other side "Consequentialism" or something. It's hard to find the right word.

[Lord Raziere]

Your all missing another, fourth interpretation:
Living Universe Interpretation:
if the universe has a sense of morality, then the universe must be alive and therefore have a mind to judge everyone within it, therefore Alignment is the manifestation of the living universe judges everyone, its thoughts, and therefore is just as subjective as anyone else, because its nothing but a giant mind separate from others.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd say that the detect alignment spells work on the same principles as judging actions objectively (with the DM actually determining what is actually moral/what is not), with the exceptions relating to undead, clerics, and outsiders of certain kinds. Those creature's alignment-pings aren't related to their deeds, but to the mechanics of the spell, which fly in the face of logic imo. The problem isn't with the alignment system, it's that those spells allow for ambiguous results in a world that establishes that a being has exactly one valid alignment. It's problematic that the spell will ping evil for a redeemed succubus (though, fluff-wise, I don't mind her having an evil aura, but the spell shouldn't confirm what isn't true... that makes the spell borderline useless for anyone trying to be rigorous about being good...let's say a paladin :smallamused:).

[JusticeZero]

Your all missing another, fourth interpretation:
Living Universe Interpretation:
That's a world design explanation for WHY a setting would be consequentialist or physicalist, not a separate category. Which ultimately is what settings should have.

I suppose an inaccuracy in the measurement tool is a concern, but I doubt it affects the core dichotomy.

[Phelix-Mu]

I suppose an inaccuracy in the measurement tool is a concern, but I doubt it affects the core dichotomy.

It suggests that there is a dichotomy, where the original creators of the game didn't intend for there to be so (as is clear from the very existence of detect x spells and stuff like phylactery of faithfulness...you can't have subjectivity in a world where the DM has to give players the actual alignments of creatures and alignment implications of actions). The game just went about establishing objectivism in a totally ham-handed manner; this is one of the primary areas where the game is easily shown to not be internally consistent (deathward et al).

Now, if a DM wants to interject more gray space, that is good. In fact, I really like that as a play style (and right now, Exalted, the proverbial King of Gray, is blowing my mind with the implications of ultimate subjectivism). But this is pretty much a change to how the game assumes things will work. If doing x causes one paladin to fall, it should do so for all others, if you lose [Exalted] feats because Y, then next time you do it, you should lose them again. The DM establishes the objectivism, but it's not flexible once it hits the table.

[ImNotTrevor]

The moral absolutism thing produces some weird sentences when viewed from my chair on the Devil's Advocate side of the table.

So let me throw some potentially hard questions at you.

"Good is good, Evil is evil." Why? Who decided this? The universe? Do these powers just arbitrarily exist in the universe somewhere?

If every sentient life form in the universe were to suddenly die, would Good and Evil continue to exist? Can natural forces be described as Good or Evil, or is that nonsensical?

If it is nonsensical for natural forces to follow morality rules, then we cannot say that morality exists in and of itself. Regardless of if I give a baby a lollipop or throw it off a bridge, the nonhuman parts of the universe will be indifferent to my actions.

Morality is a creation of the human mind. There are some general consensus items in there, which gives us a good starting point.
However, there are things that humanity disagrees on. Which spits in the face of moral absolutism the moment your realize on simple thing:

Good does not exist.
Neither does evil.
Neither does justice.
Or mercy.
Nor does cruelty, tyranny, or wickedness.

"But of course it does!" You say.
Ok. Grind up the entire universe. Sift it through your finest galactic siv.
And find me a particle of Good.
A molecule of Mercy.
A solid chunk of Cruelty.

You can't. Because they aren't REAL. They are human constructs. Unless you account for a creator deity, you cannot assume that morality is determined by anything other than the human beings who think about it and therefore create it.

*runs away with a s**t-eating grin*

[AMFV]

The moral absolutism thing produces some weird sentences when viewed from my chair on the Devil's Advocate side of the table.

So let me throw some potentially hard questions at you.

"Good is good, Evil is evil." Why? Who decided this? The universe? Do these powers just arbitrarily exist in the universe somewhere?

If every sentient life form in the universe were to suddenly die, would Good and Evil continue to exist? Can natural forces be described as Good or Evil, or is that nonsensical?

If it is nonsensical for natural forces to follow morality rules, then we cannot say that morality exists in and of itself. Regardless of if I give a baby a lollipop or throw it off a bridge, the nonhuman parts of the universe will be indifferent to my actions.

Morality is a creation of the human mind. There are some general consensus items in there, which gives us a good starting point.
However, there are things that humanity disagrees on. Which spits in the face of moral absolutism the moment your realize on simple thing:

Good does not exist.
Neither does evil.
Neither does justice.
Or mercy.
Nor does cruelty, tyranny, or wickedness.

"But of course it does!" You say.
Ok. Grind up the entire universe. Sift it through your finest galactic siv.
And find me a particle of Good.
A molecule of Mercy.
A solid chunk of Cruelty.

You can't. Because they aren't REAL. They are human constructs. Unless you account for a creator deity, you cannot assume that morality is determined by anything other than the human beings who think about it and therefore create it.

*runs away with a s**t-eating grin*

Plato and Aristotle certainly argued that morality existed absent a moral creator deity. So did Voltaire. So did Nietzsche (although his morality was pretty oddball). There are lots of things we haven't found in the universe, saying "we haven't found it" is hardly proof.

But your response again characterizes the fundamental problem in these debates. For you the idea that morality is an absolute is absurd, for me the opposite idea is absurd. This is why we can't reach a consensus.


That's a world design explanation for WHY a setting would be consequentialist or physicalist, not a separate category. Which ultimately is what settings should have.

I suppose an inaccuracy in the measurement tool is a concern, but I doubt it affects the core dichotomy.

A core dichotomy which you haven't proven. Your dichotomy only works if morality is not absolute in real life.

[ImNotTrevor]

Plato and Aristotle certainly argued that morality existed absent a moral creator deity. So did Voltaire. So did Nietzsche (although his morality was pretty oddball). There are lots of things we haven't found in the universe, saying "we haven't found it" is hardly proof.

The burden of proof is on those who assert that the thing exists. Unless you can prove that good and evil exist outside of Human Reasoning about it (which you tried to prove with...humans reasoning about it.) then it cannot be said to exist.

[AMFV]

The burden of proof is on those who assert that the thing exists. Unless you can prove that good and evil exist outside of Human Reasoning about it (which you tried to prove with...humans reasoning about it.) then it cannot be said to exist.

You are mistaken the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. If you claim a negative as an absolute then you have to prove that. It's not "I can claim things don't exist because I haven't seen proof that meets my standards". Furthermore there are people who do believe that there is sufficient evidence. The problem is the assumption that people make that there is universal evidenciary standards, which there aren't. We really can't discuss that though, because that is real world religion, which we aren't allowed to discuss.

I can say that in my experience the alignment threads tend to break down because of the difference between absolute and relative morality.

I absolutely did not try to prove anything because that would violate forum rules, I just pointed out that there are MANY MANY secular philosophers (many of whom had a very good reputation, Plato, and Aristotle for example) who argued for the presence of an absolute morality without arguing likewise for the divine. Again not trying to prove just saying that your assertion "the only thing that would justify absolute morality is the divine" is not a well-founded assertion. I'd love to discuss this via PM if you want to, but I can't discuss it here.

[Segev]

If we accept the OP's premise, then it would be correct to state that, for purposes of D&D alignment discussions, the objectivists are flat-out correct. Treat alignment as an objective force, and D&D's alignment system works just fine.

Unfortunately, there are some flaws in this because writers of varying skill have attempted to create "moral quandaries," and have at times (re)defined "good" and "evil" in terms contradictory to those that came before in order to force the conflict by creating an "A & ~A" scenario. This is actually a failure of logic 101 because inherent contradiction in the premises leads not to "there is no answer" but to "literally anything can be proven true."

Given: A
Given: ~A

A v "I am the god-emperor of the universe" (a true statement, since A v [anything] is a true statement, since we were given A)

~A

Therefore, "I am the god-emperor of the universe" is true. (because either A or "I am the god emperor of the universe" must be true, and since A is false...)


I am very much an objectivist in real life and in games, because I have, as a Computational Intelligence expert, noticed that evolution, rules patterns, emergent behaviors, and game theory all converge when developing optimal strategies on strategies that would be recognized as "moral" by most non-degenerate (and yes, I can call certain allegedly-moral philosophies "degenerate" based on their effects on the optimality of the host culture and its neighbors) cultures and societies.

The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma actually is an excellent illustrative case. In evolving strategies for playing this game, the optimum strategy that eventually comes out amounts to, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and do unto others as they do unto you."

[ImNotTrevor]

You are mistaken the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. If you claim a negative as an absolute then you have to prove that. It's not "I can claim things don't exist because I haven't seen proof that meets my standards"
The initial assertion was that Morality absolutely exists (back on page 1 of this thread.) I argued against it. Ball is still in your court, even if my specifics about Burden of Proof were off. Also, from Wikipedia:
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.
Burden of proof remains with the "Morality Is Absolute and Exists on its Own" side. They made the first assertion, so it's their job to prove it.



Furthermore there are people who do believe that there is sufficient evidence. The problem is the assumption that people make that there is universal evidenciary standards, which there aren't. We really can't discuss that though, because that is real world religion, which we aren't allowed to discuss.

There aren't UNIVERSAL evidenciary standards, but enough evidence will put the majority into agreement. The majority is not in agreement on this issue, so there is insufficient evidence.
There are many who assert, and make proofs for, the Sun orbiting the Earth. There are people who believe there is sufficient evidence. That still doesn't make them correct, just very confident.





I absolutely did not try to prove anything because that would violate forum rules, I just pointed out that there are MANY MANY secular philosophers (many of whom had a very good reputation, Plato, and Aristotle for example) who argued for the presence of an absolute morality without arguing likewise for the divine. Again not trying to prove just saying that your assertion "the only thing that would justify absolute morality is the divine" is not a well-founded assertion. I'd love to discuss this via PM if you want to, but I can't discuss it here

You are misreading me. What I said was: The only way for morality to exist outside of the thought processes of sentient lifeforms is for some kind of external sentience. Your proof that it exists outside of sentient beings reasoning about it, was to say that some particularly clever sentient beings reasoned about it and so it must exist.
That doesn't do anything against my argument. Morality would have to continue to hold sway on the surface of Venus. All of the base forces hold sway there. Does morality hold sway on Venus? Is one cloud of noxious fumes more or less evil than the rock below it?

Humans cause morality to be. Which is fine and dandy, since most of humanity basically agrees on certain things. Shooting a guy in the face without a really, REALLY good reason is unlikely to make you popular, for instance. Nor would throwing a baby off a bridge. We agree that those things are bad. That DOESN'T mean that Morality is self-existant. It means that human beings are biologically programmed with certain instinctual thoughts that help the species survive. That's why we view humans that do immoral things as "broken" or even "not human." People feel creeped out when they see photos of Hitler or video of him being a nice guy. Which he did somewhat frequently. Why does that bother us? Because he is EVIL. He is somehow less human because he was able to order genocide. He betrayed a large chunk of humanity, and that does not go well with our biological predisposition to try and keep humanity going. In order to commit atrocities, humans usually have to de-humanize their victim(s).

Just as an FYI, this isn't necessarily my personal opinion. I'm just very skilled in playing the Devil's Advocate. I think it's a good thing to have one's opinions challenged, and an even better thing to argue contrary to your own opinion for the sake of recognizing the weaknesses of your own position, which there almost always will be.

[AMFV]

The initial assertion was that Morality absolutely exists (back on page 1 of this thread.) I argued against it. Ball is still in your court, even if my specifics about Burden of Proof were off. Also, from Wikipedia:
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.
Burden of proof remains with the "Morality Is Absolute and Exists on its Own" side. They made the first assertion, so it's their job to prove it.

And you've made a negative claim. If you looked at a planet through a telescope and said "There is no O2 there" you'd have to prove that, you can't just make a negative assertion. Now you can state likelihood, you can say: "I think this is likely"

Also the reason why I was making my assertion in that manner is because people were taking the negative as a matter of fact, saying: "Morality comes from people" or "Morality is subjective in the real world" as a matter of fact, which is not demonstrably a matter of fact.



There aren't UNIVERSAL evidenciary standards, but enough evidence will put the majority into agreement. The majority is not in agreement on this issue, so there is insufficient evidence.
There are many who assert, and make proofs for, the Sun orbiting the Earth. There are people who believe there is sufficient evidence. That still doesn't make them correct, just very confident.


Well by that standard of evidence, there is absolute morality, since the majority of the population is religious and therefore believes it. The standard of evidence varies depending on your field, and what you accept as evidence.



You are misreading me. What I said was: The only way for morality to exist outside of the thought processes of sentient lifeforms is for some kind of external sentience. Your proof that it exists outside of sentient beings reasoning about it, was to say that some particularly clever sentient beings reasoned about it and so it must exist.
That doesn't do anything against my argument. Morality would have to continue to hold sway on the surface of Venus. All of the base forces hold sway there. Does morality hold sway on Venus? Is one cloud of noxious fumes more or less evil than the rock below it?


Yes, Morality would hold sway, if I went to Venus and did something morally wrong, I would still face the consequences of my conscience, are you implying that astronauts become amoral? Are you implying that Murder is acceptable as long as you are outside the Earth, for your assertion to be true, once somebody leaves the Earth they may become amoral.

What is moral is not changed by location, yes Morality does not interact with the things on Venus, but that does not mean it ceases to exist there.



Humans cause morality to be. Which is fine and dandy, since most of humanity basically agrees on certain things. Shooting a guy in the face without a really, REALLY good reason is unlikely to make you popular, for instance. Nor would throwing a baby off a bridge. We agree that those things are bad. That DOESN'T mean that Morality is self-existant. It means that human beings are biologically programmed with certain instinctual thoughts that help the species survive. That's why we view humans that do immoral things as "broken" or even "not human." People feel creeped out when they see photos of Hitler or video of him being a nice guy. Which he did somewhat frequently. Why does that bother us? Because he is EVIL. He is somehow less human because he was able to order genocide. He betrayed a large chunk of humanity, and that does not go well with our biological predisposition to try and keep humanity going. In order to commit atrocities, humans usually have to de-humanize their victim(s).




Just as an FYI, this isn't necessarily my personal opinion. I'm just very skilled in playing the Devil's Advocate. I think it's a good thing to have one's opinions challenged, and an even better thing to argue contrary to your own opinion for the sake of recognizing the weaknesses of your own position, which there almost always will be.

[LudicSavant]

Good does not exist.
Neither does evil.
Neither does justice.
Or mercy.
Nor does cruelty, tyranny, or wickedness.

"But of course it does!" You say.
Ok. Grind up the entire universe. Sift it through your finest galactic siv.
And find me a particle of Good.
A molecule of Mercy.
A solid chunk of Cruelty.

You can't. Because they aren't REAL. They are human constructs. Unless you account for a creator deity, you cannot assume that morality is determined by anything other than the human beings who think about it and therefore create it.

You got that prose from Terry Pratchett's Death. :smallannoyed:

By that argument, pain and pleasure are not real or measurable. Economics can't be studied. Time isn't real either, because I can't find a solid chunk of that.

I don't think you've thought this through.


The burden of proof is on those who assert that the thing exists. Unless you can prove that good and evil exist outside of Human Reasoning about it (which you tried to prove with...humans reasoning about it.) then it cannot be said to exist.

It's very easy to prove that things that improve or reduce the well-being of human beings exist. Just like you can measure pain and pleasure, or demonstrate that time exists. You can't find a solid chunk of pain, but you can still find it in the universe as an arrangement of objects within a nervous system (and yes, you can do that outside of the realm of the human reasoning about their own nervous system. It's actually possible for a person to believe things about their own feelings that are wrong. In fact, studies show that people are pretty unreliable at identifying their own motivational triggers, for instance). You can't find a solid chunk of time, but you can measure its passage. You can't find a solid chunk of culture, but that doesn't mean that there's a thing called culture that exists and you can learn about it and figure out its properties and how they form and everything. You can't go out and find a particle of Learning, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is imaginary, or that there is not a right answer to questions like "which of these teaching methods will prove more effective in this situation?" You can go out in the world, run tests, get data, create a model, and form useful predictions.


I'm just very skilled in playing the Devil's Advocate. You're bringing up arguments that have been falsified a million times before. That's tedious, not skilled.

[ImNotTrevor]

You got that prose from Terry Pratchett's Death. :smallannoyed:

Nice catch. Bonus points.



By that argument, pain and pleasure are not real or measurable. Economics can't be studied. Time isn't real either, because I can't find a solid chunk of that.

Missing the larger point. You're arguing my point by saying my one specific example isn't thorough enough.



I don't think you've thought this through.

Or you're missing my point.



It's very easy to prove that things that improve or reduce the well-being of human beings exist. Just like you can measure pain and pleasure, or demonstrate that time exists. You can't find a solid chunk of pain, but you can still find it in the universe as an arrangement of objects within a nervous system (and yes, you can do that outside of the realm of the human reasoning about their own nervous system. It's actually possible for a person to believe things about their own feelings that are wrong. In fact, studies show that people are pretty unreliable at identifying their own motivational triggers, for instance). You can't find a solid chunk of time, but you can measure its passage. You can't find a solid chunk of culture, but that doesn't mean that there's a thing called culture that exists and you can learn about it and figure out its properties and how they form and everything. You can't go out and find a particle of Learning, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is imaginary, or that there is not a right answer to questions like "which of these teaching methods will prove more effective in this situation?" You can go out in the world, run tests, get data, create a model, and form useful predictions.

You're bringing up arguments that have been falsified a million times before. That's tedious, not skilled.

You're missing my point. Rather badly.

Rocks don't have Culture. They don't have Learning. They don't have Teaching.

Everything you're talking about exists only within the realm of humanity(Except for Time, the existance of which is still being hotly debated by physicists). I'm not saying morality doesn't exist within the scope of human thought and reasoning.
I'm saying it's foolhardy to suppose that it exists without us. Which is the assertion being made. That morality is absolute and self-existant regardless of what a puny human thinks. Doesn't matter that your culture believes that it is righteousness to sacrifice a human to your Sun-god so that he does not burn us all to death, the universal forces of Good and Evil have determined that you are bad guys now.

My point is this: Morality exists only because there is someone there to experience it and determine it. Rocks are not evil or good. Water is not evil or good. Gravity is not evil or good.

I think I should make a distinction between something EXISTING and something BEING REAL, for the sake of accuracy in my argument. Previously I've been lax on the terms, and I apologize for that. Let's see if I can clarify how I'm thinking about this:
Harry Potter exists but he is not real. I can speak about him, and you know who I'm talking about. But he doesn't walk around the streets of London. He is a product of human imagination.
Morality exists but it is not real. We can talk about it, we can argue it, but it isn't REAL. It is a product of human thinking. So it can affect human beings, and it can be dealt with by human beings, but to give it more authority than that is giving ourselves a little too much credit.


TL;DR
Morality EXISTS but is not REAL.
Morality is like Harry Potter. You can talk about it, and it can change your life. But without humans it wouldn't be a thing all by itself. It is not like rocks, which will be around regardless of humans being around.

Does that make more sense?

[Dalebert]

I think what complicates alignment debates is failing to acknowledge that it can and does have degrees. A fish monger could be LG but not AS devoted to his alignment as a paladin. Hold a knife to the fish monger's throat and he might tell you where the heroes are hiding. Why? Because he's not especially brave. He has the same beliefs as the paladin about right and wrong but his devotion to his beliefs isn't as strong as his fear and instinct for self-preservation at that moment. Ask him where his daughter is so you can do something horrible to her and he might just find the strength to die to protect her. But that has more to do with him caring more about her than himself. Even an evil character might have similar motivations. He might die rather than give up his daughter and yet is still evil and primarily motivated by selfish goals. He just really cares about his daughter. That motivation is stronger than his evil. It just means he's not AS evil as a guy who would sell his daughter into slavery for some gold or the other guy just doesn't care about his daughter as much. Motivations are more complicated than alignments alone can predict.

Torture someone enough and they just might completely turn on the people dear to them. It doesn't mean they've changed alignments. It just means they're human and there are all sorts of factors influencing the choices they make besides their ethical viewpoints. Torture a really devoted paladin and he might never break. He may have even endured torture on purpose to strengthen his resolve in such circumstances.

I think some would declare that fish monger to be neutral and I would say those folks are being ridiculous.

[Lord Raziere]

ohai I'mNotTrevor, welcome to DnD, a fantasy game where moral objectivism is assumed right by default! If you ever feel like actually playing a rpg game you'd actually like instead of bashing your head against one that disagrees with your worldview, I recommend Exalted, the storytelling game of wuxian moral subjectivity!

Until then *clicks ignore* :smallbiggrin:

anyways I'd rather ascribe to a more Consequentialist view myself rather than a concrete one, because if its not really moral, its not really morality and therefore alignment only a lawful neutral coding system if we go by a concrete interpretation, whereas I prefer Consequentialist, because it just makes more sense to me.

[LudicSavant]

TL;DR
Morality EXISTS but is not REAL.

real re·al [ree-uhl, reel] adjective: existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.

Harry Potter is not real, he is fictitious. Human brains are real. They are not fictitious, nor are any of their states of being. Things that describe states of a human brain or aspects thereof are real. So, for instance, pain and suffering are real. Statements like "this brain is arranged in such a way that it would choose to spare the man's life in scenario A" is something that you can verify as true or false in the real world.


But without humans it wouldn't be a thing all by itself. It is not like rocks, which will be around regardless of humans being around. Human biology and psychology do not exist without humans being around. They are still real, and statements can be made about them which are not matters of opinion.

[ImNotTrevor]

And you've made a negative claim. If you looked at a planet through a telescope and said "There is no O2 there" you'd have to prove that, you can't just make a negative assertion. Now you can state likelihood, you can say: "I think this is likely"

Also the reason why I was making my assertion in that manner is because people were taking the negative as a matter of fact, saying: "Morality comes from people" or "Morality is subjective in the real world" as a matter of fact, which is not demonstrably a matter of fact.

The first assertion was yours. I questioned it and drew a conclusion. You're trying to push the burden of proof back onto me. You can't. You made the first assertion (that morality is absolute) long ago, and have failed to prove it. You still carry the burden of proof, despite trying to pin it on me. Refuting your assertion by questioning it away and coming to an alternative conclusion does not equate a negative assertion. Had I begun with "There is no such thing as absolute morality" you would be right. Instead, I questioned the assertion (There IS absolute morality) and came to a different conclusion (that assertion doesn't hold water outside of manmade systems) with an explanation (Morality is not real all by itself, and requires Humans to be real.) That is different from just claiming an assertion.

Burden of Proof remains firmly yours.



Well by that standard of evidence, there is absolute morality, since the majority of the population is religious and therefore believes it. The standard of evidence varies depending on your field, and what you accept as evidence.

Being religious =/= moral absolutism.
You're also chipping away at the lesser points that I'm making without actually addressing the main point, likely because you can't argue against it. (But if my specifics are not 100% airtight, I MUST be wrong on the whole thing!)



Yes, Morality would hold sway, if I went to Venus and did something morally wrong, I would still face the consequences of my conscience, are you implying that astronauts become amoral? Are you implying that Murder is acceptable as long as you are outside the Earth, for your assertion to be true, once somebody leaves the Earth they may become amoral.

What is moral is not changed by location, yes Morality does not interact with the things on Venus, but that does not mean it ceases to exist there.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood my point this badly on purpose.

Morality is a human invention. It does not extend outside of us. It exists, but is not REAL. It affects humans and perhaps other sentient beings, but our standards of morality to not matter in places devoid of life. So no, right now, on Venus, Morality does not exist. There is no one there to be Moral or Amoral or Immoral. (Unless there are sentient aliens there, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not deal with at all.)

I'm saying that Morality requires Sentient beings to have an opinion of morality. Without someone to think about morality, it stops existing. Because it is not inherently real.

(Devil's Advocate disclaimer, etc.)

[OldTrees1]

The moral absolutism thing produces some weird sentences when viewed from my chair on the Devil's Advocate side of the table.

So let me throw some potentially hard questions at you.


Ooo. I like this train of thought.


"Good is good, Evil is evil." Why? Who decided this? The universe? Do these powers just arbitrarily exist in the universe somewhere?

[Good]: The alignment descriptor
Good: What is detected by spells/determines afterlives
good: What is right

Well whether "[Good] and/or Good is good" is one of the points of disagreement in D&D ethics. Books like BoED certainly make good evidence for "[Good] being Good but not necessarily being good". At the same time those books seem to be written with authorial intent of having "[Good] and Good define good".

But that is only tangential to your full question which also implies the question of "is good good? Why and How?".


When good is defined as "what is right" or "any/all the right choices available in a decision", then whether "good is good" is a self-evident tautology. However this causes some complications.
1) Since good is defined via tautology, there is no guarantee that it exists/describes something in reality.
2) Since good is defined via tautology, there is no way to derive what things are and are not good.
So by guaranteeing an answer to Why we lose the ability to answer How(1) or What(2). On the other hand if we define good as "what agrees with X", then we lose the Why(self-evidence) and gain answers to How and What.

I think most people use the self-evident tautology definition of good when describing an objective morality. This does imply that "what is good?" is generally not assumed to be self-evident.


If every sentient life form in the universe were to suddenly die, would Good and Evil continue to exist? Can natural forces be described as Good or Evil, or is that nonsensical?

If it is nonsensical for natural forces to follow morality rules, then we cannot say that morality exists in and of itself. Regardless of if I give a baby a lollipop or throw it off a bridge, the nonhuman parts of the universe will be indifferent to my actions.

Morality is a creation of the human mind. There are some general consensus items in there, which gives us a good starting point.
However, there are things that humanity disagrees on. Which spits in the face of moral absolutism the moment your realize on simple thing:

Good does not exist.
Neither does evil.
Neither does justice.
Or mercy.
Nor does cruelty, tyranny, or wickedness.

"But of course it does!" You say.
Ok. Grind up the entire universe. Sift it through your finest galactic siv.
And find me a particle of Good.
A molecule of Mercy.
A solid chunk of Cruelty.

You can't. Because they aren't REAL. They are human constructs. Unless you account for a creator deity, you cannot assume that morality is determined by anything other than the human beings who think about it and therefore create it.

*runs away with a s**t-eating grin*

I like that quote you referenced.
If we assume free will exists and then all the beings with free will ceased existing, then we cannot say free will exists in itself.
If we assume life and then all living beings died, then we cannot say life exists in itself.
If we assume morality and then all moral agents(things capable of moral action) ceased existing, then we cannot say morality exists in itself.

But does this imply that Free Will, Life and Morality do not exist? Depends on your definition of "being/existing". Certainly we can say they are at most emergent properties of things that fit the narrower definitions of "being/existing".

As an aside: Yes, we can say with fairly large certainty that Moral Theories/Moral Opinions are as fictional as Math is fictional. However the meta-ethical theories of objective morality make a sharp distinction between Morality(truth) and Moral Opinions(opinions or at best "possibly" knowledge).

[ImNotTrevor]

real re·al [ree-uhl, reel] adjective: existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.

Harry Potter is not real, he is fictitious. Human brains are real. They are not fictitious, nor are any of their states of being.

Human biology and psychology do not exist without humans being around. They are still real, and statements can be made about them which are not matters of opinion.

Geeze. You try to alter the verbiage for clarification, and people insist that your alteration of the verbiage makes you wrong.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT:
Real is being used to describe things that are self-existant. Examples of things that are Real includes: Humans, Photosynthesis, Gravity, and Carbon Dioxide.

Exists is being used to describe things that can be discussed and generally understood, but may not necessarily be Real.
Samples of things that Exist are: Morality, Harry Potter, Science, and The Metric System

These definitions are being established for clarity, rather than for being accurate to their dictionary definitions. (This is largely due to their definitions relating to eachother, and due to a lack of appropriate terms in the english language.)



Does that clarify it any?


As per D&D Rules:
Meh. DM decides how it works, and hopefully isn't a **** about it. The end.

[ImNotTrevor]

ohai I'mNotTrevor, welcome to DnD, a fantasy game where moral objectivism is assumed right by default!

Until the DM decides that it isn't. Oh lord, what now?!

Like I said, as per the game rules, DM ultimately decides. If he wants to do the absolute thing, he does it and feels like a rockstar.

If he doesn't, then he doesn't. And he feels like a rockstar.

Bam.

The rest of this thread is, or at least seemed to me to be, about addressing the core issues of why these alignment fights start in the first place. But hey, the internet is just a dark room full of angry squids that like cats.
I'm just one of the squids.

[OldTrees1]

Geeze. You try to alter the verbiage for clarification, and people insist that your alteration of the verbiage makes you wrong.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT:
Real is being used to describe things that are self-existant. Examples of things that are Real includes: Humans, Photosynthesis, Gravity, and Carbon Dioxide.

Exists is being used to describe things that can be discussed and generally understood, but may not necessarily be Real.
Samples of things that Exist are: Morality, Harry Potter, Science, and The Metric System

These definitions are being established for clarity, rather than for being accurate to their dictionary definitions. (This is largely due to their definitions relating to eachother, and due to a lack of appropriate terms in the english language.)

Does that clarify it any?


As per D&D Rules:
Meh. DM decides how it works, and hopefully isn't a **** about it. The end.

Your definition is inconsistent/unclear. Neither Photosynthesis nor Gravity is self existent since the first requires Plants, light, H2O, and CO2 and the second requires 2 masses.

Furthermore, using self-existence as the requirement for being real, means that "existing but not being 'real'" does not have the argumentative impact you seem to be looking for. When all you can show is something is in the same category as "pain" or "photosynthesis", few people are going to be disturbed by your conclusion.

[JusticeZero]

The morality discussion is actually a derail, since I see people making claims that don't apply here. here are some of the assumptions that ARE TRUE:

1: Good and Evil exist independently of people. If everyone were to suddenly die, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos would still exist. This is because all these things correspond to real places that people in the world in question can physically visit.

2: Good and Evil can be objectively tested. There are a number of objective tests that one can do to test whether an actor in the world is "mostly Good" or "mostly Chaotic". If an actor of any culture lobs a Holy Word at you, you will be affected by its interaction with an explicit property possessed by you. This property is as real as your mass or chemical composition.

3: Actions can alter that property of alignment.

4: Some effects and objects are presumed to have certain alignment values by their very nature.

5: The texts which define assumptions 1-4 are not clear on the precise sorting nature by which alignment is derived. This renders that process as an acceptable question for worldbuilding.

[ImNotTrevor]

Your definition is inconsistent/unclear. Neither Photosynthesis nor Gravity is self existent since the first requires Plants, light, H2O, and CO2 and the second requires 2 masses.

Furthermore, using self-existence as the requirement for being real, means that "existing but not being 'real'" does not have the argumentative impact you seem to be looking for. When all you can show is something is in the same category as "pain" or "photosynthesis", few people are going to be disturbed by your conclusion.

Gravity exists as a natural force. Earth has gravity, regardless of whether that gravity is influencing another object. the gravity exists, it's just not being used.

Photosynthesis is listed because it will happen with or without humans thinking it is a thing or not.

I'm not exactly trying to rewrite the dictionary here, nor am I trying to nitpick the issue to death. Just trying to give an example of the basic difference between being Real and Existing as I was using it. Not meant to be hard-core definitions that Mirriam Webster should be looking into. Just throwing out what came to mind as things that are Real, rather than Exist.

Also, OP says that all the morality baloney is derailment, so I guess it's a moot point now. It was fun, though.

[OldTrees1]

The morality discussion is actually a derail, since I see people making claims that don't apply here. here are some of the assumptions that ARE TRUE:

1: Good and Evil exist independently of people. If everyone were to suddenly die, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos would still exist. This is because all these things correspond to real places that people in the world in question can physically visit.

2: Good and Evil can be objectively tested. There are a number of objective tests that one can do to test whether an actor in the world is "mostly Good" or "mostly Chaotic". If an actor of any culture lobs a Holy Word at you, you will be affected by its interaction with an explicit property possessed by you. This property is as real as your mass or chemical composition.

3: Actions can alter that property of alignment.

4: Some effects and objects are presumed to have certain alignment values by their very nature.

5: The texts which define assumptions 1-4 are not clear on the precise sorting nature by which alignment is derived. This renders that process as an acceptable question for worldbuilding.

Thanks for trying to rerail.

My take on the divide in perspectives of D&D ethics:
[Good]: The alignment descriptor
Good: What is detected by spells/determines afterlives
good: What is right

Whether "[Good] and/or Good is good" is one of the points of disagreement in D&D ethics. Books like BoED certainly make good evidence for "[Good] being Good but not necessarily being good". At the same time those books seem to be written with authorial intent of having "[Good] and Good define good".

This leads to the 2 camps(with variety in each camp of course).

One camp takes RAW labels for "[Good]" and "Good" and either uses them to define "good" or just glosses over "good" entirely. This is the camp that argues against a LG Demon or accepts the LG Demon but also that killing it a "Good" action.

The other camp rejects some of the RAW labels for "Good" and rewrites them to fit their concept of "good". This is the camp that includes "Sanctify the Wicked is evil", "Murdering redeemed fiends is evil", and other such deviations from RAW.

Again each camp has internal variation and divides and each camp has a useful perspective that create different worlds.

[White Blade]

This leads to the 2 camps(with variety in each camp of course).

One camp takes RAW labels for "[Good]" and "Good" and either uses them to define "good" or just glosses over "good" entirely. This is the camp that argues against a LG Demon or accepts the LG Demon but also that killing it a "Good" action.

The other camp rejects some of the RAW labels for "Good" and rewrites them to fit their concept of "good". This is the camp that includes "Sanctify the Wicked is evil", "Murdering redeemed fiends is evil", and other such deviations from RAW.

I think this is pretty close to correct.

[JusticeZero]

This leads to the 2 camps(with variety in each camp of course).
One camp takes RAW labels for "[Good]" and "Good" and either uses them to define "good" or just glosses over "good" entirely. This is the camp that argues against a LG Demon or accepts the LG Demon but also that killing it a "Good" action.
The other camp rejects some of the RAW labels for "Good" and rewrites them to fit their concept of "good". This is the camp that includes "Sanctify the Wicked is evil", "Murdering redeemed fiends is evil", and other such deviations from RAW.
Exactly! In any case, those two strategies are irreconcilable. It is POINTLESS to debate which of those two schools is correct. It is best to simply declare at the outset which theory is being used as the basic assumption, then tell anyone who wants to argue that premise that their point is irrelevant because of the nature of the setting because you want to actually have relevant discussion instead of one that is based on an assumption that isn't the case. Otherwise, it's a bit like having someone repeatedly argue that "Elminster wouldn't allow X" in a setting that does not contain Elminster, even after repeatedly pointing the last fact out.

[LudicSavant]

I don't think the two "theories" in the OP define the range of takes on alignment I've seen, nor do I think those theories are specific enough that simply saying "I'm using Physicalism" is going to be sufficient to let me know much about what it implies when I get a Chaotic Good reading, but the core point is valid:

Alignment is not sufficiently well defined in the PHB or any of the alignment books to act as if there is a "correct" definition of alignment in D&D. The definitions given by D&D are self-contradictory and non-functional to the point that without any clarification as to what alignment means in your campaign, telling someone that a character pings as Chaotic Good has no informational value beyond knowing which spells you can target them with.

[AMFV]

The morality discussion is actually a derail, since I see people making claims that don't apply here. here are some of the assumptions that ARE TRUE:

1: Good and Evil exist independently of people. If everyone were to suddenly die, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos would still exist. This is because all these things correspond to real places that people in the world in question can physically visit.

I concur with this, it's pretty much exactly RAW.



2: Good and Evil can be objectively tested. There are a number of objective tests that one can do to test whether an actor in the world is "mostly Good" or "mostly Chaotic". If an actor of any culture lobs a Holy Word at you, you will be affected by its interaction with an explicit property possessed by you. This property is as real as your mass or chemical composition.


Also concur.



3: Actions can alter that property of alignment.


I concur, but note that actions rarely immediately affect alignment. One can be a good person and still occasionally do evil things, I bring this distinction up because it's something that's been bothering me in recent alignment threads (those not associated with Paladins)



4: Some effects and objects are presumed to have certain alignment values by their very nature.


True.



5: The texts which define assumptions 1-4 are not clear on the precise sorting nature by which alignment is derived. This renders that process as an acceptable question for worldbuilding.

True again. I agree with your statements on the alignment as an absolute. I just don't agree with your viewpoint as to where the split between folks is actually occurring.

[Firechanter]

I'm not sure if I understood the OP's theories at all, much less do I know if they are correct or if my best guess at the issue matches one of his theories.

Here is what I think how D&D Alignment would work, and how it's fundamentally different from Real Life (RL). First off, I am not talking about the most simplistic interpretation of "It is Evil because its Alignment Tag says so, so we can kill it no questions asked". Secondly, I don't subscribe to "Stupid Good / Stupid Evil" interpretations. For instance, as much as I like the Forgotten Realms as a setting, the doctrines of most Evil deities are a bad joke.

So here is how I try to handle it:

Good and Evil are absolute values. They are not subjective. In RL, most people would consider themselves "Good", and would justify their own evil behaviour as "pragmatic" or "necessary". Not so in a D&D world. I honestly couldn't say if everyone is aware of their own alignment, but if they fully subscribe to an Evil philosophy, they will call it Evil and see nothing wrong with it.

This is really the big difference, and it can be really difficult for RL people to wrap their heads around. In most languages I know (and I know quite a few, being a linguist) there is only one word for "Good" (what we define as morally good) and "good" (as in "desirable and examplary").
In a D&D language, those words will be different. There will be one word for "Good Aligned" and a completely unrelated one for "Desirable and Exemplary".

Quick RL Philosophy reference: for the Stoics, "good" means "behaviour that brings the society ahead". We can work with that. But in a D&D world, we would say "Behaviour that brings the society ahead is desirable and exemplary".

For a Good Aligned person, acting charitably, helping those in need, protecting the weak etc is Desirable and Exemplary. Acting selfish, abusing the weak etc. is Undesirable. It is Desirable to help everyone be strong and gainful for the society.
For an Evil Aligned person, taking what you deem your right, culling the weak, and helping only those that you deem worthy (because maybe they are your family, and blood is thicker than water) is Desirable and Exemplary. Aiding the weak is Undesirable because it is a waste of resources.

So both sides adjust their behaviour by what they believe will better their society. Yes, even Chaotic Evil Orcs have this maxim in mind: they want their clan to be strong, so they can vanquish their foes. So for them, a better society is one with many strong members, and the weak ones be damned.

If they had democracy in a D&D country, they might as well form politic parties, and plaster the whole town with posters "Vote Good!" and "Vote Evil!". Nobody would see a reason to disguise their Evil philosophy as "Good".

Humanoids would generally be imprinted by their society, to a degree. In short, their behaviour may be "programmed" but it isn't "hardwired". Effectively, humanoid species would not get an "Always" but very well a "Usually" in their MM Alignment entry. An Orc child adopted into a NG society would be much more likely to turn out NG than CE (since NG will also be against discrimination so the kid could develop normally).

Other creatures on the other hand, especially Outsiders, may very well have their alignment hardwired. So it would take exceptional circumstances to ever enable the existence of a non-CE demon. Though such cases might exist (Fall-From-Grace, anyone?).
You might argue such creatures have no free will and thus are not responsible for their actions, but this is irrelevant: if they are perceived as a threat to the society, they will be pursued not like criminals but like vermin. If you know there's an extremely venomous animal in your house, you are not going to say you won't do anything about it until it attacks someone. You're going to see it gone before that happens.

[Susano-wo]

I think Oldtrees1 has the camps right, as far as I have observed, though there is some nuance and variation within them(for instance, even those that adhere to "the morals of the DnD universe are what's described in the PHB etc" do not necessarily agree that its ok to kill something just because it pings evil.)

I myself am of the second camp, basically because I'm a moral objectivist, and it breaks my suspension of disbelief too much to take the 1st position. I basically see the alignment specifics like this: its descriptive, not prescriptive. The alignment section, as well as alignment discussion in other sources, are attempts to describe what good and evil are, not prescribe what good and evil are in the Dnd universe.

Finally, one quip about morality existing without humans. A principle can exist without anything currently following that principle. The name is just something we attach to a collection of truths. Just the concept of photosynthesis(to use a previously cited example) can exist even if there are no plants at the moment in the universe, so does morality exist.

[hamishspence]

if they are perceived as a threat to the society, they will be pursued not like criminals but like vermin. If you know there's an extremely venomous animal in your house, you are not going to say you won't do anything about it until it attacks someone. You're going to see it gone before that happens.

Even this depends on the animal. A person who slaughters a platypus which they've found in their home (rather than calling in the experts to remove it) is not going to get much sympathy.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, that's why I worded it more neutrally "see it gone" and not "see it dead".

[hamishspence]

Fair enough. Still, "threat to society" might apply to a lot of Always X alignment beings.

A Neutral society might not appreciate Formians or Slaad any more than it does Demons.

[Firechanter]

Even more, an Evil society will not take kindly to Angels. Even if the Angel (in disguise, probably) does not directly kill any, but instead tries to spread around some Good behaviour, they will consider this as "Unfriendly Act" designed to weaken their society, and try to get rid of it one way or other.

[hamishspence]

Even Neutral societies may have a fair few Evil characters doing what's perceived as "dirty but necessary work" and may not take kindly to the more Smite-happy kinds of Celestial.

[Firechanter]

That's true. Neutral is often about "doing what is necessary", I guess. So yea, Smite-happy Celestials might also become personae non grata in such a place. In general, though, Neutral societies will be much more tolerant towards Good behaviour than towards Evil. Neutral can be a number of things and one of them is probably "Live and let live".

Another example I thought up is how Good, Neutral and Evil societies might treat the poor and weak, let's say someone who lost his home and his job:
* Good: give him food and shelter, and any help they need to take care of themselves in the future. If they can never support themselves for some reason, society will.
* Neutral: maybe give him a loan to help him set up and support himself again. Or offer him a job at fair conditions.
* Evil: exploit his plight. Offer him a job paying the bare minimum of existence. If he can't work, let him perish.

[Segev]

The only way for morality to exist outside of the thought processes of sentient lifeforms is for some kind of external sentience.

This is actually a fascinating claim. Would it be disproof of this claim to show that there exists objective morality without the presence of sentience directly meddling in the system, or would it be evidence that there was an external Sentience defining the system?

I ask because my earlier post made the point that there is evidence that moral behavior is actually in accordance with objective laws leading to specific "desirable" conditions.

From an anthropological perspective, societies which have respected individuals as individuals, and which have taught traditionally moral principles, generally do better than those which do not. The apparent exceptions thrived by the exploitation of larger masses of subjugated peoples, which lead to an overall lower average standard of living and slower progress per capita than in those societies which have more closely adhered to moral principles.

From a scientific and experimental standpoint, I pointed out that, in evolving (non-sentient) players of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma through genetic algorithms, the optimal strategy is one which is almost universally recognized as moral by all healthy societies (that is, societies not prone to self-destruction nor relying on parasitic aggression to sustain a standard of living they do not, themselves, produce).

These are only forum-sized bites of evidence, but they are, I think, compelling: morality is objective in the same sense that "good maintenance" of your electronics and mechanical devices are objective. You are perfectly capable of not taking care of your car beyond some bare bones things like keeping its gas tank filled and having it run for quite some time. It will slowly wear down and eventually break, but no one action you took or did not take could be pointed at as the root cause. However, if you follow the precepts of care given by those who know better (or, perhaps, in the car's manual), it will stay functioning at a higher peak performance for much longer.

Morals are equally objective. They are rules for running your life and a society in an efficient fashion that generates peak performance of the socio-economic engine and your own health and well-being within that culture. There may be some areas of choice, but the core fundamentals ARE universal and objective. They are discoverable by experiment and study of consequences of which behaviors lead to superior performance on a personal and societal level. Interestingly, if the majority of individuals' well-being is valued overall, what is best for a society is also best for individuals.

Therefore, I do believe morality to be objective.

So, then, does this imply that there is a Sentience Who established the system, or does it instead disprove the claim that morals only exist within sentient minds?

[OldTrees1]

These are only forum-sized bites of evidence, but they are, I think, compelling: morality is objective in the same sense that "good maintenance" of your electronics and mechanical devices are objective. You are perfectly capable of not taking care of your car beyond some bare bones things like keeping its gas tank filled and having it run for quite some time. It will slowly wear down and eventually break, but no one action you took or did not take could be pointed at as the root cause. However, if you follow the precepts of care given by those who know better (or, perhaps, in the car's manual), it will stay functioning at a higher peak performance for much longer.

Morals are equally objective. They are rules for running your life and a society in an efficient fashion that generates peak performance of the socio-economic engine and your own health and well-being within that culture. There may be some areas of choice, but the core fundamentals ARE universal and objective. They are discoverable by experiment and study of consequences of which behaviors lead to superior performance on a personal and societal level. Interestingly, if the majority of individuals' well-being is valued overall, what is best for a society is also best for individuals.

Therefore, I do believe morality to be objective.

It is true that the anthropological answer to the origin of Moral Intuitions(the first parts of Moral Opinions) is rooted in "do this because it is good for the society" memes. However Morality(what is right and wrong) is defined as an End, not a Means to an End. Your evidence is strong evidence for the conclusion that Moral Opinions developed as a Means to the End of the good of society and is not evidence about Morality.

To demonstrate this with a single question: What if harm was inherently good (and help was inherently evil)? We would still have Moral Intuitions, Moral Opinions and Moral Theories that claimed help was inherently good (since that meme was more likely to be passed down that the inverse) but those Moral Intuitions, Moral Opinions and Moral Theories would be incorrect (in this example).

[Vogonjeltz]

I ascribe to following the core rules explanation of alignment in which Good, Evil, Law, Chaos are objective things.

So creatures with the [Evil] subtype are literally made of [Evil], not that that means they can't commit [Good] acts, or change their alignment to [Good] (still retaining the [Evil] subtype because that's what their bodies consist of). And of course, vice versa.

Paladins are committed to stopping [Evil] acts, not committing [Evil] acts, and doing [Good] acts (in the form of helping those in need). They won't associate with characters that maintain an Evil alignment, but fortunately they are allowed to redeem those characters (which also changes the NPC alignment) so there's always a possibility for a Paladin to have lengthy interaction with a formerly evil aligned character (or even one who retains the [Evil] subtype by virtue of their heritage.

I know there's a "Subjective" variant, where everything is relative (i.e. Two champions of rival kingdoms, Hector is evil to Achilles, and Achilles is evil to Hector, but both are actually good when it comes to their own societies).

So insofar as Physicalist and Ambivalist are different points of view on those two options (Objective vs Subjective) I come down on the Objective side, with the tacit recognition that everything is still mutable within the rules (and rightly so). Alignment isn't a cage, it's a reading, an indicator of where someone has been and on what heading they likely are going.


In any case you are now VERY firmly in real world morality, which we can't discuss, if you'd like I'll discuss this over PM, I don't mind discussing real world morality, but for obvious reasons I can't discuss it here.

I was informed that the forum rules apply equally to PMs.


Two things.

I just wanted to say that I liked your post, I enjoy philosophical discussions.


Morality isn't math. Morality is based on opinions and social consensus. To some people, morality is relative.

I was given to understand that the distinction between Morality and Ethics was predetermined group consensus. Which is to say:

Morality: What I consider to be right.
Ethics: What the group has determined the right action to be based on specific Obligations.

D&D Example:
Morality: Paladin
Ethics: Cleric

A Paladin is bound by an internal code to help those in need, except they would use that aid for chaotic/evil ends.
A Cleric is bound by the ethical obligation to act as their deity sees fit.

*Just to check myself I looked up the definitions of Ethics and Morals:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, e.g. their profession or religion. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

Something to remember: The Paladin code is an internal thing, not an externally imposed thing. Being a Paladin means the character really does believe in those things.


The fact that there is no universal consensus on what defines "moral" and "not moral" is the root of my point.

There's no universal consensus on anything, anywhere, it's an impossible standard to meet. (Dirty Trick #12 in the 44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument)

@LudicSavant: Regarding the math issue, I've never accepted that. For example: 1/1 = 1; wheras 1/.9999(infinity) is not 1, it's 1.0...10...10...10...(infinity). There's still a distinction there by virtue of the infinitely tiny remainder. Of course as it's impossible to actually define anything infinite, I take that as proof that invalidates the theory that anything is infinite. This isn't the total perspective vortex we're talking about here.

However, to be sure I'm covered here in that if you were to convince me that .9999(infinity) could actually exist, it would make the existence of .0(infinity)10(infinity(1)0(infinity)10 (infinity) equally valid, so even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. (Xanatos gambit ftw?)

[AMFV]

It is true that the anthropological answer to the origin of Moral Intuitions(the first parts of Moral Opinions) is rooted in "do this because it is good for the society" memes. However Morality(what is right and wrong) is defined as an End, not a Means to an End. Your evidence is strong evidence for the conclusion that Moral Opinions developed as a Means to the End of the good of society and is not evidence about Morality.

To demonstrate this with a single question: What if harm was inherently good (and help was inherently evil)? We would still have Moral Intuitions, Moral Opinions and Moral Theories that claimed help was inherently good (since that meme was more likely to be passed down that the inverse) but those Moral Intuitions, Moral Opinions and Moral Theories would be incorrect (in this example).

But that's nonsense. (The Bolded Section), that's like asking a physicist to imagine a universe where gravity repels rather than attracting. It's a nonsense statement there is no way to visualize because in our understanding it can't exist. There is no logical for a species to have evolved that way; particularly since Altruism is evolutionarily selected for, even down to insects.

So you can't disable morality by making a nonsense argument. And yes there are multiple moral perspectives, but there are certain universal moral principles that develop even in isolated societies, which suggests at least a certain universality to morals. Although it's maybe not enough to convince you, it is not evidence that can be discounted.

[OldTrees1]

But that's nonsense. (The Bolded Section), that's like asking a physicist to imagine a universe where gravity repels rather than attracting. It's a nonsense statement there is no way to visualize because in our understanding it can't exist. There is no logical for a species to have evolved that way; particularly since Altruism is evolutionarily selected for, even down to insects.

So you can't disable morality by making a nonsense argument. And yes there are multiple moral perspectives, but there are certain universal moral principles that develop even in isolated societies, which suggests at least a certain universality to morals. Although it's maybe not enough to convince you, it is not evidence that can be discounted.

1) Wait, why are you conflating fitness and morality? Altruism being evolutionarily selected for is completely unrelated to the question of whether Altruism is moral. Being evolutionarily selected for only means that the Altruism meme had higher fitness than some other memes.

2) While a possible concept such a "harm being inherently moral" does evoke Moral Disgust(disgust causing the individual to make rash moral assertions), Moral Disgust has long since been demonstrated to be a cognitive fallacy.

3) [Just covering my bases] Are you also asserting (in your second paragraph) that it is necessarily true that at least one person has a moral perspective that matches moral truth and thus no proposed moral theory that is not held can be true?

In summary: No, it was not a nonsense argument. It was pointing out how moral opinions and moral truth are completely independent in a objective morality universe.

[AMFV]

1) Wait, why are you conflating fitness and morality? Altruism being evolutionarily selected for is completely unrelated to the question of whether Altruism is moral. Being evolutionarily selected for only means that the Altruism meme had high fitness than some other memes.


But why? Self-Sacrifice to the point of death is better for a species, but not better for the reproductive chances of an individual. And on a more philosophical level, why is that better? Why is it better to behave in a moral fashion? This seem overly pedantic, but you can't exclude this. There are fundamental reasons why things which seem inherently illogical, but morally appropriate produce good results.

Now of course you could argue the reverse, that altruism produces good results and is therefore seen as morally good, but that's a less logical result than the reverse at least to my thinking.



2) While a possible concept such a "harm being inherently moral" does evoke Moral Disgust, Moral Disgust has long since been demonstrated to be a cognitive fallacy.


Moral Disgust is a cognitive fallacy? What is a cognitive fallacy? That's actually not a term that I've heard used in philosophy, the idea that something is morally repugnant is similar to how one feels about one's relationship to gravity, it can be fooled, but it's certainly there.

Furthermore I was merely saying that discussing a supposed "reverse morality" is fairly close to impossible since we do not an appropriate frame of reference anymore than discussing a universe where gravity repels rather than attracting, or where time flows backwards, or a universe where there is height and width but no depth. We cannot discuss it because we have no frame of reference.



3) [Just covering my bases] Are you also asserting (in your second paragraph) that it is necessarily true that at least one person has a moral perspective that matches moral truth and thus no proposed moral theory that is not held can be true?

I asserted no such thing... In fact I didn't say anything remotely like that. I'll requote myself.


And yes there are multiple moral perspectives, but there are certain universal moral principles that develop even in isolated societies, which suggests at least a certain universality to morals. Although it's maybe not enough to convince you, it is not evidence that can be discounted.

What I was saying is that universal moral prohibitions (incest for example, cannibalism or virtually universal moral prohibitions) suggest that there is at least a fairly universal social morality. Additionally similar precepts exist in cultures that had no contact with each other, which is not like developing a set of morals that benefits your situation, but like stumbling on a universal truth.

I believe in a particular moral theory which is held being true. So I suppose I could assert something along those lines. But I would say the theory being true is not a necessary aspect of it's existence. If nobody was aware of it, it would still be equally true.



In summary: No, it was not a nonsense argument.

It absolutely is. It's the same thing as saying that gravity is a non-entity because you can conceive of things without mass, or of things with negative mass. You can't introduce things that are conceptually impossible, I mean they're good thought exercises but hardly proof.

[OldTrees1]

But why? Self-Sacrifice to the point of death is better for a species, but not better for the reproductive chances of an individual. And on a more philosophical level, why is that better? Why is it better to behave in a moral fashion? This seem overly pedantic, but you can't exclude this. There are fundamental reasons why things which seem inherently illogical, but morally appropriate produce good results.

Now of course you could argue the reverse, that altruism produces good results and is therefore seen as morally good, but that's a less logical result than the reverse at least to my thinking.


Here is your mistake:
You are observing that a meme(the belief that altruism is good) that happens to be more likely to be passed down is more likely to be passed down. You observe that it is better at being passed down. So far this is logical.

But then you jump to claiming that this high fitness belief is true merely because the belief has high fitness. The most you can validly claim is the belief has high fitness. Just because a belief is popular does not make the belief true.



Moral Disgust is a cognitive fallacy? What is a cognitive fallacy? That's actually not a term that I've heard used in philosophy, the idea that something is morally repugnant is similar to how one feels about one's relationship to gravity, it can be fooled, but it's certainly there.

A cognitive fallacy is another name for a cognitive bias. In this particular case it is the fallacy of labeling something as immoral due to feeling disgusted by it. People that are more prone to physical disgust are also more prone to Moral Disgust.



Furthermore I was merely saying that discussing a supposed "reverse morality" is fairly close to impossible since we do not an appropriate frame of reference anymore than discussing a universe where gravity repels rather than attracting, or where time flows backwards, or a universe where there is height and width but no depth. We cannot discuss it because we have no frame of reference.

Wait. "Reverse Morality"? Unless I am highly mistaken, you are not omniscient and thus do not know what Moral Truth this universe operates under. Unlike Gravity (which we do have knowledge of), Morality is something that is currently unverifiable. Mentioning and considering one of the infinite possible answers does not require describing a new universe any more than mentioning and considering one of the possible eye colors of someone you have never seen.

I picked "harm being inherently good" as an example of a possible Moral Truth for this universe that also happens to conflict with all/a majority of Moral Intuitions on Earth.



I asserted no such thing... In fact I didn't say anything remotely like that. I'll requote myself.

In that case, nevermind #3. I was uncertain if that unstated assertion was a premise of your second paragraph. Obviously it was not since you were not making that assertion.



What I was saying is that universal moral prohibitions (incest for example, cannibalism or virtually universal moral prohibitions) suggest that there is at least a fairly universal social morality. Additionally similar precepts exist in cultures that had no contact with each other, which is not like developing a set of morals that benefits your situation, but like stumbling on a universal truth.

I believe in a particular moral theory which is held being true. So I suppose I could assert something along those lines. But I would say the theory being true is not a necessary aspect of it's existence. If nobody was aware of it, it would still be equally true.

1) Universally held Moral Intuitions have no more validity than universally held opinions in other positions of ignorance.
2) The development of Moral Intuitions is expected to result in several universally held Moral Intuitions because it is the result of natural selection on the meme level.

[AMFV]

Here is your mistake:
You are observing that a meme(the belief that altruism is good) that happens to be more likely to be passed down is more likely to be passed down. You observe that it is better at being passed down. So far this is logical.

But then you jump to claiming that this high fitness belief is true merely because the belief has high fitness. The most you can validly claim is the belief has high fitness. Just because a belief is popular does not make the belief true.

But in this case the belief being popular indicates that is helpful to survival. Since it is passed down, generally traits that are passed down are those that are useful to survival. Altruism is demonstrably good for evolution.



A cognitive fallacy is another name for a cognitive bias. In this particular case it is the fallacy of labeling something as immoral due to feeling disgusted by it. People that are more prone to physical disgust are also more prone to Moral Disgust.


Well the question is, is that a result of morality, an oversensitivity to it? What is the cause of the disgust? Because for example I could have a fear of heights, which is an overdevelopment of a natural reaction to a legitimately problematic stimulus.



Wait. "Reverse Morality"? Unless I am highly mistaken, you are not omniscient and thus do not know what Moral Truth this universe operates under. Unlike Gravity (which we do have knowledge of), Morality is something that is currently unverifiable. Mentioning and considering one of the infinite possible answers does not require describing a new universe any more than mentioning and considering one of the possible eye colors of someone you have never seen.

I picked "harm being inherently good" as an example of a possible Moral Truth for this universe that also happens to conflict with all/a majority of Moral Intuitions on Earth.


I'm fairly sure about moral truth in this universe. Although I will admit that I could be mistaken, again my beliefs are from a different root. I don't think morality is unverifiable, depending on what you accept as the root cause of morality. The problem is that the probable answer is still not one we can compute. I can't compute: "What if all the things you believed were wrong" that's not something that can be reasoned. I mean maybe as a thought exercise, but your biases would still be there.



In that case, nevermind #3. I was uncertain if that unstated assertion was a premise of your second paragraph. Obviously it was not since you were not making that assertion.


1) Universally held Moral Intuitions have no more validity than universally held opinions in other positions of ignorance.
2) The development of Moral Intuitions is expected to result in several universally held Moral Intuitions because it is the result of natural selection on the meme level.

Well that's why universality of morality is not usually an argument that's used in a vacuum. Moral philosophers tend to use a spread of arguments when asserting morality. It's not something that can be proven by a single argument. But I can say that universal morality is certainly something that speaks to it, and the fact that many similar moral systems were developed in different locations independently is definitely a point worth considering.

[OldTrees1]

But in this case the belief being popular indicates that is helpful to survival. Since it is passed down, generally traits that are passed down are those that are useful to survival. Altruism is demonstrably good for evolution.
True*. But that is the end of the claim. Altruism being good for evolution is not evidence of Altruism being moral since we have no evidence that fitness=moral is the correct Moral Theory of the infinite Moral Theories.

*technically there are still nitpicky things wrong with that sentence, but this is not an upper level Biology class



Well the question is, is that a result of morality, an oversensitivity to it? What is the cause of the disgust? Because for example I could have a fear of heights, which is an overdevelopment of a natural reaction to a legitimately problematic stimulus.

There is sufficient evidence that disgust developed via natural selection and genetic drift that we should assume it had a neutral origin until presented with evidence in favor of alternative theories.



I'm fairly sure about moral truth in this universe. Although I will admit that I could be mistaken, again my beliefs are from a different root. I don't think morality is unverifiable, depending on what you accept as the root cause of morality. The problem is that the probable answer is still not one we can compute. I can't compute: "What if all the things you believed were wrong" that's not something that can be reasoned. I mean maybe as a thought exercise, but your biases would still be there.

This is where our base premises probably are irreconcilable. If you have an unquestioning belief in the root cause/nature of morality in this universe beyond the premise we both share(objective morality), then my appeals to a questioning belief with fall on deaf ears.

For instance:
I have the Moral Opinion that harm is Prima Facie immoral. However I also believe that my opinions are inherently fallible. Thus it takes little effort for me to consider Moral Theories that disagree with my own. On the other hand, if I did not consider my Moral Opinions to be inherently fallible, then I would have great difficultly in considering Moral Theories that disagree with my own.



Well that's why universality of morality is not usually an argument that's used in a vacuum. Moral philosophers tend to use a spread of arguments when asserting morality. It's not something that can be proven by a single argument. But I can say that universal morality is certainly something that speaks to it, and the fact that many similar moral systems were developed in different locations independently is definitely a point worth considering.
It is a point worth considering and I have taken time considering it back in college. However anthropological evidence points away from its validity (assuming fitness=/=morality).

[LudicSavant]

Of course as it's impossible to actually define anything infinite No, it isn't. Mathematicians do it all the time. I do hope we're not going to dispute pi and e.


.0(infinity)10(infinity(1)0(infinity)10 (infinity)
Infinity does not work like this, nor does division. 1/.9 repeating = 1.0 (0 repeating. No matter how many times you apply the division by 9, you'll always get a zero in the column, not a 1). Infinite zeroes are equal to zero. No matter how many zeroes you add, you've still got zero. There is no 1 after infinity, let alone a series of ones. Infinity never ends. There is nothing at the end because an end does not exist.

0.9 repeating equals one is one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is used as a common example of intuition not reflecting reality, since in any crowd of people you're likely to find at least one that strongly intuits that infinity is finite and will argue with any actual proof you give them despite the fact that they're, well, rigorous mathematical proofs.


it would make the existence of .0(infinity)10(infinity(1)0(infinity)10 (infinity) equally valid Things don't come after infinite zeroes, because infinity is by definition endless. And even if it did, no amount of dividing by 9s would get you those 1s followed by more infinite series.