Objective/Subjective Alignment

[Temperjoke]

This was mentioned in a different thread, and I didn't want to sidetrack that thread's conversation, but I thought the idea of Objective vs. Subjective Alignment interesting. Objective alignment is looking at a character's actions and beliefs from a neutral, outside standpoint, such as from a DM's view. How would a person who wasn't a part of this party/game view this character's actions. Subjective is what that character thinks of his actions. Does this character think he's doing a good deed, or does he think he's doing an evil deed?

Do you think adding a separate line in a character's sheet for this distinction would be a good idea to help clarify things and limit the amount of "bad" arguments regarding a character's alignment versus their actions? (By bad I mean arguments where no one is enjoying the conversation, the step before a fist fight, etc.)

[Slipperychicken]

Do we even need game rules to tell us what a character thinks about himself? Or how the DM and players feel about each character?

[pwykersotz]

This seems more like a thing that the GM would need to explain ahead of time than a line on a character sheet.

I do objective alignment, but I also encourage players to use alignment only as the most general metagame metric. It's useful to remind yourself that you meant for this character to be "chaotic" but it's less useful if you try to make all your characters actions fit in the box created by your chosen alignment spectrum. So in a way, I encourage players to use subjective alignment for themselves while saying that the universe will judge them objectively. Kinda weird. :smalltongue:

[Temperjoke]

Do we even need game rules to tell us what a character thinks about himself? Or how the DM and players feel about each character?

Not necessarily for rules as judging things, but to help expand out on the character and their background. Plus it can serve as a quick reference to things. "How can you justify this?" "Well, I'm the cleric of an evil God. I'm faithfully following His will." This person would objectively be Lawful Evil, but subjectively is Lawful Good.

[Millstone85]

I would even say that you need three alignments:
* The one that helps you during character creation. Do you, the real person, want your character to be a hero or a villain, a champion of Lady Justice or Lady Liberty, a tyrant or the Joker?
* The one that depicts how your character sees themself. It is said everyone is the hero of their own story, but some might judge themselves harshly or, because this is D&D, follow a self-avowed philosophy of evil (Might makes right; Compassion is folly...).
* The judgment of the multiverse / the gods / the DM, which decides how certain spells and other magical factors react to your character.

[Clistenes]

Not necessarily for rules as judging things, but to help expand out on the character and their background. Plus it can serve as a quick reference to things. "How can you justify this?" "Well, I'm the cleric of an evil God. I'm faithfully following His will." This person would objectively be Lawful Evil, but subjectively is Lawful Good.

Not if he/she knows that his/her God is Evil. He/she knows that he/she is doing evil things for an Evil patron. The character would be subjetively Lawful Evil.

If the character believes that his/her patron deity is Good, and that there is a good reason for all the evil he/she does, then the character would be subjetively Lawful Good, and objetively Lawful Evil.

[Temperjoke]

Not if he/she knows that his/her God is Evil. He/she knows that he/she is doing evil things for an Evil patron. The character would be subjetively Lawful Evil.

If the character believes that his/her patron deity is Good, and that there is a good reason for all the evil he/she does, then the character would be subjetively Lawful Good, and objetively Lawful Evil.

But that's my point, that's the benefit of having two alignments, it helps to clarify your character's view point on various actions.

[Firechanter]

I feel that the big, big difference between the D&D multiverse and, well, our world, is that Alignment, or more accurately, morality, is _actually_ universally objective.
So such a thing that "The cleric is LE but thinks he is LG" could NEVER happen.

In _our world_ we are used to everybody identifying as the "Good Guys", even drug barons, dictators, mass murderers, you name it. They twist and skew their perception of the world until they come out on top.
This just isn't happening in D&D. Evil people - particularly followers of Evil deities - KNOW that they are Evil and are under no delusions about it. They just don't find anything wrong with that. In the eyes of an Evil person, Evil is "right and desirable" and Good is "wrong and undesirable" - it's as simple as that.
Think of there being two different words for "good" and "Good" in the languages of a D&D world.

_That's_ the point about objective morality / alignment.

[Drackolus]

I've always found objective alignment to be silly - not because there aren't people who identify as neutral or evil (I absolutely promise you that there are, I've known them), but that it creates a dynamic of "choose one out of 9 characters." It's just bad writing practice. Remember alignment restrictions? It was stupid and should stay dead.

[Millstone85]

So such a thing that "The cleric is LE but thinks he is LG" could NEVER happen.
Evil people - particularly followers of Evil deities - KNOW that they are Evil and are under no delusions about it.Well, a good deity definitely wouldn't grant spells to an evil mortal, and even an evil deity would want their clerics to succeed on Intelligence (Religion) checks. But I am not so sure about more basic priests and followers. For instance...Bane has a simple ethos: the strong have not just the right but the duty to rule over the weak. A tyrant who is able to seize power must do so, for not only does the tyrant benefit, but so do those under the tyrant's rule. When a ruler succumbs to decadence, corruption, or decrepitude, a stronger and more suitable ruler will rise.
Bane is vilified in many legends. Throughout history, those who favor him have committed dark deeds in his name, but most people don't worship Bane out of malice. Bane represents ambition and control, and those who have the former but lack the latter pray to him to give them strength. It is said that Bane favors those who exhibit drive and courage, and that he aids those who seek to become conquerors, carving kingdoms from the wilderness, and bringing order to the lawless.
At many times and in many places in Faerûn, the faithful of Bane have been seen as saviors for their efforts in slaughtering raiders, throwing down corrupt rulers, or saving armies on the brink of defeat. But in just as many other places, the worship of Bane has created or supported cruel dictatorships, aided mercantile monopolies, or brought about the practice of slavery where before it didn't exist.So, most players think tyranny is evil and the Forgotten Realms give a cosmic thumbs up to that notion. Bane himself knows that he is an evil god. But does the average inhabitant of Faerûn know that? It would seem the answer is no.

[Slipperychicken]

I feel that the big, big difference between the D&D multiverse and, well, our world, is that Alignment, or more accurately, morality, is _actually_ universally objective.
So such a thing that "The cleric is LE but thinks he is LG" could NEVER happen.

In dnd 5e, it's very difficult for a character to learn his own alignment, or that of anyone else. I think that was an intentional decision in the system, to avoid issues like a paladin noticing that an otherwise non-threatening person has an evil alignment component. Detect evil and good doesn't do alignments anymore, just a short list of creature types like celestials, fey, fiends, and undead. You'd need to go far out of your way to find out your own alignment.

Among the methods I know for finding out, they're the sort of thing that would require the DM's buy-in, and possibly a whole adventure if he wanted to
-Find a trustworthy sprite and get it to tell you (tells whole alignment, assuming sprite isn't lying)
-Touch an talisman of ultimate evil /pure good (legendary magic item, can determine if good, neutral, or evil when you touch either. depending on how much damage you take)
-Hit a Rakshasa to see if you penetrated its damage resistance (good creatures can bypass it without magic weapons)
-I'm sure there are some others, but they tend to be pretty obscure

[Firechanter]

So, most players think tyranny is evil and the Forgotten Realms give a cosmic thumbs up to that notion. Bane himself knows that he is an evil god. But does the average inhabitant of Faerûn know that? It would seem the answer is no.

It may be too early in the morning for me, but I don't see how that would follow from the text you quoted. Evil does not necessarily mean malicious.

Yes, in 5E there is no longer the convenient litmus test of Detect Evil. But still, there are some rather easy questions of morality that help you determine your own alignment. Such as...
- if you believe that it's just and right that the strong rule the weak and force them to do their bidding,
- if you believe that it's wrong to help those in need if it doesn't directly benefit you or your cause
- if you find it right as rain to exploit the plight of a destitute person
- if any compassion you possess is strictly limited to close friends and family
etc. etc.
then you should be quite aware that you're Evil.

You can also find out your own alignment by comparing your ideals and morals to the dogmas of the various deities. The alignments of deities are known. So whatever deity's teachings you are most attracted to, is reasonably descriptive of your own alignment.

Tip:
If you have Amazon Prime, you can watch the series The Man in the High Castle. There you have an Evil society if there ever was one. And most people in it actually are convinced that this ideology is "right". Like in that one scene in the first episode, where that highway patrolman reveals he's a veteran from the war. "I don't even know what we were fighting for back then. Everything's much better now. [...] The ashes flying through the air? Oh, that would be the hospital, every tuesday they burn cripples and the terminally ill. Have a good journey!"

[Malifice]

I feel that the big, big difference between the D&D multiverse and, well, our world, is that Alignment, or more accurately, morality, is _actually_ universally objective.
So such a thing that "The cleric is LE but thinks he is LG" could NEVER happen.

I dont want to rain on your parade, buts that the only time it is actually possible.

There is no proof objective good and evil exists in our world. All morality is subjective (in fact, to cite Descartes and all postmodernists, everything is subjective in the real world). In DnD however we have a handy tool that we (in the real world) do not have - the DM. If he says the universe (or anything in it, including morality) is objectively real, it is.

The characters in the game world cant know this however. Theyre caught up in the same mind/ universe barrier that Descartes identified, and stuck with the same problems that postmodernists extoll.

Your God appears (in game) and tells you he is good. It matters not, because you cant ever know for sure. Your friend the Cleric of (God 2) can have his (different) God appear and tell him the same thing.

All you can ever be sure of is your own subjective belief and your own faith in that belief. Just like in our own universe even 'objective reality' could be an illusion (see: the Matrix) and it has to be interpreted by a subjective mind. You can choose to believe it or not, but your choice doesnt affect the state of realities actual objective existence (or lack thereof).

Its perfectly acceptable to have a cleric of (say) Bane (god of tyrrany) devoted to establishing a fascist fundamentalist theocratic state for 'the greater good' of humanity, with a meritocratic government (led by the most worthy, i.e the Cleric - second only to Bane). To unite the realms under one banner, rid the world of wars and conflict, and bring about an everlasting peace and unity under the black hand of Bane. In order to achive this vision of 'nirvana' the Cleric engages in wars, pogroms, genocide and inquisitions. He is tyrannical, viewing this as the only means to protect and preserve the human race against hordes of monstrous creatures seeking to enslave or destroy the people of Faerun.

He butchers the weak, sets up genocide chambers to eradicate the believers of different faiths, and purges the handicapped, frail and non believers by ordering them executed by the thousands. He burns books, invades neighboring nations and causes the deaths of millions.

Your character could seriously view hiimself as a good person, striving towards a good end. But his actual alignment would be LE. If he picked up a good aligned sentient weapon, he would be in for a rude shock when the weapon initiated a personality conflict. His spirit guardians spell would deal necrotic damage instead of radiant damage. He suddenly finds he cannot harm Rakashas anymore.

Of course the PC could simply rationalise this away as a trick by the Gods to divert him from his sacred quest or whatever. People rationalise all sorts of things away despite overwhelming evidence (I'm a lawyer IRL, and I see it all the time). He probably argues all the time that Bane is simply misunderstood - he is really trying to save people from themselves, and only by subjecting themselves to total loyalty will people be truly free.

In short, its perfectly possible to be an objectively evil priest of an objectively evil god and think of yourself as a good man, just doing what needs to be done for the greater good with a heavy heart.

You're not good though. You're (objectively) a Lawful Evil monster. You can just never know for sure.

[Firechanter]

No. You're making exactly that mistake of mixing up good and Good that I wrote about. Evil beings in D&D don't feel the need to lie about their alignment, because both moralities are equally valid.

Think of Good and Evil more as political parties. Say you have two parties, let's call them Blowhards and Stupocrats, and both have wildly different policies, then both will contend that they are right and the others are wrong. But the Blowhards won't pretend to themselves or anyone else that they are in fact Stupocrats.

The only exception would be in regions where one side is outlawed. Then Evils would publicly pretend to be non-Evil in Cormyr, just like Goodies would pretend to be non-Good in Zhentil Keep or whatever.

[mgshamster]

Objective alignment is looking at a character's actions and beliefs from a neutral, outside standpoint, such as from a DM's view.

Do you think adding a separate line in a character's sheet for this distinction would be a good idea to help clarify things and limit the amount of "bad" arguments regarding a character's alignment versus their actions? (By bad I mean arguments where no one is enjoying the conversation, the step before a fist fight, etc.)

The biggest issue I see with this (adding a separate line to track the GM's perspective on alignment) is that people tend to forget good deads and remember bad deeds. I predict that for most who use this system, the GM's perspective will tend towards an evil alignment.

Additionally, people often believe that a single bad act is enough to drive someone to evil, but it takes many many good acts to bring someone up to good. So for most, all it takes is a single bad act or a single mistake for their GM's Perspective alignment note on their character sheet to show them as evil, or at least not-good.

I don't believe this will prevent arguments, it'll just shift arguments.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Alignment is a generalization of a myriad factors, relating to how they react in certain situations.

The alignment a player picks is not really that informative. More informative is why they picked that alignment; what their reasoning is for being that alignment. One player may pick chaotic because their character abides by a moral code created by himself (as opposed to absorbed from society), another may pick it because their character is crazy and messes with everyone all the time.
Never mind the fact that a character can change their perceived alignment depending on circumstance. That harmless LG librarian? You really should not have stolen his book from the library, because as far as book thieves are concerned, he is ruthlessly CE.

By looking at their reasoning, you get more insight into what the character actually is

[Millstone85]

It may be too early in the morning for me, but I don't see how that would follow from the text you quoted.I will elaborate on the impression I got from that text.


Bane is vilified in many legends.
The alignments of deities are known.Bane has a baaaaad reputation alright. But I think the text leaves room for people in the Realms to say "Don't believe the legends spread by the enemies of Bane".


At many times and in many places in Faerûn, the faithful of Bane have been seen as saviors for their efforts in slaughtering raiders, throwing down corrupt rulers, or saving armies on the brink of defeat.It looks like the faithful of Bane have sometimes been painted as heroes.


most people don't worship Bane out of malice.
Evil does not necessarily mean malicious.No, of course not, but I am not sure the same can be said of a self-aware and fully embraced evil. A character who is LE but thinks they are LG might honestly say "I did what I had to do, a necessary evil for the greater good". Or, if you prefer, they would also be lying to themself. Or they might instead just not see anything wrong with their ideals or actions. But a self-aware LE character's honest confession would be more like "Conscience is but a word that cowards use, devised at first to keep the strong in awe". No, I don't actually know my Shakespeare, and neither would this character.


Think of there being two different words for "good" and "Good" in the languages of a D&D world.
Think of Good and Evil more as political parties.That's real life, where most people think they are good and disagree with the "good" that others support. And it would apply to many inhabitants of D&D's prime material plane, especially among humans. But with races like the Drow, or with the fiends of the lower outer planes, what I expect is the more cartoony mindset of "Yes I am evil, mwahaha!".

[mgshamster]

In DnD however we have a handy tool that we (in the real world) do not have - the DM. If he says the universe (or anything in it, including morality) is objectively real, it is.

This makes me want to introduce a character (PC or NPC) who heretically preaches the existence of one God above all the others, who controls everything - even the existence of the other gods and the physics and magics of the multiverse. Behind the scenes, this God is the GM.

I guess that's what Ao was supposed to be, now that I think about it.

[Millstone85]

This makes me want to introduce a character (PC or NPC) who heretically preaches the existence of one God above all the others, who controls everything - even the existence of the other gods and the physics and magics of the multiverse. Behind the scenes, this God is the GM.

I guess that's what Ao was supposed to be, now that I think about it.Then I guess the authors of D&D are those three ratatosks in a robe and a mask.

[jas61292]

This makes me want to introduce a character (PC or NPC) who heretically preaches the existence of one God above all the others, who controls everything - even the existence of the other gods and the physics and magics of the multiverse. Behind the scenes, this God is the GM.

I guess that's what Ao was supposed to be, now that I think about it.

I had a player once who, in a less than serious campaign, started worshipping me. So I totally rolled with it, and set myself up as a high god, who, like myself, was really just there to have fun. Never something I would have done in a campaign that had even a tiny bit of seriousness, but as it was, in a silly campaign, it was a ton of fun.

[Bubzors]

Yea I really think that two alignments is worthless. Hell I even think one alignment system is not worth the trouble. It really is only useful for the beginning of character creation for generalization as you are bouncing ideas about who your character is.

Other than that it only starts sparking arguments like this over alignment. Can also lead to dumb things like objective morality, incorrect assumptions made about your character by the DM and other players, and alignment restrictions. In my opinion alignments were a terrible idea to start with and I'm glad it can be ignored in 5E

[KorvinStarmast]

In my opinion alignments were a terrible idea to start with and I'm glad it can be ignored in 5E Except for when it can't, like when you pick up the book of vile darkness. The outcome differs depending upon alignment. (There are other examples).

Alignments original place in D&D was based on an unwritten assumption of there being a cosmic / existential struggle beyond the reach of the player characters. (See Poul Anderson's novels and Moorcock's novels that were part of the inspiration for that). Most beings in the game were on one side or the other, with a bit of middle ground in neutrality.
Originally, a cleric had to be either lawful or chaotic. No in between.
Druid, when introduced, was unique in being a cleric based in neutral alignment.

The two axis alignment matrix is a gamism - they were trying to account for how tough it had become for people not familiar with the law / chaos dichotomy. The common cultural memes and assumptions in the growing role playing player base were that old Manichean good versus evil. Core cultural assumptions from the real world leaked into a swords and sorcery game.

I don't blame the authors for their reaction, they were war-gamer rules writers who had stumbled over role playing games more or less by accident and whimsy. When you play war games -- table top minis or board games -- there are two sides (or three+ sides, go get the allies you can to achieve your victory conditions, see Diplomacy) that fit the war gaming model. Coming up with hard and fast rules for the subjective and chaotic way that people actually use to interact with each other is tough, since there's a lot of grey area. (Malifice, your absolutism in these discussions gets old after a while, even if it does make things easier at your table).

The two axis approach was an attempt to add nuance and flexibility in response to user/player feedback, as well as realizing that the original idea -- which worked fine -- didn't cover a lot of the more familiar cases. It was a nice try, but it's difficulties were obvious not long after it came into play. (Legends of lawful stupid abound. The follow up attempts to iron in this feature in Unearthed Arcana (85) didn't help matters much). Momentum accounts for the rest.

So what good is alignment, in game? It's a great tool if you let it be!

It's a tool for both the player and the DM. The player can profess any alignment he wants; the world and his fellow players can see how the player acts; (whoa, mismatch possible, and hypocrisy possible!), and the DM always gets to rule what alignment he assigns to the character based on both of the above.

In game, the judgment of the very real "powers" of the world such as deities and such are within the DM's province of decision and judgment. Back to the book of vile darkness. If the player has been trending neutral, without realizing it, this find could be a damaging experience. Vice versa for someone trending in the opposite direction for the good book version of that artifact.

If alignment is used as a substitute for thought (I am lawful neutral there fore I should do x) then whomever is doing that is completely missing the point.
Intent matters, patterns of behavior matter, and the DM's general design template for his/her world matters. Because this isn't a table top game anymore, there needs to be overlap, there needs to be some grey area, and there needs to be some give and take. Mostly, though, there needs to be a path in the story for redemption or "getting back on the proper track" in some cases.

That an of us is still chaffing under the "gotcha, you're not a paladin anymore because you did X!" mind set seems to me as a
lack of effort
lack of imagination

Atonement was an option in the early editions for a number of failures, but it didn't get the kind of spotlight that the less complex true false test does.

Ya see, it required imagination and thinking on the part of the DM and the player. It also required people emulating something a little to close to real life; being sorry for something, admitting that one was wrong, and actually atoning for it. (This is where V in OoTS is so neat, in the admission of wrongness and the desire to somehow atone for that mass murder).

Players were / are escaping from real life in an escapist game ... who needs that hard thing up there? :p

[Vogonjeltz]

This was mentioned in a different thread, and I didn't want to sidetrack that thread's conversation, but I thought the idea of Objective vs. Subjective Alignment interesting. Objective alignment is looking at a character's actions and beliefs from a neutral, outside standpoint, such as from a DM's view. How would a person who wasn't a part of this party/game view this character's actions. Subjective is what that character thinks of his actions. Does this character think he's doing a good deed, or does he think he's doing an evil deed?

Do you think adding a separate line in a character's sheet for this distinction would be a good idea to help clarify things and limit the amount of "bad" arguments regarding a character's alignment versus their actions? (By bad I mean arguments where no one is enjoying the conversation, the step before a fist fight, etc.)

Alignments are, necessarily, determined by objective statements about the characters view of life (and should correspond somewhat with their action choices).

How the character views themself is completely immaterial to their alignment.


So, most players think tyranny is evil and the Forgotten Realms give a cosmic thumbs up to that notion. Bane himself knows that he is an evil god. But does the average inhabitant of Faerûn know that? It would seem the answer is no.

The quote from SCAG suggests only that Bane's ethos carries some positive externalities, but in no way contradicts the concept of it being purely evil.

Might Makes Right is an Evil aligned notion by its very nature.

[KorvinStarmast]

Might Makes Right is an Evil aligned notion by its very nature. Wrong. It sometimes takes might to make right what is wrong. (At risk of getting into Real World stuff, DDay anniversary was two days ago. It took a lot of MIGHT to make thing RIGHT again).

[mgshamster]

Wrong. It sometimes takes might to make right what is wrong. (At risk of getting into Real World stuff, DDay anniversary was two days ago. It took a lot of MIGHT to make thing RIGHT again).

I think you're misunderstanding the phrase.

"Might makes right" means that might determines what is right, not that might is required to set things right.

On D Day, we weren't right because we were mighty, we were right because of some other reason, and used might to try to enforce it.

Might makes right means that whoever is the strongest is the most morally right, regardless of any other factor. If I beat you up, it means I'm right and you're wrong. If you beat me up, it means that you're right and I'm wrong. There is no other determining factor for who is right (morally or otherwise).

[Millstone85]

The quote from SCAG suggests only that Bane's ethos carries some positive externalities, but in no way contradicts the concept of it being purely evil.

Might Makes Right is an Evil aligned notion by its very nature.I wasn't debating the alignment of that ethos but whether or not that alignment should be regarded as OoC knowledge. I think that Bane himself, and his clerics, should know that Banehold is found in the LE/NE part of the Great Wheel and understand what that means about themselves. But what about the average inhabitant of the Realms?

[Regitnui]

Might makes right means that whoever is the strongest is the most morally right, regardless of any other factor. If I beat you up, it means I'm right and you're wrong. If you beat me up, it means that you're right and I'm wrong. There is no other determining factor for who is right (morally or otherwise).

Also; Biggest Jerk Wins and Winner Writes History. The Good gods might just be the biggest jerks of the setting. 4e's pantheon had a great idea with Asmodeus; he was once the greatest general of Good, but after he played a vital role in securing the victory of Good, they literally threw him into Baator; it split into nine levels as he fell through the ground. He continues to play a vital role by holding back the demons in the Blood War, but certainly seeks revenge on the Good gods. He sees himself as a Good being. How else are they to win the war against Evil without discipline? He needs the fuel of mortal souls to power his war machine. It's just what needs to be done.

[Temperjoke]

Also; Biggest Jerk Wins and Winner Writes History. The Good gods might just be the biggest jerks of the setting. 4e's pantheon had a great idea with Asmodeus; he was once the greatest general of Good, but after he played a vital role in securing the victory of Good, they literally threw him into Baator; it split into nine levels as he fell through the ground. He continues to play a vital role by holding back the demons in the Blood War, but certainly seeks revenge on the Good gods. He sees himself as a Good being. How else are they to win the war against Evil without discipline? He needs the fuel of mortal souls to power his war machine. It's just what needs to be done.

This is a good point.

My idea with this wasn't to confuse things or to make more hard and fast rules. It was intended that it would help people flesh out their characters more, by helping them to explain why they are doing a thing. Obviously, this wouldn't matter to a lot of tables; explaining motivations is very dependent on the sort of game your group is running. But, for a new player who's trying to create a character in a roleplaying game, it can help them decide on actions, how to react to events and NPCs. I guess part of the argument comes from me seeing the alignment not as 9 completely individual characterizations, but as two sliders (Lawful - Chaotic, Good - Evil) with different degrees of each type.

[Malifice]

No. You're making exactly that mistake of mixing up good and Good that I wrote about. Evil beings in D&D don't feel the need to lie about their alignment, because both moralities are equally valid.

What? Thats total codswallop. I mean, maybe all sentient creatures in your game are somehow aware of thier alignmnet (somehow) and no-one lives in denial or anything. You can conduct a survey in prison and the inmates all confess to being evil.

The fascist cleric of Bane I posted about above was actually based on one of my PCs (a Paladin of Bane). He's LE, but thinks he does what he does for the greater good. He certainly doesnt view himself as evil. Just as a pragmatic man, who does what needs to be done 'for the greater good'.

[Malifice]

This makes me want to introduce a character (PC or NPC) who heretically preaches the existence of one God above all the others, who controls everything - even the existence of the other gods and the physics and magics of the multiverse. Behind the scenes, this God is the GM.

I guess that's what Ao was supposed to be, now that I think about it.

Ensure he takes the Hermit background (his knowledge of the existence of the mighty DM is his 'secret').


I will elaborate on the impression I got from that text.

Bane has a baaaaad reputation alright. But I think the text leaves room for people in the Realms to say "Don't believe the legends spread by the enemies of Bane".

It looks like the faithful of Bane have sometimes been painted as heroes.



Youre basicaly describing my LE Vengance Paladin here.

There are certainly some frightened and uncomfortable looks when I announce myself as 'The Sword of Bane' but desperate people accept help from anyone. Im true to my word, and loyal but my methods can be a little.. dark. Cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and all that. I dont kill children though - I'm not a monster.

I also think the Human sacrifice practiced by the Church of Bane is the work of deluded madmen. I substititue it with simple genocide and mass executions of infidels (Tormites and Cyricists are prefferred).

I like to minister to the masses (and fellow PCs) afterwards about seizing what is yours by right, the obligation of the strong to rule (and guide) the weak, and the supremacy of The One True God Bane over the other Gods, and our obligation to fear and serve him.

[Firechanter]

What? Thats total codswallop. I mean, maybe all sentient creatures in your game are somehow aware of thier alignmnet (somehow) and no-one lives in denial or anything. You can conduct a survey in prison and the inmates all confess to being evil.

It's very easy to become aware of your own alignment - if you live in a world where alignments and objective moralities exist, and even in a world without Detect Evil. Just think about your stance on a couple of positions like the ones I posted above.


The fascist cleric of Bane I posted about above was actually based on one of my PCs (a Paladin of Bane). He's LE, but thinks he does what he does for the greater good. He certainly doesnt view himself as evil. Just as a pragmatic man, who does what needs to be done 'for the greater good'.

Again, you're mixing up good and Good, and that's why you're doing it wrong.
"Pragmatic" is typical RL whitewash speak for "Evil". Likewise, "for the greater good" is also extremely typical as rationalization for evil practices. But in a D&D world, you don't need to whitewash. You know that, for instance, killing innocents is Evil, with a capital E, end of story. But again, if you're Evil yourself, you don't find anything _wrong_ with that.
So in short, your Paladin of Bane needn't have any problems recognizing and admitting that he is Evil. You as player just don't do it because you are still too stuck in our real-world subjective morality.

[The Zoat]

"Pragmatic" is typical RL whitewash speak for "Evil". Likewise, "for the greater good" is also extremely typical as rationalization for evil practices. But in a D&D world, you don't need to whitewash. You know that, for instance, killing innocents is Evil, with a capital E, end of story. But again, if you're Evil yourself, you don't find anything _wrong_ with that.
So in short, your Paladin of Bane needn't have any problems recognizing and admitting that he is Evil. You as player just don't do it because you are still too stuck in our real-world subjective morality.

What you seem to be doing is confusing a character who understands he does evil things and one who thinks he is Evil.

[mrumsey]

It's very easy to become aware of your own alignment - if you live in a world where alignments and objective moralities exist, and even in a world without Detect Evil. Just think about your stance on a couple of positions like the ones I posted above.



Again, you're mixing up good and Good, and that's why you're doing it wrong.
"Pragmatic" is typical RL whitewash speak for "Evil". Likewise, "for the greater good" is also extremely typical as rationalization for evil practices. But in a D&D world, you don't need to whitewash. You know that, for instance, killing innocents is Evil, with a capital E, end of story. But again, if you're Evil yourself, you don't find anything _wrong_ with that.
So in short, your Paladin of Bane needn't have any problems recognizing and admitting that he is Evil. You as player just don't do it because you are still too stuck in our real-world subjective morality.

When does one decide that they are Evil or Good? Are they born that way, do they develop over time? Can they switch from Evil to Good? Does one Evil act make you Evil? How many Good acts make you Neutral?

How about people who do actions without thought? Is ignorance considered Evil? I know someone who believes this - that action without thought is one of the worst things a person can do. But if you are just growing crops and paying taxes, occasionally getting in fights at the local pub over stupid stuff...are you good? You are certainly not doing Good. Neither are you doing Evil. But the rains don't come this year and your family needs food. And you do win more fights at the pub than you lose. Now you are a bandit. Are you an Evil Bandit?

Ultimately, the world created by the players will determine how gritty the alignment environment is. There is no requirement for people to be Good or Evil. I personally think a game world that more accurately reflects the real world (ambiguity and conflicted characters) is more fun to play in than one where everyone is a Hero or Villain - but there is value in both systems as long as we don't require others to think we are correct.

[Fighting_Ferret]

When does one decide that they are Evil or Good? Are they born that way, do they develop over time? Can they switch from Evil to Good? Does one Evil act make you Evil? How many Good acts make you Neutral?

How about people who do actions without thought? Is ignorance considered Evil? I know someone who believes this - that action without thought is one of the worst things a person can do. But if you are just growing crops and paying taxes, occasionally getting in fights at the local pub over stupid stuff...are you good? You are certainly not doing Good. Neither are you doing Evil. But the rains don't come this year and your family needs food. And you do win more fights at the pub than you lose. Now you are a bandit. Are you an Evil Bandit?

Ultimately, the world created by the players will determine how gritty the alignment environment is. There is no requirement for people to be Good or Evil. I personally think a game world that more accurately reflects the real world (ambiguity and conflicted characters) is more fun to play in than one where everyone is a Hero or Villain - but there is value in both systems as long as we don't require others to think we are correct.

This is why the PHB states that MOST humans are neutral...

[Malifice]

It's very easy to become aware of your own alignment - if you live in a world where alignments and objective moralities exist, and even in a world without Detect Evil. Just think about your stance on a couple of positions like the ones I posted above.



Again, you're mixing up good and Good, and that's why you're doing it wrong.
"Pragmatic" is typical RL whitewash speak for "Evil". Likewise, "for the greater good" is also extremely typical as rationalization for evil practices. But in a D&D world, you don't need to whitewash. You know that, for instance, killing innocents is Evil, with a capital E, end of story. But again, if you're Evil yourself, you don't find anything _wrong_ with that.
So in short, your Paladin of Bane needn't have any problems recognizing and admitting that he is Evil. You as player just don't do it because you are still too stuck in our real-world subjective morality.

Yeah, nah. Youre 100 percent wrong.

[Vogonjeltz]

Might makes right means that whoever is the strongest is the most morally right, regardless of any other factor. If I beat you up, it means I'm right and you're wrong. If you beat me up, it means that you're right and I'm wrong. There is no other determining factor for who is right (morally or otherwise).

Effectively, this. Whoever has might determines what is right.

[pwykersotz]

It's very easy to become aware of your own alignment - if you live in a world where alignments and objective moralities exist, and even in a world without Detect Evil. Just think about your stance on a couple of positions like the ones I posted above.

Again, you're mixing up good and Good, and that's why you're doing it wrong.
"Pragmatic" is typical RL whitewash speak for "Evil". Likewise, "for the greater good" is also extremely typical as rationalization for evil practices. But in a D&D world, you don't need to whitewash. You know that, for instance, killing innocents is Evil, with a capital E, end of story. But again, if you're Evil yourself, you don't find anything _wrong_ with that.
So in short, your Paladin of Bane needn't have any problems recognizing and admitting that he is Evil. You as player just don't do it because you are still too stuck in our real-world subjective morality.

I'm definitely not evil. I'm chaotic neutral!

[Regitnui]

Perhaps Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are simply societal constructions derived from the behaviour of outsiders. The idea of "absolute Evil" comes from fiends, "absolute Law" from the clockwork behaviour of modrons, etc.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, nah. Youre 100 percent wrong.

You are mistaken, good Sir. You are wrong and I am, in fact, totally correct. Because I say so.

[Princess]

I love well reasoned discourse with clear explanations like 'YOU WRONG!' so much. It's why I watch pundits on tv so much.

The other side of this is that there's a gap between thought and action in D&D alignment - is being OK with torturing babies evil if you never actually torture a baby? Is someone who would rationalize away a murder they committed *if* they committed murder evil, potentially evil, both, or neither? It's similar to this DM v. Player aspect but it's also distinct. Plus, I feel like the description of Chaotic Evil in various editions as it's own distinct insane thing instead of just "what happens when you mix chaotic neutral ethics and neutral evil morals" - and therefore just as varied as any other alignment can be. I don't think pants on head insanity and a trail of dead bodies are prerequisites for someone to be both 'chaotic' and 'evil' separately, so why does combining them automatically go gonzo?

A character I've played several times with the idea of "what if being an abused orphan who now has magic powers makes someone decide 'I'm awesome, screw all y'all' but without being a caricature of a serial killer always leads to me discussing alignment with the DM before hand. Does being willing to break laws and hurt other people for selfish reasons make someone evil, or are they neutral right up until they slit throats? Because either way, this character wouldn't think "I'm evil" - she'd think "The world sucks and I do what I need to." So far different people have told me she seems to be any alignment other than Lawful Good.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does being willing to break laws and hurt other people for selfish reasons make someone evil,

Yes, yes it does. The characters self image has no bearing on alignment. They can think they are good, or evil, but that isn't what makes them good or evil.

[jas61292]

I'm definitely not evil. I'm chaotic neutral!

Yeah, yeah. That's what they all say.

[RickAllison]

Here is another puzzle for you: therianthropes that embrace their curse become the alignment of that creature. That works just fine if alignment dictates actions, but poses a problem if actions dictate alignment.

Take a werebear who has decided to fight evil as best he can. He goes around mauling evil doers in horrendous fashion, leaving them writhing around in pain and hanging their eviscerated corpses as a lesson. The actions seem much more in line with a NE/CE fighting for the side of good, but mechanically he is still NG.

There is really only one reason for characters to care about alignment in-universe: the afterlife. I'm kind of a fan of the Great Wheel dealie-bob, where you show up on the plane that most fits you because you want to be there.

I like the idea of a paladin who fought for the side of good and was willing to commit atrocities in that pursuit just so he could fight the Devils on their own homefield. I love the idea of the evil dimensions having factions aligned with Good taking the fight to the fiends. And in some ways, it makes sense, these were the warriors who were willing to do whatever it took to defeat evil, spending an eternity fighting for the side of good might well be ther ideal afterlife!

[Malifice]

You are mistaken, good Sir. You are wrong and I am, in fact, totally correct. Because I say so.

Now you're getting there.

You say you're right. I say I am. Neither of us can know the objective truth of it, only cling to our own subjective faith in our own arguments.

Same deal with the PCs in DnD.

They all think theyre living in a real world, with gods, monsters and magic. But are they?


Here is another puzzle for you: therianthropes that embrace their curse become the alignment of that creature. That works just fine if alignment dictates actions, but poses a problem if actions dictate alignment.

Take a werebear who has decided to fight evil as best he can. He goes around mauling evil doers in horrendous fashion, leaving them writhing around in pain and hanging their eviscerated corpses as a lesson. The actions seem much more in line with a NE/CE fighting for the side of good, but mechanically he is still NG.

Nah man, they're magically cursed to do things in accordance with their new alignment. Its a special case.

If your LG PC gets afflicted with lycanthropy and turns into a Werewolf, he becomes CE, and a monster. The DM has every right to take the character off you and have it eat children, terrorise villages and do werewolf-y things.

The assumption is that you're mature enough to play it yourself, and try and munch your fellow PCs on your own violition.

Same deal with a monster who gets lycanthropy of the ursine variety. He is magically cursed to be (and do) good.

Its not so much of a free will thing; its part of the curse itself that compells you to act a certain way, just like it forces you into a different form.

[Regitnui]

He is magically cursed to be (and do) good

So why don't we infect everybody with ursianthropy? If they're all magically compelled to do Good, surely nobody would ever fight again and everyoje would work together!

Seriously now, thinking Good alignments can't be antagonists to other Good alignments is naive. Just as Evil can fight Evil, making the Blood War constantly rage between devil and demon, the Good alignments don't get along either. It's just that Good is less likely to start killing other people. There's a reason thst even CG deities want LG angels, after all, since they want their orders carried out.

And doesn't the Blood War itself prove that there is no ultimate Evil in the D&D system? Two different flavours of Evil are constantly beating the snot out of each other for no better reason than "they're different to us" while the NE fiends, who'd you think were more Evil than both of the combatants, actually act as mediators and neutral third parties, betraying and allying with either.

That was a ramble and I've lost the path. Peace.

[BrianDavion]

subjective alignments are silly. everyone thought they where good. If Hitler had to write a char sheet for himself I'm sure he'd have written "Lawful good" on it.
life isn't a disney movie where the bad guys prance around celebrating how evil they are. at best you're going to get a character who simply says the "conventional morality is stupid and wrong"

[Millstone85]

Life isn't a Disney movie where the bad guys prance around celebrating how evil they are.To quote an excellent episode of Epic Rap Battles of History...
But news flash, the genre’s called fantasy
It’s meant to be unrealistic, you myopic manateeI am not saying all evil characters, or even most of them, should acknowledge to themselves that they are evil and revel in it, unless the campaign takes place in the Outer Planes. But this sort of villain is part of D&D.


Everyone thought they where good.
At best you're going to get a character who simply says the "conventional morality is stupid and wrong".Well, sometimes that involves rejecting the notion that "good" can be a meaningful term to describe oneself or anyone else. There are also people dealing with guilt. And some real weirdos too. I am not so sure everyone in real life thought they were good.


Subjective alignments are silly.I do think it can be a great idea to make the distinction between what you think of your character and what your character think of themself, including on moral matters. And you should be prepared for the DM having most NPCs, the gods or the cosmos itself hold yet another judgment on the character.

Hardcore mode: The criteria of Law-Chaos/Good-Evil in the campaign's cosmos do not agree at all with the DM's real life opinions. Ao himself as the BBEG, why not?

[wunderkid]

So let's throw in a scenario.

An evil demon/plague/disaster is comming to wipe out a large city.

This can be averted by ritualistically torturing 20 small children until they die from the pain. But doing so saves thousands.

Character A - refuses and goes to take the demon head on. Dies. And is the reason for thousands of deaths indirectly.

Character B - does what needs to be done with a heavy heart. Saves the city but hates what he had to do.

Character C - does what needs to be done and actually enjoys doing it. Saves the city.

Now character A is the closest to good I can see. Although because of his choice thousands die which could have been saved.

Character B obviously has the right internal moral compass but his act was clearly evil even if for the greater good.

Character C has a messed up internal compass but it was all for the greater good. It's not like he did it for no reason after all.

So is it the act? The way the character feels about it? The final outcome?

Way too many shades of grey. Which is why for myself I set an absolute morality system based off of the players (not characters) views of good and evil outside of the game world. This means it can change game to game. It also influences how gritty the world is as a reflection of the view points of the players themselves.

[Vogonjeltz]

So is it the act? The way the character feels about it? The final outcome?

Yes, it's the act.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Outcome is irrelevent.

Alignment should comport with decisions. A Good character should not decide to go with killing innocents. Neutral characters maybe, Evil characters absolutely might.

[Formless Entity]

Do we even need game rules to tell us what a character thinks about himself? Or how the DM and players feel about each character?

I agree with this rhetorical question.

[Formless Entity]

Yes, it's the act.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Outcome is irrelevent.

Alignment should comport with decisions. A Good character should not decide to go with killing innocents. Neutral characters maybe, Evil characters absolutely might.

Your idiom is off little consequence.

[Formless Entity]

So let's throw in a scenario.

An evil demon/plague/disaster is comming to wipe out a large city.

This can be averted by ritualistically torturing 20 small children until they die from the pain. But doing so saves thousands.

Character A - refuses and goes to take the demon head on. Dies. And is the reason for thousands of deaths indirectly.

Character B - does what needs to be done with a heavy heart. Saves the city but hates what he had to do.

Character C - does what needs to be done and actually enjoys doing it. Saves the city.

Now character A is the closest to good I can see. Although because of his choice thousands die which could have been saved.

Character B obviously has the right internal moral compass but his act was clearly evil even if for the greater good.

Character C has a messed up internal compass but it was all for the greater good. It's not like he did it for no reason after all.

So is it the act? The way the character feels about it? The final outcome?

Way too many shades of grey. Which is why for myself I set an absolute morality system based off of the players (not characters) views of good and evil outside of the game world. This means it can change game to game. It also influences how gritty the world is as a reflection of the view points of the players themselves.


I find it amusing that your response to how to fix the alignment system being to small for these "shades of grey" is not to re-evaluate it or create a better one but to give up on it altogether.

[wunderkid]

I find it amusing that your response to how to fix the alignment system being to small for these "shades of grey" is not to re-evaluate it or create a better one but to give up on it altogether.

Give up on it? No I didn't say that at all. I said I would sit down with the group and clearly define what acts are considered good and what are considered evil. In the future thanks to this thread I'll likely use the Geneva convention as a base line.

This way I am using the alignment system in a way that isn't AS blurred lines. There will still be some corner cases where the line gets blurred again but if everyone knows that irrespective of your intentions being willing to kill an innocent constitutes an evil act. then players who want the 'good' tag on their sheets have to work hard for it. But will be rewarded appropriately for it.

[Specter]

"The secret to a good bad guy is to look at the world through his eyes, and in his movie, he's the good guy."
William Zabka

[Specter]

"The secret to a good bad guy is to look at the world through his eyes, and in his movie, he's the good guy."

William Zabka (aka Johnny Lawrence from Karate Kid)

[Formless Entity]

Give up on it? No I didn't say that at all. I said I would sit down with the group and clearly define what acts are considered good and what are considered evil. In the future thanks to this thread I'll likely use the Geneva convention as a base line.

This way I am using the alignment system in a way that isn't AS blurred lines. There will still be some corner cases where the line gets blurred again but if everyone knows that irrespective of your intentions being willing to kill an innocent constitutes an evil act. then players who want the 'good' tag on their sheets have to work hard for it. But will be rewarded appropriately for it.

I see.

But would killing an innocent to save 30 other innocent be an evil act?

[Formless Entity]

Effectively, this. Whoever has might determines what is right.

So are you saying the D&D world(s) runs on divine command theory?

[wunderkid]

I see.

But would killing an innocent to save 30 other innocent be an evil act?

Yes. The 'good' character refuses to kill anyone and tries to save all 31 regardless of how hopeless his chances may be

[Formless Entity]

Yes. The 'good' character refuses to kill anyone and tries to save all 31 regardless of how hopeless his chances may be

So he risks 30 people's lives to save 1?

[wunderkid]

So he risks 30 people's lives to save 1?

Well no. According to your example those 30 people's lives are at risk regardless.

It's like every clichéd villian who sets a scenario for the good guy where he has to make an impossible decision between the one he loves and a group of people. The true good guy saves everyone (or nobody if it's realistic) but he never accepts a choice given to him that is evil.

Even if the outcome is death to everyone. The 'good' character tries to achieve the impossible of saving everyone.

A good example would be for anyone who has watched supernatural. When they are dealing with some angels, and the angels argue that the only way is to kill X to save Y and then Sam and Dean go hell no and try and save everyone. Can't remember the episode off the top of my head will try to find it quickly. But it's a good example where the angels are willing to make the evil act for the greater good. But the good guys refuse to do an evil act and go against impossible odds to save the day

[RickAllison]

So he risks 30 people's lives to save 1?

I put up my response to this in the other current alignment thread, but I'll summarize it here. A Good person would make the sacrifice if his other defining traits comprising his personality gave him justification. Someone who values change and the power of the proletariat could find it worth it to save thirty commoners by sacrificing a duke. In that case, he might see the life of one oppressor as being well worth the lives of the many. The same guy may be less inclined toward it if it is another commoner, as the many overcoming a threat together and also dying together in defiance of an oppressor could be desirable for his motives.

[pwykersotz]

Here's the biggest thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478286-Paladin-of-Devotion-vs-Vengeance-What-really-matters) I know that tackles these issues, there probably isn't much new to say.

[Formless Entity]

Well no. According to your example those 30 people's lives are at risk regardless.

It's like every clichéd villian who sets a scenario for the good guy where he has to make an impossible decision between the one he loves and a group of people. The true good guy saves everyone (or nobody if it's realistic) but he never accepts a choice given to him that is evil.

Even if the outcome is death to everyone. The 'good' character tries to achieve the impossible of saving everyone.

A good example would be for anyone who has watched supernatural. When they are dealing with some angels, and the angels argue that the only way is to kill X to save Y and then Sam and Dean go hell no and try and save everyone. Can't remember the episode off the top of my head will try to find it quickly. But it's a good example where the angels are willing to make the evil act for the greater good. But the good guys refuse to do an evil act and go against impossible odds to save the day

In those scenarios there was not only a choice between one person and thirty if there was a way to save them all.

I am talking about a situation where there is not a way to weasel out of it.


Since in this scenario I am saying that the hero knows with 100% Certainty that he can save thirty innocents by killing one innocent then if he decides to try to save them both when there is not a clear way to do it then he is putting 30 lives at risk.

If being good is risking 30 lives to try to save 1 then being good equates to being illogical.

[jas61292]

In those scenarios there was not only a choice between one person and thirty if there was a way to save them all.

I am talking about a situation where there is not a way to weasel out of it.


Since in this scenario I am saying that the hero knows with 100% Certainty that he can save thirty innocents by killing one innocent then if he decides to try to save them both when there is not a clear way to do it then he is putting 30 lives at risk.

If being good is risking 30 lives to try to save 1 then being good equates to being illogical.

Well, I'd argue that there is never 100% certainty. At least not until the event has already passed. If the hero honestly believes that, they have given up too soon.

Frankly, your last line right there sounds like it is coming right out of the mouth of someone who is pure lawful (rather than good or evil). It is not about an equation of the value of lives. And it is certainly not about logic. It is about doing what is right. And giving up on even one person, when a possibility of success still exists is not the mark of a good aligned hero.

[Formless Entity]

Well, I'd argue that there is never 100% certainty. At least not until the event has already passed. If the hero honestly believes that, they have given up too soon.

Frankly, your last line right there sounds like it is coming right out of the mouth of someone who is pure lawful (rather than good or evil). It is not about an equation of the value of lives. And it is certainly not about logic. It is about doing what is right. And giving up on even one person, when a possibility of success still exists is not the mark of a good aligned hero.

To your first point I would like to point out that this is a thought experiment.

To your second point I would like to point out that lawful=/=logical and doing what results in the greatest good for the greatest number is what is right. It is not being arrogant enough to try to do something you cannot and risk everyone else's lives to uphold your false sense of righteousness.

Again your interpretation would paint good aligned heros as people with good intentions but a huge problem with humility.

[wunderkid]

In those scenarios there was not only a choice between one person and thirty if there was a way to save them all.

I am talking about a situation where there is not a way to weasel out of it.


Since in this scenario I am saying that the hero knows with 100% Certainty that he can save thirty innocents by killing one innocent then if he decides to try to save them both when there is not a clear way to do it then he is putting 30 lives at risk.

If being good is risking 30 lives to try to save 1 then being good equates to being illogical.

As someone else mentioned there isn't that 100% chance you speak of, and even if faced with impossible odds the hero attempts to save both. The good character never chooses the easy path. The choice to save them all may seem impossible, it may actually be impossible, but the good character tries even if it's an impossible shot or a feat of strength beyond his capabilities. The neutral character will do it with a heavy heart. The evil character will do it because it's the most pragmatic decision.

In every scenario I gave the hero was told it was the only way. That there was no way to save everyone. And the good character turned around every time, gave chance the middle finger after all this genre is called fantasy isn't it?

So yes it may be illogical. But it is the good option.

On a side note there was a very very interesting study on morality and the willingness to take a life done which relies on the 100% chance thing of yours.

The example was something along the lines of;

You are by the train tracks and you see a train that has clearly gone out of control and is heading towards a group of 5 workers. Fortunately you are standing by a switch that will change the track of the train however doing so will divert it onto a track where there is a single lone worker. What do you do? Consider your answer before reading further.

Most people will flick the switch.

Now take an almost identical situation. There is a train heading towards 5 workers. This time you are in a bridge and there is no switch. Standing next to you is a quite large person and you're 100% that if you push him in front of the train his mass will slow the train enough to save the workers. Do you push him?

For this scenario most people won't.

But it is in fact the same scenario. Both are sacrificing one to save many. Your action or inaction in both dictate the deaths.

I just found this quite an interesting thought exercise because it really does highlight just how much a decision of what is 'right' or acceptable can change in different situations

[Regitnui]

OK, strike the nonspecifics and the what ifs. Here's your situation;


The city has been struck by plague, and most of the citizens are too far gone for anything but immediate magical healing. As you stand in the centre of town, a woman who looks like one of the few still capable of moving pushes a bundle into your arms and says in a weak voice, "Take my baby away from here." Assuming you have no magical healing ability, but could make healing poultices that may or may not cure the plague, what do you do?

- The baby is perfectly healthy as far as you can tellm
- The mother is resigned to her fate and refuses to go with you for fear of infecting her child.

What is the most Good in this situation?

[Formless Entity]

As someone else mentioned there isn't that 100% chance you speak of, and even if faced with impossible odds the hero attempts to save both. The good character never chooses the easy path. The choice to save them all may seem impossible, it may actually be impossible, but the good character tries even if it's an impossible shot or a feat of strength beyond his capabilities. The neutral character will do it with a heavy heart. The evil character will do it because it's the most pragmatic decision.

In every scenario I gave the hero was told it was the only way. That there was no way to save everyone. And the good character turned around every time, gave chance the middle finger after all this genre is called fantasy isn't it?

So yes it may be illogical. But it is the good option.

On a side note there was a very very interesting study on morality and the willingness to take a life done which relies on the 100% chance thing of yours.

The example was something along the lines of;

You are by the train tracks and you see a train that has clearly gone out of control and is heading towards a group of 5 workers. Fortunately you are standing by a switch that will change the track of the train however doing so will divert it onto a track where there is a single lone worker. What do you do? Consider your answer before reading further.

Most people will flick the switch.

Now take an almost identical situation. There is a train heading towards 5 workers. This time you are in a bridge and there is no switch. Standing next to you is a quite large person and you're 100% that if you push him in front of the train his mass will slow the train enough to save the workers. Do you push him?

For this scenario most people won't.

But it is in fact the same scenario. Both are sacrificing one to save many. Your action or inaction in both dictate the deaths.

I just found this quite an interesting thought exercise because it really does highlight just how much a decision of what is 'right' or acceptable can change in different situations

I understand this well having a master's degree in ethics.

However I would say that again.

Killing the one innocent to kill thirty innocents is the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it was not a 100% certainty that there was not a possible way to save all 31 and it was merely a very small chance that something else could be done.

I do not think it is ethical to put thirty innocent lives on the line.

So I ask you who accomplishes more?

The person who kills one innocent to save 30.

Or the persona who lets all 31 die because he did not accept the situation?

[wunderkid]

I understand this well having a master's degree in ethics.

However I would say that again.

Killing the one innocent to kill thirty innocents is the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it was not a 100% certainty that there was not a possible way to save all 31 and it was merely a very small chance that something else could be done.

I do not think it is ethical to put thirty innocent lives on the line.

So I ask you who accomplishes more?

The person who kills one innocent to save 30.

Or the persona who lets all 31 die because he did not accept the situation?

Oh I'm not arguing about the results. I'm in 100% agreement with you that this is a situation for someone without moral issues to deal with.

You accomplish more by making the hard decision. By doing the evil act for the greater good.

Evil does not mean that you want to rule the world pinky and the brain style. It means you have no qualms about taking measures considered evil to achieve your goals. If your goal is saving those 30 people then a sacrifice of 1 is hardly pause for thought.

Now let's say the same situation. But with this twist on it. 30 people will die painlessly and peacefully in their sleep. Unless you torture and kill this small child. Talking torture past the point of comprehension.

And the good person will take that choice because it's logical? At what point can the good person get away with rape, murder, torture, all because it's logical and will save a greater number of people than if he didn't rape, torture and murder this one person?

Sacrifice is quite a good word for the switch, because it sounds noble it doesn't really reflect the weight of what it means to sacrifice a person because sacrifice is a term thrown around quite often and in different contexts. But when you call it throwing that person in front of the train it changes the perception. At least for me personally.

So my stand point remains that the 'good' character will try to find a way. Even if it means failure to save everyone. Even if it means saving nobody. They will take that one in a million shot because it's not necessarily the 'right' decision. But because it is the morally good one

[RickAllison]

OK, strike the nonspecifics and the what ifs. Here's your situation;



What is the most Good in this situation?

I would save the baby. If I can make the poultices, someone else can make them, even the sick ones. If the poultices won't work, I need to save who I can.

[pwykersotz]

I understand this well having a master's degree in ethics.

...



But seriously guys, this problem has already been torn apart. Check out that other thread I linked. I wouldn't harp on it, except that it was incredibly interesting and educational.

[LordVonDerp]

Yes. The 'good' character refuses to kill anyone and tries to save all 31 regardless of how hopeless his chances may be

Unless he's lawful good, then he favors the needs of the many.
Of course, given the initial situation the question becomes "who are the 30 people and what happens if they die?"

[RickAllison]

Unless he's lawful good, then he favors the needs of the many.
Of course, given the initial situation the question becomes "who are the 30 people and what happens if they die?"

See, I think LG people would be the least likely to make the sacrifice. Giving up the life of one to save many is not really a part of any legal codes and would violate many. CG, being reliant on personal conscience, would be more likely to decide that the needs of many outweigh the few.

Think about policemen and women in hostage crises. They may give in to demands of money, or transportation, or what have you, but they aren't likely to give in to a demand for another person. It is acceptable in their guidelines to make material sacrifices, but not to be trading lives around.

[pwykersotz]

See, I think LG people would be the least likely to make the sacrifice. Giving up the life of one to save many is not really a part of any legal codes and would violate many. CG, being reliant on personal conscience, would be more likely to decide that the needs of many outweigh the few.

Think about policemen and women in hostage crises. They may give in to demands of money, or transportation, or what have you, but they aren't likely to give in to a demand for another person. It is acceptable in their guidelines to make material sacrifices, but not to be trading lives around.

It's a matter of how you're playing it. I hear Lawful Good and I think of the creed "Do no evil." But there are other interpretations.

It also matters whether you believe you are culpable for other people's actions. If Asmodeus appears and says to choose if either village A or village B burns and if you don't choose both of them burn, are you at fault if you don't choose, or is Asmodeus? Is the point of good to save as much life as possible, or is it for each person to protect the sanctity of their own soul - and by virtue of example to protect the sanctity of others as well?

There's quite a lot of nuance.

[RickAllison]

It's a matter of how you're playing it. I hear Lawful Good and I think of the creed "Do no evil." But there are other interpretations.

It also matters whether you believe you are culpable for other people's actions. If Asmodeus appears and says to choose if either village A or village B burns and if you don't choose both of them burn, are you at fault if you don't choose, or is Asmodeus? Is the point of good to save as much life as possible, or is it for each person to protect the sanctity of their own soul - and by virtue of example to protect the sanctity of others as well?

There's quite a lot of nuance.

I agree with your sentiments here, which is why I phrased it as least likely. Depending on the situation and personality, any character, even Good ones, may have justification for taking the hard choice.

[LordVonDerp]

See, I think LG people would be the least likely to make the sacrifice. Giving up the life of one to save many is not really a part of any legal codes and would violate many. CG, being reliant on personal conscience, would be more likely to decide that the needs of many outweigh the few.


Roman Law, Ancient Chinese Law, and the Law Code of Hammurabi all had such provisions.
More than that though a LG character values the stability and relative peace despite the sacrifices made to achieve it.



Think about policemen and women in hostage crises. They may give in to demands of money, or transportation, or what have you, but they aren't likely to give in to a demand for another person. It is acceptable in their guidelines to make material sacrifices, but not to be trading lives around.

That is a very modern and very specific example and has little to do with the example I was responding to.

[pwykersotz]

That is a very modern and very specific example and has little to do with the example I was responding to.

The formality of this part of your reply juxtapositioned with your forum avatar made me laugh. :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

Roman Law, Ancient Chinese Law, and the Law Code of Hammurabi all had such provisions.
More than that though a LG character values the stability and relative peace despite the sacrifices made to achieve it.



That is a very modern and very specific example and has little to do with the example I was responding to.

I did not know that information on those laws. An LG if those cultures would have good reason to make that choice.

As for the modern example, it is a reflection of how an LG might function when their laws are NOT in accordance with trading lives.

[LordVonDerp]

On a side note there was a very very interesting study on morality and the willingness to take a life done which relies on the 100% chance thing of yours.

The example was something along the lines of;

You are by the train tracks and you see a train that has clearly gone out of control and is heading towards a group of 5 workers. Fortunately you are standing by a switch that will change the track of the train however doing so will divert it onto a track where there is a single lone worker. What do you do? Consider your answer before reading further.

Most people will flick the switch.

Now take an almost identical situation. There is a train heading towards 5 workers. This time you are in a bridge and there is no switch. Standing next to you is a quite large person and you're 100% that if you push him in front of the train his mass will slow the train enough to save the workers. Do you push him?

For this scenario most people won't.

But it is in fact the same scenario. Both are sacrificing one to save many. Your action or inaction in both dictate the deaths.

I just found this quite an interesting thought exercise because it really does highlight just how much a decision of what is 'right' or acceptable can change in different situations
It seems the difference occurs because most people know you can't stop a train by throwing a person in front of it.

[wunderkid]

It seems the difference occurs because most people know you can't stop a train by throwing a person in front of it.

Not really you know for the case of this example it would stop the train. The difference occurs because of the act of directly taking someone's life: pushing them. And indirectly: flicking a switch which then causes death

[Formless Entity]

Oh I'm not arguing about the results. I'm in 100% agreement with you that this is a situation for someone without moral issues to deal with.

You accomplish more by making the hard decision. By doing the evil act for the greater good.

Evil does not mean that you want to rule the world pinky and the brain style. It means you have no qualms about taking measures considered evil to achieve your goals. If your goal is saving those 30 people then a sacrifice of 1 is hardly pause for thought.

Now let's say the same situation. But with this twist on it. 30 people will die painlessly and peacefully in their sleep. Unless you torture and kill this small child. Talking torture past the point of comprehension.

And the good person will take that choice because it's logical? At what point can the good person get away with rape, murder, torture, all because it's logical and will save a greater number of people than if he didn't rape, torture and murder this one person?

Sacrifice is quite a good word for the switch, because it sounds noble it doesn't really reflect the weight of what it means to sacrifice a person because sacrifice is a term thrown around quite often and in different contexts. But when you call it throwing that person in front of the train it changes the perception. At least for me personally.

So my stand point remains that the 'good' character will try to find a way. Even if it means failure to save everyone. Even if it means saving nobody. They will take that one in a million shot because it's not necessarily the 'right' decision. But because it is the morally good one

That means your definition of "evil" means against social conventions which would more accurately be expressed with the chaos alignment in D&D.

Also you have yet to explain how doing the greatest good for the greatest number is an amoral viewpoint.

[BurgerBeast]

The problem with the utilitarian approach to moral dilemmas, specifically in which X lives are weighed against Y lives, is that lives are not measured in the same discrete quantifiable fashion as commodities, at least not by a good person.

You cannot say that 1 million lives are more important than one, nor can you say that one life is more important than 1 million. That's not how the value of lives is measured.

Similar tricks and tactics are brought in when age, profession, or gender enter the conversation. Younger lives are not worth more than older lives, nor are older worth more than younger, etc. Doctors are not more valuable than criminals, etc.

This drives at a point that is, to my mind, fundamentally the underpinning of morality: evil is what happens when someone makes value judgements about life that they don't have the right to make, and acts upon them. The knowledge of who shall live and who shall die is the knowledge of the gods. (I think that quote comes from Ismael by D. Quinn) Any human who tries to act like a god is committing hubris and is evil. Period.

Utilitarianism is evil in disguise because it places a value on human life (by making the claim that all lives are equal - it is not the place of humans to make such claims). Note that living one's life as though all humans are equal and following the golden rule are not immoral ways to behave. It's only when one is confronted with choices about life and death, and sees himself or herself as fit to make judgments about who shall live and who shall die, that he or she is committing an evil.

[wunderkid]

That means your definition of "evil" means against social conventions which would more accurately be expressed with the chaos alignment in D&D.

Also you have yet to explain how doing the greatest good for the greatest number is an amoral viewpoint.

No my definition of evil is that raping, torturing and then killing an innocent person is an evil act regardless of the greatest good. The act is what's immoral not the outcome.

You keep saying it like the greatest good will absolve any and all possible evil doing that's simply not the case at all. An evil act is an evil act regardless of the overall outcome. And someone of evil allignment will gladly sacrifice one for the many. The good alignment won't do an evil act to achieve a good goal.

[pwykersotz]

The problem with the utilitarian approach to moral dilemmas, specifically in which X lives are weighed against Y lives, is that lives are not measured in the same discrete quantifiable fashion as commodities, at least not by a good person.

You cannot say that 1 million lives are more important than one, nor can you say that one life is more important than 1 million. That's not how the value of lives is measured.

Similar tricks and tactics are brought in when age, profession, or gender enter the conversation. Younger lives are not worth more than older lives, nor are older worth more than younger, etc. Doctors are not more valuable than criminals, etc.

This drives at a point that is, to my mind, fundamentally the underpinning of morality: evil is what happens when someone makes value judgements about life that they don't have the right to make, and acts upon them. The knowledge of who shall live and who shall die is the knowledge of the gods. (I think that quote comes from Ismael by D. Quinn) Any human who tries to act like a god is committing hubris and is evil. Period.

Utilitarianism is evil in disguise because it places a value on human life (by making the claim that all lives are equal - it is not the place of humans to make such claims). Note that living one's life as though all humans are equal and following the golden rule are not immoral ways to behave. It's only when one is confronted with choices about life and death, and sees himself or herself as fit to make judgments about who shall live and who shall die, that he or she is committing an evil.

Huh, that's an interesting way of thinking about it. I'll have to read that book. :smallsmile:

[RickAllison]

No my definition of evil is that raping, torturing and then killing an innocent person is an evil act regardless of the greatest good. The act is what's immoral not the outcome.

You keep saying it like the greatest good will absolve any and all possible evil doing that's simply not the case at all. An evil act is an evil act regardless of the overall outcome. And someone of evil allignment will gladly sacrifice one for the many. The good alignment won't do an evil act to achieve a good goal.

So let's see how the scenario plays out by your logic. Two people are drowning and Elfangor has his hands on one. He figures that he could probably save this one if he abandoned the other, or he could try and save the other one and they would both probably die. By your line of thinking, ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die.

[Formless Entity]

The problem with the utilitarian approach to moral dilemmas, specifically in which X lives are weighed against Y lives, is that lives are not measured in the same discrete quantifiable fashion as commodities, at least not by a good person.

You cannot say that 1 million lives are more important than one, nor can you say that one life is more important than 1 million. That's not how the value of lives is measured.

Similar tricks and tactics are brought in when age, profession, or gender enter the conversation. Younger lives are not worth more than older lives, nor are older worth more than younger, etc. Doctors are not more valuable than criminals, etc.

This drives at a point that is, to my mind, fundamentally the underpinning of morality: evil is what happens when someone makes value judgements about life that they don't have the right to make, and acts upon them. The knowledge of who shall live and who shall die is the knowledge of the gods. (I think that quote comes from Ismael by D. Quinn) Any human who tries to act like a god is committing hubris and is evil. Period.

Utilitarianism is evil in disguise because it places a value on human life (by making the claim that all lives are equal - it is not the place of humans to make such claims). Note that living one's life as though all humans are equal and following the golden rule are not immoral ways to behave. It's only when one is confronted with choices about life and death, and sees himself or herself as fit to make judgments about who shall live and who shall die, that he or she is committing an evil.

You said that you cannot quantify the value of a human life because I am unable to.

That is circular logic.

Do you have an actual argument to present now?

[Formless Entity]

No my definition of evil is that raping, torturing and then killing an innocent person is an evil act regardless of the greatest good. The act is what's immoral not the outcome.

You keep saying it like the greatest good will absolve any and all possible evil doing that's simply not the case at all. An evil act is an evil act regardless of the overall outcome. And someone of evil allignment will gladly sacrifice one for the many. The good alignment won't do an evil act to achieve a good goal.

Okay.

And where do you get your definition of evil from?

Because if you made it up then it is subjective morality which as we have shown in this thread does not work for an objective system.

[wunderkid]

So let's see how the scenario plays out by your logic. Two people are drowning and Elfangor has his hands on one. He figures that he could probably save this one if he abandoned the other, or he could try and save the other one and they would both probably die. By your line of thinking, ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die.

Not really. The key word you used is probably. When you say "ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die." You're twisting the scenario and phrasing it to squew the perspective of things. When the situation is:

Trying to save both people instead of leaving someone do die.

The odds may be against you but you won't let someone die when you have the chance to save them

[wunderkid]

Okay.

And where do you get your definition of evil from?

Because if you made it up then it is subjective morality which as we have shown in this thread does not work for an objective system.

It's not an objective system. It's not any kind of system. That's the entire point of this thread...

But using your argument an objective point of morality can't ever exist because someone made it up at some point. That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

Also as I've said several times is that I'd have a discussion with the group to set a list of objective morality. And furthermore will now likely use the Geneva convention as a base line for this.

[Formless Entity]

It's not an objective system. It's not any kind of system. That's the entire point of this thread...

But using your argument an objective point of morality can't ever exist because someone made it up at some point. That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

Also as I've said several times is that I'd have a discussion with the group to set a list of objective morality. And furthermore will now likely use the Geneva convention as a base line for this.

Incorrect. Objective answers can be determined using logic.

Why the Geneva convention?

[pwykersotz]

Incorrect. Objective answers can be determined using logic.

Then please, use logic (and your experience given your Master's degree) to show us your airtight version of ethics. While I have serious doubts in your ability to produce one (as it would prove you to be a greater philosopher than any who have come before us), I'm very interested to hear the details.

Pointing out problems is all well and good, but it's fairly useless if a solution isn't presented as well.

[Formless Entity]

Then please, use logic (and your experience given your Master's degree) to show us your airtight version of ethics. While I have serious doubts in your ability to produce one (as it would prove you to be a greater philosopher than any who have come before us), I'm very interested to hear the details.

Pointing out problems is all well and good, but it's fairly useless if a solution isn't presented as well.

Plenty of philosophers have proposed this but it contradicts what people want to think therefore they say it is illogical, but they use logical fallacies to do so and choose to use illogical codes of ethics.

Like Divine Command ethics.

[mgshamster]

Pointing out problems is all well and good, but it's fairly useless if a solution isn't presented as well.

That's generally the purview of someone who has enough knowledge and experience to recognize where an issue is, but lacks the mastery of the subject to propose a solution or delve into the creation of new knowledge.

I see it most commonly from college students.

[RickAllison]

Not really. The key word you used is probably. When you say "ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die." You're twisting the scenario and phrasing it to squew the perspective of things. When the situation is:

Trying to save both people instead of leaving someone do die.

The odds may be against you but you won't let someone die when you have the chance to save them

So it is evil to be practical? A fireman who guarantees getting people out before getting to the next is committing an evil act?

[pwykersotz]

Plenty of philosophers have proposed this but it contradicts what people want to think therefore they say it is illogical, but they use logical fallacies to do so and choose to use illogical codes of ethics.

Like Divine Command ethics.

Such as? Which one do subscribe to for the purposes of D&D?


That's generally the purview of someone who has enough knowledge and experience to recognize where an issue is, but lacks the mastery of the subject to propose a solution or delve into the creation of new knowledge.

I see it most commonly from college students.

True.

[wunderkid]

So it is evil to be practical? A fireman who guarantees getting people out before getting to the next is committing an evil act?

No because he is trying to save all of them. Now if he went in there, and a little girl refused to leave her mother who was in a wheel chair and the fireman took an axe to the mothers chest so the girl would leave would be an evil act. Or leaving them behind to burn because it would be too much hassle would be an evil act.

But trying to save as many people as possible isn't evil. Even if you fail.

[Formless Entity]

Such as? Which one do subscribe to for the purposes of D&D?



True.

I would say that Good would be doing the greatest good for the greatest number while willing to risk or sacrifice your self.

[BurgerBeast]

You said that you cannot quantify the value of a human life because I am unable to.

That is circular logic.

Do you have an actual argument to present now?

No, that's not what I said at all. Nice try, though.

Here's what you've done: you've ignored what I wrote, wrote some words for me, claimed they were mine, and then refuted them. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, but no one else is as impressed as you seem to be.

[Formless Entity]

No, that's not what I said at all. Nice try, though.

Here's what you've done: you've ignored what I wrote, wrote some words for me, claimed they were mine, and then refuted them. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, but no one else is as impressed as you seem to be.

Seeming as you did not offer a correction I am inclined to believe you are not being honest.

[wunderkid]

Incorrect. Objective answers can be determined using logic.

Why the Geneva convention?

OK so how do you logically determine morality? Because given that you've already flat out said that anything I could come up with is subjective that somewhat eliminates any potential for objective?

And because it's a widely enforced set of rules to basically avoid atrocities of war. Aka evil acts done in the name of a 'greater good'

[Formless Entity]

OK so how do you logically determine morality? Because given that you've already flat out said that anything I could come up with is subjective that somewhat eliminates any potential for objective?

And because it's a widely enforced set of rules to basically avoid atrocities of war. Aka evil acts done in the name of a 'greater good'

Make sure that you are not using logical fallacies and look at how these terms came about.

I would say that good means doing the greatest good for the greatest number of others even at personal risk or sacrifice, evil would be someone who harms others for self gratification, and neutral somewhere in between.

Can you name an ideology more selfless than what I have proposed for good?

Can you point out a situation where this ideology would not work?

[wunderkid]

Make sure that you are not using logical fallacies and look at how these terms came about.

I would say that good means doing the greatest good for the greatest number of others even at personal risk or sacrifice, evil would be someone who harms others for self gratification, and neutral somewhere in between.

Can you name an ideology more selfless than what I have proposed for good?

Can you point out a situation where this ideology would not work?

So basically exactly what I've been saying. Because the greatest good for the greatest number is all of them. Even if the chance is one in a million. Anything less and you're not longer trying to help the greatest number you're choosing who lives and dies

And to debunk that idealogy what about the person who gets self gratification harming others for the greater good?

After all torture could reveal information that saves countless lives. Does this mean in your idealogy the sadist is good as he is doing the greatest good for the greatest number?

[Formless Entity]

So basically exactly what I've been saying. Because the greatest good for the greatest number is all of them. Even if the chance is one in a million. Anything less and you're not longer trying to help the greatest number you're choosing who lives and dies

And to debunk that idealogy what about the person who gets self gratification harming others for the greater good?

After all torture could reveal information that saves countless lives. Does this mean in your idealogy the sadist is good as he is doing the greatest good for the greatest number?

No, gambling with lives is not a good thing to do.

I am curious to see how you justify this.

If the sadist is torturing the person because he finds pleasure in it, then he is being evil.

[Formless Entity]

So basically exactly what I've been saying. Because the greatest good for the greatest number is all of them. Even if the chance is one in a million. Anything less and you're not longer trying to help the greatest number you're choosing who lives and dies

And to debunk that idealogy what about the person who gets self gratification harming others for the greater good?

After all torture could reveal information that saves countless lives. Does this mean in your idealogy the sadist is good as he is doing the greatest good for the greatest number?

BTW I am talking about intent.

[wunderkid]

No, gambling with lives is not a good thing to do.

I am curious to see how you justify this.

If the sadist is torturing the person because he finds pleasure in it, then he is being evil.

So basically you're entire view point on morality can be summed up as it's only good if it's a 100% chance of success. Which means as nothing is certain and there's always a degree of gambling by your argument good is impossible. Your actions while saving someone you think is a 100% chance could in fact be way off. You might make things worse. You're not omniscient so at what % do you draw the line between good and evil?

No no he is torturing people to get information that could save millions of lives. You know the greatest good for the greatest number thing you said defines being good? His personal enjoyment of it is a different thing all together.

But say it's not. You're saying as long as he doesn't enjoy it then it's ok to torture someone? And you can be good whilst inflicting pain beyond what humans are capable of handling, while crippling someone beyond recovery, burning their eyes out with pokers.and that's just the warm up. You're honestly telling me that your idealogy supports that as good?

[RickAllison]

So basically you're entire view point on morality can be summed up as it's only good if it's a 100% chance of success. Which means as nothing is certain and there's always a degree of gambling by your argument good is impossible. Your actions while saving someone you think is a 100% chance could in fact be way off. You might make things worse. You're not omniscient so at what % do you draw the line between good and evil?

No no he is torturing people to get information that could save millions of lives. You know the greatest good for the greatest number thing you said defines being good? His personal enjoyment of it is a different thing all together.

But say it's not. You're saying as long as he doesn't enjoy it then it's ok to torture someone? And you can be good whilst inflicting pain beyond what humans are capable of handling, while crippling someone beyond recovery, burning their eyes out with pokers.and that's just the warm up. You're honestly telling me that your idealogy supports that as good?

So here is what I'm seeing here:

You have a rather extreme point of view that any possibility of success for saving everyone is worth risking the lives of every other person. The odds could look damn near impossible, but a Good person is obligated to risk the lives of everyone else and ensuring lives are saved is an evil act.

Formless also has a rather extreme point of heinous acts being justified as good if they accomplish a greater good than there was evil perpetrated.

Human discourse being what it is, somewhere in the middle is probably the most reasonable definition.

Also, to answer your challenge on the fireman, I would say that the Good act for the child with her sick mother is to get the child out and then to go back and try to save her mother. It is not Good to leave her to die, but it is certainly not Good to get the child killed due to hubris in trying to get everyone out.

It is certainly Good to risk one's own life to save others (though it may be more Good to survive depending), but it is certainly not Good to put others' lives at risk. In the case of the 30-or-1, the most Good answer is to let that 1 be the adventurer, as his life is the only one he is justified in risking.

[R.Shackleford]

This was mentioned in a different thread, and I didn't want to sidetrack that thread's conversation, but I thought the idea of Objective vs. Subjective Alignment interesting. Objective alignment is looking at a character's actions and beliefs from a neutral, outside standpoint, such as from a DM's view. How would a person who wasn't a part of this party/game view this character's actions. Subjective is what that character thinks of his actions. Does this character think he's doing a good deed, or does he think he's doing an evil deed?

Do you think adding a separate line in a character's sheet for this distinction would be a good idea to help clarify things and limit the amount of "bad" arguments regarding a character's alignment versus their actions? (By bad I mean arguments where no one is enjoying the conversation, the step before a fist fight, etc.)

Alignments in D&D, for the most part, are objective forces in the world.

5e has taken a huge step away from that but it is still there.

But for groups I would say there are two alignments you need to worry about.

The Antagonist and The Protagonist.

Become a hindrance on the group or working against their goals? Time to have a talk. The Antagonist alignment is not allowed.

Evil and Good people can be friendly or love each other... Hell, Ghandi (CG-ish) was friendly to Hitler (LE-ish)... So yeah... But when you start purposely acting in the worst interest of the group that is when we have problems.

[pwykersotz]

So here is what I'm seeing here:

You have a rather extreme point of view that any possibility of success for saving everyone is worth risking the lives of every other person. The odds could look damn near impossible, but a Good person is obligated to risk the lives of everyone else and ensuring lives are saved is an evil act.

Formless also has a rather extreme point of heinous acts being justified as good if they accomplish a greater good than there was evil perpetrated.

Human discourse being what it is, somewhere in the middle is probably the most reasonable definition.

Also, to answer your challenge on the fireman, I would say that the Good act for the child with her sick mother is to get the child out and then to go back and try to save her mother. It is not Good to leave her to die, but it is certainly not Good to get the child killed due to hubris in trying to get everyone out.

It is certainly Good to risk one's own life to save others (though it may be more Good to survive depending), but it is certainly not Good to put others' lives at risk. In the case of the 30-or-1, the most Good answer is to let that 1 be the adventurer, as his life is the only one he is justified in risking.

I may have misinterpreted his point, but I thought that the crux of it wasn't that you couldn't pull an Avengers (saved the world, dozens still died) but that you couldn't make a judgement about the value of life by external factors (age, number of people, etc) alone. That his moral imperative was not to judge the value of life but instead, not knowing the worth, try to save everyone you can and not write people off. The killing one to save 5 is a value judgement where you assume authority over the value of a life, so evil. Trying to save two people and only getting to one is good. And if you could be certain of saving one or have a 50% chance of saving or losing two, that succeed or fail, trying to save the two is of primary importance, because again, it doesn't require overstepping the bounds and deciding who lives and who dies.

[BurgerBeast]

Seeming as you did not offer a correction I am inclined to believe you are not being honest.

You have the right to believe any wrong thing you want.

My original post was written in plain English. In response to it, you said:


You said that you cannot quantify the value of a human life because I am unable to.

I never said that. The burden of proof isn’t on me. It’s on you. Show me where I said it.

Since you can’t, it follows that you made up my argument for me. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Incidentally, you also said:


That is circular logic.

Which also is incorrect. It’s argument from ignorance. It’s not circular.

So I never said it in the first place, and as you presented it it’s not circular at all.


Do you have an actual argument to present now?

My argument remains, as initially written. Are you ready to read and understand it, yet? Or are you just going to make up terrible arguments, claim they’re mine, and ask me to defend your misinformed readings? Sorry, but I'm not about to teach you how to read.

Beyond your two egregious errors, it’s probably worth pointing out that to even accuse me of claiming that anyone can’t quantify human life is essentially calling me an idiot. Anyone can quantify human life any time they want. This is self-evident.

[BurgerBeast]

I would say that good means doing the greatest good for the greatest number of others even at personal risk or sacrifice, evil would be someone who harms others for self gratification, and neutral somewhere in between.

And I would argue that selflessness is by definition (and contradictory to popular belief) immoral. I say this because the view that any life is worth less than any number of lives is an immoral claim and not within one's rights to claim. This applies equally to one's own life. So the moment one makes the decision to give up one's own life in order to save another, one is (odd as it may sound) committing an evil against oneself. If you truly believe that all people are morally equal, then it follow that you also are morally equal, so by what right can choose to kill yourself over another?

Note that I am not talking about the practicality of killing oneself or anyone else, but the moral right to do so.

[Formless Entity]

So basically you're entire view point on morality can be summed up as it's only good if it's a 100% chance of success.

Never said that.

[Formless Entity]

And I would argue that selflessness is by definition (and contradictory to popular belief) immoral. I say this because the view that any life is worth less than any number of lives is an immoral claim and not within one's rights to claim. This applies equally to one's own life. So the moment one makes the decision to give up one's own life in order to save another, one is (odd as it may sound) committing an evil against oneself. If you truly believe that all people are morally equal, then it follow that you also are morally equal, so by what right can choose to kill yourself over another?

Note that I am not talking about the practicality of killing oneself or anyone else, but the moral right to do so.

Then you are immoral because you are judging everyone's life to be equal.

[Formless Entity]

You have the right to believe any wrong thing you want.

My original post was written in plain English. In response to it, you said:



I never said that. The burden of proof isn’t on me. It’s on you. Show me where I said it.

Since you can’t, it follows that you made up my argument for me. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Incidentally, you also said:



Which also is incorrect. It’s argument from ignorance. It’s not circular.

So I never said it in the first place, and as you presented it it’s not circular at all.



My argument remains, as initially written. Are you ready to read and understand it, yet? Or are you just going to make up terrible arguments, claim they’re mine, and ask me to defend your misinformed readings? Sorry, but I'm not about to teach you how to read.

Beyond your two egregious errors, it’s probably worth pointing out that to even accuse me of claiming that anyone can’t quantify human life is essentially calling me an idiot. Anyone can quantify human life any time they want. This is self-evident.

Your argument is pure hypocrisy.

I have tried to be courteous to you but no more.

You go around flaunting that your system of morality is right and others are wrong based on the idea that judging a life's worth is wrong while you in your own post do so several times.

If you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation then you should not be a part of it.

[Formless Entity]

So here is what I'm seeing here:

You have a rather extreme point of view that any possibility of success for saving everyone is worth risking the lives of every other person. The odds could look damn near impossible, but a Good person is obligated to risk the lives of everyone else and ensuring lives are saved is an evil act.

Formless also has a rather extreme point of heinous acts being justified as good if they accomplish a greater good than there was evil perpetrated.

Human discourse being what it is, somewhere in the middle is probably the most reasonable definition.

Also, to answer your challenge on the fireman, I would say that the Good act for the child with her sick mother is to get the child out and then to go back and try to save her mother. It is not Good to leave her to die, but it is certainly not Good to get the child killed due to hubris in trying to get everyone out.

It is certainly Good to risk one's own life to save others (though it may be more Good to survive depending), but it is certainly not Good to put others' lives at risk. In the case of the 30-or-1, the most Good answer is to let that 1 be the adventurer, as his life is the only one he is justified in risking.

That is a logical fallacy called: Argument to moderation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

This will give you a general idea of what that is.

[Formless Entity]

Alignments in D&D, for the most part, are objective forces in the world.

5e has taken a huge step away from that but it is still there.

But for groups I would say there are two alignments you need to worry about.

The Antagonist and The Protagonist.

Become a hindrance on the group or working against their goals? Time to have a talk. The Antagonist alignment is not allowed.

Evil and Good people can be friendly or love each other... Hell, Ghandi (CG-ish) was friendly to Hitler (LE-ish)... So yeah... But when you start purposely acting in the worst interest of the group that is when we have problems.

Ghahndi was formal with Hitler as he thought that doing so would help him convince him not to cause a second world war.

[BurgerBeast]

Your argument is pure hypocrisy.

I have tried to be courteous to you but no more.

You failed to be courteous.


You go around flaunting that your system of morality is right and others are wrong based on the idea that judging a life's worth is wrong while you in your own post do so several times.

What do you know about me "going around and flaunting" anything? And when have I claimed that I was right? I think you jump to conclusions, and when others point out the flaws, you jump to further conclusions. (Note that this is based on the evidence in this post.) I suggest you put on your big boy pants, and focus on the point of the discussion. There's no need to make up stories about me.


If you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation then you should not be a part of it.

Thanks for your opinion. Maybe one day you'll have your own forum and you can decide who can and can't comment. In any case take this advice about making meaningful contributions and re-read your own posts. Particularly your initial response to me.

Also, my point remains. Care to refute it? It would require that you read it honestly first. Your call.

[Formless Entity]

You failed to be courteous.



What do you know about me "going around and flaunting" anything? And when have I claimed that I was right? I think you jump to conclusions, and when others point out the flaws, you jump to further conclusions. (Note that this is based on the evidence in this post.) I suggest you put on your big boy pants, and focus on the point of the discussion. There's no need to make up stories about me.



Thanks for your opinion. Maybe one day you'll have your own forum and you can decide who can and can't comment. In any case take this advice about making meaningful contributions and re-read your own posts. Particularly your initial response to me.

Also, my point remains. Care to refute it? It would require that you read it honestly first. Your call.


You claimed that other people where incorrect due to them taking action contrary to your ideology. That is saying you are right.

"Putting on my big boy pants" has within it no form of meaningful critique so that would be an Ad Hominem.

Actually I was suggesting you do not waste your own time, I promote free-speech and thus if this was my forum you would still be allowed to speak.

Care to state a point you have made that I have not already refuted?

[pwykersotz]

Care to state a point you have made that I have not already refuted?

... But what have you refuted? You made one comment about circular logic that is now contested. You pretty much ignored the meat of his initial post.

[BurgerBeast]

You claimed that other people where incorrect due to them taking action contrary to your ideology. That is saying you are right.

I'm not trying to be a prick here. I don't know what this means. Just be specific or quote me if necessary. I never posted "my" ideology. You keep adding context that isn't there.


"Putting on my big boy pants" has within it no form of meaningful critique so that would be an Ad Hominem.

Yes. This was intentional. It was a response to your ad hominem. Remember this: "You go around flaunting that your system of morality is right and others are wrong based on the idea that judging a life's worth is wrong while you in your own post do so several times"?

Ad hominem. So I did the same in return in order to illustrate the point. I'm glad you caught it. Now hopefully you see that mine was intentional. The fact that you've accused me seems to imply that yours was accidental.


Actually I was suggesting you do not waste your own time, I promote free-speech and thus if this was my forum you would still be allowed to speak.

Oh, I see. Unsolicited advice. I see that etiquette is alive and well.


Care to state a point you have made that I have not already refuted?

I've already done that. Lead a horse to water, you know? You need to realize that I've refuted you twice. If you can't be bothered to go back and read it, that's fine with me. But don't claim that you've refuted my points. Just say you don't care.

[wunderkid]

Never said that.

You said "No, gambling with lives is not a good thing to do."

Unless it's an absolute certainty its a gamble. And therefore not good. So it's exactly what you said. I was just asking what to you constitutes the right odds for it to be considered 'good'

[BurgerBeast]

Anyway to get the thread back on track, I think there is a underlying factor to most of these disagreements, rooted in people's understanding of what it means to be objective or subjective. This is often conflated with the notions of absolute and relative, and also (but less commonly) with the notions of quantitative and qualitative.

The difference between objective and subjective becomes easier to confuse when it is described in ways such as "well since it's the DM's world, his opinion about alignment is true in the world, therefore in the world, alignment is objective" can lead to confusion, most obviously because I can walk over to the next table, which has a different DM and a different world and different rules governing alignment. So alignment is handled differently at both tables. So, alignment depends on the DM, and this is the definition of subjective (not objective).

So, if we really want to gain insight into the answer to our alignment questions, we need to be clear about these sorts of things. What makes something subjective is not the fact that multiple people can think multiple things about it. What makes it subjective is that multiple people can be correct at the same time that they hold different views.

So something that is objective will have the same truth value regardless of who is observing it. People can be wrong about it, but if they're right, they'll all reach the same conclusion.

Of course we can spend hours discussing whether it's actually possible for anything to be truly objective, but that doesn't seem to be the point here. There are degrees of objectivity, most exemplified (in my experience) by Karl Popper and the explanation that inductive reasoning is not a real thing, rather the illusion created by the deductive elimination of things that can't be true.

For the sake of the conversation, I think it's important to delineate between "alignment is objective because it's the DM's world" (which ultimately is not objectivity so much as enforced subjectivity, much like Divine Command Theory) and "alignment is objective because it is objectively determinable, and even though the DM is the referee, sometimes he or she makes a mistake, so he or she is actually in error sometimes, and this is objectively provable."

[BrianDavion]

end of the day whats good and evil is a large part of up to the Dm to adjucate. I don't think the inital D&D designers forsaw that we'd ever live in a society where we'd try to justify torture as somehow anything other then morally reprehensiable

[BurgerBeast]

end of the day whats good and evil is a large part of up to the Dm to adjucate. I don't think the inital D&D designers forsaw that we'd ever live in a society where we'd try to justify torture as somehow anything other then morally reprehensiable

Agreed, and in fact this is the place from which most views claiming that morality is objective begin. If we can point to a single act and say, without a doubt, that it is evil, regardless of who is observing it and under what circumstances, then we have a pretty solid basis to begin a discussion about morality that is objective.

[RickAllison]

That is a logical fallacy called: Argument to moderation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

This will give you a general idea of what that is.

The fallacy is about insisting that there must be a compromise based on the fact that there should be a compromise (circular logic at its based). My insisting on there being a solution somewhere in the middle is because both positions supplied were extreme and both had problems that failed to account for everything. Establishing absolute values for lives and refusing to establish values are both unsustainable in my eyes.

[wunderkid]

So here is what I'm seeing here:

You have a rather extreme point of view that any possibility of success for saving everyone is worth risking the lives of every other person. The odds could look damn near impossible, but a Good person is obligated to risk the lives of everyone else and ensuring lives are saved is an evil act.

Formless also has a rather extreme point of heinous acts being justified as good if they accomplish a greater good than there was evil perpetrated.

Human discourse being what it is, somewhere in the middle is probably the most reasonable definition.

Also, to answer your challenge on the fireman, I would say that the Good act for the child with her sick mother is to get the child out and then to go back and try to save her mother. It is not Good to leave her to die, but it is certainly not Good to get the child killed due to hubris in trying to get everyone out.

It is certainly Good to risk one's own life to save others (though it may be more Good to survive depending), but it is certainly not Good to put others' lives at risk. In the case of the 30-or-1, the most Good answer is to let that 1 be the adventurer, as his life is the only one he is justified in risking.

Not evil to secure other people's lives. Evil to secure lives by taking an evil act to do so.

Getting the child out and then going back fits within what I'm saying is good because the fireman is trying to save both. Getting the child out by committing the act of killing the mother so she doesn't hold you back however would be evil. (In hindsight using zombies may have been a better way of illustrating the point rather than fire).

To me it seems like most people take issue with the hero being evil. I am not saying being evil means you don't care. Simply that you are willing to commit evil acts for the greater good. There are many many evil heroes by this definition.

The good person however is held to a greater moral standard. How many of you if given a knife and a small child could actually kill them in the name of the greater good? Now take that sense of morality, because most people are neutral at best, and apply it to someone with the cliché levels of hero. We are talking superman. Power rangers. The knights in fairy tales. And tell me how many of them would kill someone willingly for the 'greater good'

Hell they even regularly let the villian live. The villian who always escapes and is a direct threat to many lives. If there ever was a situation for killing one to save many that would be the time to take it.

The punisher however does what needs to be done for the greater good. A dead villian is no longer a threat to the innocent. He is doing the greatest good for the greatest numbers but using evil acts to achieve this.

[Formless Entity]

The fallacy is about insisting that there must be a compromise based on the fact that there should be a compromise (circular logic at its based). My insisting on there being a solution somewhere in the middle is because both positions supplied were extreme and both had problems that failed to account for everything. Establishing absolute values for lives and refusing to establish values are both unsustainable in my eyes.

"My insisting on there being a solution somewhere in the middle..."

Okay so that means that you are about to explain why you think the other sides are extreme right?

"..is because both positions supplied were extreme.."

D*** it....

"..and both had problems that failed to account for everything."

Such as?

[Formless Entity]

Not evil to secure other people's lives. Evil to secure lives by taking an evil act to do so.

Getting the child out and then going back fits within what I'm saying is good because the fireman is trying to save both. Getting the child out by committing the act of killing the mother so she doesn't hold you back however would be evil. (In hindsight using zombies may have been a better way of illustrating the point rather than fire).

To me it seems like most people take issue with the hero being evil. I am not saying being evil means you don't care. Simply that you are willing to commit evil acts for the greater good. There are many many evil heroes by this definition.

The good person however is held to a greater moral standard. How many of you if given a knife and a small child could actually kill them in the name of the greater good? Now take that sense of morality, because most people are neutral at best, and apply it to someone with the cliché levels of hero. We are talking superman. Power rangers. The knights in fairy tales. And tell me how many of them would kill someone willingly for the 'greater good'

Hell they even regularly let the villian live. The villian who always escapes and is a direct threat to many lives. If there ever was a situation for killing one to save many that would be the time to take it.

The punisher however does what needs to be done for the greater good. A dead villian is no longer a threat to the innocent. He is doing the greatest good for the greatest numbers but using evil acts to achieve this.

You define acts instead of intentions as good and evil.

What is the basis for this?

[Formless Entity]

I'm not trying to be a prick here. I don't know what this means. Just be specific or quote me if necessary. I never posted "my" ideology. You keep adding context that isn't there.



Yes. This was intentional. It was a response to your ad hominem. Remember this: "You go around flaunting that your system of morality is right and others are wrong based on the idea that judging a life's worth is wrong while you in your own post do so several times"?

Ad hominem. So I did the same in return in order to illustrate the point. I'm glad you caught it. Now hopefully you see that mine was intentional. The fact that you've accused me seems to imply that yours was accidental.



Oh, I see. Unsolicited advice. I see that etiquette is alive and well.



I've already done that. Lead a horse to water, you know? You need to realize that I've refuted you twice. If you can't be bothered to go back and read it, that's fine with me. But don't claim that you've refuted my points. Just say you don't care.

Perhaps I cannot be bothered to go back and read through every last post of your rhetoric just so I can debunk on of your points I missed for you to say that is not the one you are looking for.

If you have a point you truly want to make tell me it now. Otherwise it would be you rather try to "win" a debate then you finding out who is correct.

[Regitnui]

I'd normally not touch this sort of toxicity with a 10-foot pole, since at least one side in this argument has devolved to the usual internet standard of "shut up, I'm right". I did however feel obliged to wade in by the below amalgamation of letters screaming to be put right;


phrasing it to squew the perspective of things.

It's correctly spelled "skew", wunderkind. I'm not sure where you got that spelling from, but it's really unpronounceable. Now I'll leave, without trying to clear up any of the chronic misunderstanding and let this argument boil down to the angry puffs of smoke it really is.

[LordVonDerp]

Not really you know for the case of this example it would stop the train. The difference occurs because of the act of directly taking someone's life: pushing them. And indirectly: flicking a switch which then causes death

I think you'll find that people have a hard time letting go of their preconceptions. Though yes, the mentality that indirect action somehow makes you less responsible for the outcome is certainly to blame as well.

[LordVonDerp]

The problem with the utilitarian approach to moral dilemmas, specifically in which X lives are weighed against Y lives, is that lives are not measured in the same discrete quantifiable fashion as commodities, at least not by a good person.

You cannot say that 1 million lives are more important than one, nor can you say that one life is more important than 1 million. That's not how the value of lives is measured.


That's an ...interesting idea, but unfortunately moral dilemmas almost by definition force you to make such a call.

[wunderkid]

You define acts instead of intentions as good and evil.

What is the basis for this?

Because the best intentions in the world doesn't stop butchering an innocent person a good thing.

[wunderkid]

I'd normally not touch this sort of toxicity with a 10-foot pole, since at least one side in this argument has devolved to the usual internet standard of "shut up, I'm right". I did however feel obliged to wade in by the below amalgamation of letters screaming to be put right;



It's correctly spelled "skew", wunderkind. I'm not sure where you got that spelling from, but it's really unpronounceable. Now I'll leave, without trying to clear up any of the chronic misunderstanding and let this argument boil down to the angry puffs of smoke it really is.

Oh noes I spelt something wrong on the interwebs I will now go commit Seppuku from the shame. Thank you oh great noble keyboard warrior for refusing to provide any valid input on the topic being discussed and instead pursuing the great task of pointing out spelling errors and denouncing a discussion you don't have the faculties to engage in as puffs of smoke. Truly bravo.

To be fair to myself it was like 4am and I was knees deep in a 12 hour night shift at the airport while arguing moral stand points. Squew felt right at the time. Phonetically it works too. And you knew what I meant. So all in all not exactly the worst typo one could make.

[LordVonDerp]

If we can point to a single act and say, without a doubt, that it is evil, regardless of who is observing it and under what circumstances, then we have a pretty solid basis to begin a discussion about morality that is objective.
Anytime someone tries to do this someone inevitably thinks of a situation where said action is the right choice

[mgshamster]

All these logical fallacy arguments. Ah, I remember those days. I remember being a freshman in college, just having passed my logics course, and throwing around logical fallacies at people as if that made them wrong and me right.

A bit of advice from someone who used to teach college students:

Pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't make someone wrong, it just means that the path they took to an answer may have been wrong or inconsistent or illogical. Interestingly, there's an actual logical fallacy for believing that someone is wrong because they used a logical fallacy. It's called the logical fallacy fallacy, which always makes me smile. Alternatively, it's called the argument from fallacy - it's the idea that just because someone has a logical fallacy in their argument, it means they're wrong.

In addition to all that, consistently pointing out logical fallacies to others in an informal conversation like this doesn't make you right, it makes you an ass. Remember, you're on a forum about a game - a roleplaying game where the primary purpose is to have fun and create enjoyment. And not just a forum about a game, but one hosted on a comic website. If your style of conversation doesn't mesh with creating enjoyment or discussing the game in ways that can help someone enhance their enjoyment of the game, then you're not going to make many friends here.

If you truly want to get into the types of debates that are going on in this thread, instead of accusing people of doing something, you should instead try to understand what they're trying to say from their perspective. Once you've done that, then you can consider it from your perspective to see if it aligns with your viewpoints. If it does, then you're actually in agreement and all this bickering back and forth is irrelevant. If it doesn't, then you should see why (or possibly see if your view point was wrong somehow). Once you understand why, you can present your own arguments for why you believe it to be wrong.

This will improve your own understanding, help others improve their understanding, and allow for the conversation to move forward in a meaningful manner rather than have a bunch of people yelling "fallacy!" at each other.

With all that said, here's something to consider in light of the topic of the thread:

On earth, every moral system we talk about is going to be subjective in some way. In D&D, if you want to kow what good and evil are, cast Contact Other Plane and ask an outsider. Good and evil are quantifiable things in D&D, because there's actual magic that interacts with it. Do note that no matter what your alignment is as a PC (or a mortal), it doesn't really matter in terms of things like Detect/Protection from Evil and Good. Most alignment mechanics don't matter for mortals. So if you're going to talk about absolutes - you would find better purchase with your arguments to discuss it in terms of the game rather than reality. If you're going to discuss reality, you may find your arguments work better if you argue from a cultural perspective.

Personally, I believe our morals come from a mix of evolution, biology, and culture. There are parts of the brain that guide how we view morality - such as the size/activity of the accumbens nucleus (I had to re-look that up, can never remember that name), which determines how much self sacrifice a person is willing to engage in. There was an interesting study published a few years back that showed greater activity in that portion of the brain in people whice engaged in heroic actions. A different study showed that there was less activity (or a smaller size) in people who were psychopaths. Here, we have some evidence that a morality which is often tied to "good" is actually dependent on neurobiology.

There's even been some interesting neurological studies around the trolley problem.

But as far as the game goes - morality is objective in terms of the planes, it can be subjective for mortals, but if the world has a mechanic by which mortals are judged before their souls go to the afterlife (such as some deity judges them and then sends their soul to one of the outer planes) then it's objective for the mortals as far as that deity is concerned. If that deity (or whatever the judgement machankc is) can decide what it good/evil, then it's subjective for them; if that judgement mechanic is unable to decide and is forced by some universal/multiversal principle, then it's objective.

[BurgerBeast]

That's an ...interesting idea, but unfortunately moral dilemmas almost by definition force you to make such a call.

No, they don't, and that's my point. I think even you are somewhat aware of this because you hedged your claim with "almost." It's true that moral dilemmas are designed to exert pressure and force a decision. For me, that's the trick of moral dilemmas.

We are human beings, and we have the power to choose and act as we see fit. The illusion that there is no choice, or (worse) that a bad choice can be excused because the alternative is worse, is what allows some people to excuse and/or justify immoral behaviour. So, even in the classic dilemma where you are given a gun and told to shoot either your mother or your sister, because if you don't, the madman who is posing this choice will kill them both, it is still immoral to shoot your mother or your sister, and doing so will be your fault. And as hard as it is for some people to accept, choosing to shoot neither person, even if it results in both your mother or sister dying, will not be your fault because you never murdered anyone. It will be all the madman's fault. Every time. You will feel guilt, sure, but the guilt you feel will also be the madman's fault.

So while I still think there is value in discussing moral dilemmas, ultimately they are designed to increase the pressure to the point that you lose sight of who is morally culpable and for what. Once you start to blame one person for the actions of another person, you have abandoned any reasonable sense of morality (despite what the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption has to say on this).

[Regitnui]

denouncing a discussion you don't have the faculties to engage in as puffs of smoke. Truly bravo.

To be fair to myself it was like 4am and I was knees deep in a 12 hour night shift at the airport while arguing moral stand points. Squew felt right at the time. Phonetically it works too. And you knew what I meant. So all in all not exactly the worst typo one could make.

Firstly, I choose not to engage in the argument, since it's not going anywhere. Whether or not there's an absolute alignment in D&D varies on campaign setting, table, DM and even individual players. Trying to argue a personal opinion from an objective standpoint is only marginally more productive than trying to counter a hurricane by blowing on it. It's more that I don't want to get involved, not that I "don't have the faculties to engage in" it.

OK, if it was 4AM, then it's fine. I had never seen that particular misspelling before, so I added it to my personal database. If you'd misspelled it "scu", "sku", "squ" or "sque", I wouldn't have said anything at all.

[RickAllison]

Firstly, I choose not to engage in the argument, since it's not going anywhere. Whether or not there's an absolute alignment in D&D varies on campaign setting, table, DM and even individual players. Trying to argue a personal opinion from an objective standpoint is only marginally more productive than trying to counter a hurricane by blowing on it. It's more that I don't want to get involved, not that I "don't have the faculties to engage in" it.

OK, if it was 4AM, then it's fine. I had never seen that particular misspelling before, so I added it to my personal database. If you'd misspelled it "scu", "sku", "squ" or "sque", I wouldn't have said anything at all.

And SKU would have been the correct spelling for a homophone!

Also, it doesn't make much sense from a phonetic standpoint. The structure "qu" functions as the "kw" sound in most cases and (barring words appropriated from other languages like Quran and queue) always at the beginning of words. So phonetically, squew would be more generally pronounced "skwoo".

Yes, I'm a little bit of an English nerd.

[Regitnui]

Yes, I'm a little bit of an English nerd.

Yeah, so am I. It's why I dropped in.

[smcmike]

We are human beings, and we have the power to choose and act as we see fit. The illusion that there is no choice, or (worse) that a bad choice can be excused because the alternative is worse, is what allows some people to excuse and/or justify immoral behaviour. So, even in the classic dilemma where you are given a gun and told to shoot either your mother or your sister, because if you don't, the madman who is posing this choice will kill them both, it is still immoral to shoot your mother or your sister, and doing so will be your fault. And as hard as it is for some people to accept, choosing to shoot neither person, even if it results in both your mother or sister dying, will not be your fault because you never murdered anyone. It will be all the madman's fault. Every time. You will feel guilt, sure, but the guilt you feel will also be the madman's fault.

Including the madman (a second moral agent), a weapon, and personal relationships complicates the matter. This is why I like the classic train problem (as stated by wunderkid earlier) better.

So what's your stance there? Flipping the switch to redirect the train from five to one is thought to be correct by 9/10 people. Do you disagree?


For what it's worth, I think you are right that you are always at fault for what you do. I also happen to think that you are at fault for inaction. There's plenty of fault to go around!

[LordVonDerp]

Not really. The key word you used is probably. When you say "ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die." You're twisting the scenario and phrasing it to squew the perspective of things. When the situation is:

Trying to save both people instead of leaving someone do die.

The odds may be against you but you won't let someone die when you have the chance to save them
Actually the scenario is:
Save one person, leaving the other to die
VERSUS
Try to save both and leave both to die.

[pwykersotz]

For what it's worth, I think you are right that you are always at fault for what you do. I also happen to think that you are at fault for inaction. There's plenty of fault to go around!

Interesting! So in this view, you are both morally responsible for the choices of others (the madman set up this train problem and loaded the choice to you, and by your inaction you are culpable) AND yourself (you choose to redirect that train and you have caused that single man's death). That makes it pretty tough to be moral.

[smcmike]

Interesting! So in this view, you are both morally responsible for the choices of others (the madman set up this train problem and loaded the choice to you, and by your inaction you are culpable) AND yourself (you choose to redirect that train and you have caused that single man's death). That makes it pretty tough to be moral.

Anyone who says it is easy is a liar.

If anything, this stance leads me to be too forgiving. If everyone is always at fault, condemning a particular sin is hard. For example, in the train scenario, as a neutral observer, I wouldn't condemn the choice-maker, no matter what choice they made. If it were me, I think I would pull the switch, and wouldn't push the large man.

[LordVonDerp]

We are human beings, and we have the power to choose and act as we see fit. The illusion that there is no choice, or (worse) that a bad choice can be excused because the alternative is worse, is what allows some people to excuse and/or justify immoral behaviour.

So, even in the classic dilemma where you are given a gun and told to shoot either your mother or your sister, because if you don't, the madman who is posing this choice will kill them both, it is still immoral to shoot your mother or your sister, and doing so will be your fault. And as hard as it is for some people to accept, choosing to shoot neither person, even if it results in both your mother or sister dying, will not be your fault because you never murdered anyone. It will be all the madman's fault. Every time. You will feel guilt, sure, but the guilt you feel will also be the madman's fault.
...
. Once you start to blame one person for the actions of another person, you have abandoned any reasonable sense of morality (despite what the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption has to say on this).

In this scenario there are three possible actions you can take:

Kill the mother
Kill the sister
Order the madman to kill both

You are responsible for whichever action you take, no matter who pulls the trigger.

[RickAllison]

In this scenario there are three possible actions you can take:

Kill the mother
Kill the sister
Order the madman to kill both

You are responsible for whichever action you take, no matter who pulls the trigger.

Or (depending on the situation and if the madman is an idiot), shoot the madman.

[pwykersotz]

Anyone who says it is easy is a liar.

If anything, this stance leads me to be too forgiving. If everyone is always at fault, condemning a particular sin is hard. For example, in the train scenario, as a neutral observer, I wouldn't condemn the choice-maker, no matter what choice they made. If it were me, I think I would pull the switch, and wouldn't push the large man.

Ha! True words there.

Out of curiosity, what's to prevent someone from turning it on its head and saying "well, we're all at fault anyway, might as well do what I want and have the same blame"? I totally get how it works as a personal code and encourages mercy and forgiveness, but does it work for encouraging that behavior in others?

[LordVonDerp]

No, they don't, and that's my point. I think even you are somewhat aware of this because you hedged your claim with "almost." It's true that moral dilemmas are designed to exert pressure and force a decision. For me, that's the trick of moral dilemmas.

No, I needed to use the word "almost" because not all moral dilemmas involve lives.

[wunderkid]

Actually the scenario is:
Save one person, leaving the other to die
VERSUS
Try to save both and leave both to die.

Or you know try to save one but possibly let both die.

Or try to save both and possibly save two lives.

You can try to word it however you like but trying to save both lives is always going to be the good option over letting someone die who you could save.

This has also tangented away from my actual point which would be more along the lines of actually killing the one person to save the other is where it's an immoral act. Simply being unable to save both wouldn't be immoral. Doesn't mean you wouldn't try. But taking an evil action to save a life doesn't convert that action into a good one.

[Formless Entity]

Because the best intentions in the world doesn't stop butchering an innocent person a good thing.

You say acts are good and evil not intentions and then say this is correct by declaring an act evil.

That is circular logic.

[Formless Entity]

Because the best intentions in the world doesn't stop butchering an innocent person a good thing.


Perhaps I cannot be bothered to go back and read through every last post of your rhetoric just so I can debunk on of your points I missed for you to say that is not the one you are looking for.

If you have a point you truly want to make tell me it now. Otherwise it would be you rather try to "win" a debate then you finding out who is correct.

You ignored this.

Typical...

No matter what points I make you will respond with rhetoric. Im done with you.

[wunderkid]

You say acts are good and evil not intentions and then say this is correct by declaring an act evil.

That is circular logic.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what circular logic is...

I made a claim. And then supported that claim with an example. That's not circular.

The serial killer who is mentally deranged and honestly believes that if he doesn't ritualistically kill all these people then the world will end and all people will die.

A perfect example of a good intention. The intention being the greatest good for the greatest number. By the argument you gave he is good by every definition. He isn't acting out of greed or enjoying the killing. He is acting with the greatest good as his intention.

Intention can not be the deciding factor when it comes to good and evil.

Now an argument does exist that some kind of compromise has to exist between intent and action. Because if you knew that helping old ladies cross the road would result in the end of the world then that would be a good act with evil intent. So this will likely take a form similar to how dominant and recessive genes work. Where Evil is dominant and good recessive.

Good intention with good acts - good.
good intent with evil act - evil.
Evil intent with good acts - evil.
Evil intent with evil acts - evil.

Being good is hard. Far harder than being evil.

[smcmike]

The serial killer who is mentally deranged and honestly believes that if he doesn't ritualistically kill all these people then the world will end and all people will die.

A perfect example of a good intention. The intention being the greatest good for the greatest number. By the argument you gave he is good by every definition. He isn't acting out of greed or enjoying the killing. He is acting with the greatest good as his intention.

Perhaps this is a side question, but is a deranged person really capable of moral agency? In D&D there isn't a ton of support for this question, but, by analogy, animals are neutral, even animals that kill and eat babies, presumably because we don't assign them moral agency. Similarly, there's a long tradition of not placing moral culpability on the insane - they know not what they do.


Still, this is a good avenue of critique of utilitarianism - the knowledge problem is enormous. Who can know what will do the greatest good for the greatest number?

[wunderkid]

Perhaps this is a side question, but is a deranged person really capable of moral agency? In D&D there isn't a ton of support for this question, but, by analogy, animals are neutral, even animals that kill and eat babies, presumably because we don't assign them moral agency. Similarly, there's a long tradition of not placing moral culpability on the insane - they know not what they do.


Still, this is a good avenue of critique of utilitarianism - the knowledge problem is enormous. Who can know what will do the greatest good for the greatest number?


take this serial killer and now place him in aztec times where he would no longer be mentally deranged. He would in fact be a functioning member of society due to the fact ritualistic sacrifices were common place to preserve the world. His belief when shared by many makes him responsible for his actions, but when shared by none not morally responsible.

You could even go and look at suicide bombers. Because they are not alone in their beliefs, what they do isn't widely considered mentally insane (Although it could well be argued that it is, however dying following your beliefs has occured throughout history at a startling frequency this is however an entirely different can of worms so I'll not dwell here) but it is considered evil by most people in our civilisation. But obviously its considered good by extremists.

Simply having a shared belief creates a social construct where the intention is used to justify the act and therefore considered good by people who agree with the intent.

As people it is impossible for us to define morality this discussion proves it. My version is clearly different from others.

However from a role play perspective. Being the omniscient gods that we are. We can set ridged definitions for what constitutes an evil act. And then our character can follow this omniscient code that had been set my the one true God (the GM) and it makes the allignment system work. Which now I'd say is still mainly dependant on the act itself however I'll gladly concede that intention does play a part (see previous post).

[Formless Entity]

Perhaps this is a side question, but is a deranged person really capable of moral agency? In D&D there isn't a ton of support for this question, but, by analogy, animals are neutral, even animals that kill and eat babies, presumably because we don't assign them moral agency. Similarly, there's a long tradition of not placing moral culpability on the insane - they know not what they do.


Still, this is a good avenue of critique of utilitarianism - the knowledge problem is enormous. Who can know what will do the greatest good for the greatest number?

Doing what you think is the greatest good for the greatest number.

I judge by intent not action.

[smcmike]

Doing what you think is the greatest good for the greatest number.

I judge by intent not action.

Fair enough, and this clarifies wunderkid's point for me.

Let's say you are being asked to judge the actions of two other people. Both of them are doing what they think is the greatest good for the greatest number. One of them is correct, and the other is terribly mistaken, and is actually harming a great number of people.

Are their actions morally equivalent to you, the neutral observer, who can see the outcome?


Also, while we are at it, what is "good" and how is it measured and who (or what) gets included in the "number?"

[Formless Entity]

Fair enough, and this clarifies wunderkid's point for me.

Let's say you are being asked to judge the actions of two other people. Both of them are doing what they think is the greatest good for the greatest number. One of them is correct, and the other is terribly mistaken, and is actually harming a great number of people.

Are their actions morally equivalent to you, the neutral observer, who can see the outcome?


Also, while we are at it, what is "good" and how is it measured and who (or what) gets included in the "number?"

The person who caused a bad act should be given a punishment (not a life-sentence or a death-sentence) to teach him that his action has to be ramified in society due to us not always knowing people's intent. This punishment should be designed primarily to teach him what he did wrong and what he should change.

[Formless Entity]

take this serial killer and now place him in aztec times where he would no longer be mentally deranged. He would in fact be a functioning member of society due to the fact ritualistic sacrifices were common place to preserve the world. His belief when shared by many makes him responsible for his actions, but when shared by none not morally responsible.

You could even go and look at suicide bombers. Because they are not alone in their beliefs, what they do isn't widely considered mentally insane (Although it could well be argued that it is, however dying following your beliefs has occured throughout history at a startling frequency this is however an entirely different can of worms so I'll not dwell here) but it is considered evil by most people in our civilisation. But obviously its considered good by extremists.

Simply having a shared belief creates a social construct where the intention is used to justify the act and therefore considered good by people who agree with the intent.

As people it is impossible for us to define morality this discussion proves it. My version is clearly different from others.

However from a role play perspective. Being the omniscient gods that we are. We can set ridged definitions for what constitutes an evil act. And then our character can follow this omniscient code that had been set my the one true God (the GM) and it makes the allignment system work. Which now I'd say is still mainly dependant on the act itself however I'll gladly concede that intention does play a part (see previous post).

I am having a growing suspicion that you follow the divine command model of ethics.

[smcmike]

The person who caused a bad act should be given a punishment (not a life-sentence or a death-sentence) to teach him that his action has to be ramified in society due to us not always knowing people's intent. This punishment should be designed primarily to teach him what he did wrong and what he should change.

So you aren't really interested in intent, then, only outcome. That's more consistent.

Why not a life or death sentence, exactly? What if the evidence showed that harsh penalties for specific crimes were extremely effective deterrents, and through a bit of math we can see that by deterring these crimes, we increase the overall good, even if we have to torture a few people to death to make the point?

[wunderkid]

I am having a growing suspicion that you follow the divine command model of ethics.

For a gaming system where the existence of a God who sets what is morally correct and incorrect whom I sit next to and know as Ryan. Yes I completely subscribe to the divine command model of ethics. Because that's what exists in an rpg with a GM. His word is literally law. This is the point I've been making all along, that setting these divine commands should come at the start of the game as dictated by the GM and players if necessary so that what constitutes good and evil is defined.

In real life as I've said before morality is far far more murky. I most certainly do not believe that God defines morality as I am not even slightly religious. But with many more social and logical issues surrounding it you could argue morality in the real world until the cows came home because there is no divine being morality warps and changes entirely dependant on location and time period, but we aren't looking at applying a fixed real world definition of good and evil (which as everyone has proven is impossible). We are looking at what system best suits a game between objective and subjective.

Intent alone most certainly does not work and neither does purely act. But a mixture of the two can create a much better picture where evil within either act or intent creates an evil situation. (Again see previous posts)

But in a world where a being of absolute power exists and decides everything then absolutely the divine command model of ethics is the only one that works to support a mechanical system.

[wunderkid]

The person who caused a bad act should be given a punishment (not a life-sentence or a death-sentence) to teach him that his action has to be ramified in society due to us not always knowing people's intent. This punishment should be designed primarily to teach him what he did wrong and what he should change.

So the person in this example is attempting to cure cancer, but accidentally creates a new virus that kills a fair number of people.

How should he be punished? What should he change? Is trying to cure cancer now an evil thing?

Edit: my bad I think I misread the earlier point so I'm not sure this follows the correct chain of thought. For my point this has neither evil act not intentions so by my standpoint it is not evil regardless of the outcome.

[LordVonDerp]

You have the right to believe any wrong thing you want.

My original post was written in plain English. In response to it, you said:



I never said that. The burden of proof isn’t on me. It’s on you. Show me where I said it.

Since you can’t, it follows that you made up my argument for me. That is intellectual dishonesty.


No. You called the cornerstone of civilization evil, so you have to prove your case.
Also utilitarianism does not necessarily treat every life as equal.

[LordVonDerp]

But in a world where a being of absolute power exists and decides everything then absolutely the divine command model of ethics is the only one that works to support a mechanical system.

Okay, but DnD worlds don't have beings of absolute power: gods, DMs, or otherwise.

[Democratus]

Intent is what is needed to determine if a person is good or evil.

Outcome is what is needed to determine if an action was beneficial or detrimental.

The two are separate from each other in determination.

[pwykersotz]

Intent is what is needed to determine if a person is good or evil.

Outcome is what is needed to determine if an action was beneficial or detrimental.

The two are separate from each other in determination.

This is a fascinating perspective. So a truly good person could possibly live a life where he perpetrates countless evils, and a truly evil person could possibly better the people and society around him with every act. And most people will be a mixed bag, a combination of focusing on intent or actions. Society will usually judge them based on the actions, and friends will generally judge based on intent.

I like it. What do the gods judge?

[wunderkid]

Okay, but DnD worlds don't have beings of absolute power: gods, DMs, or otherwise.

So the DM doesn't have the power to decide on every single possible aspect with utmost final say? Because last I checked DMs could do exactly that. They can create anything. Or do anything. The players may not like it and it could destroy the game but that's the difference between a bad and good GM and not a reflection of their power. If a dm wants to he can bend or break the rules. He is literally a God who can create life and take it away. To say such a force doesn't exist within the DnD world is folly because it clearly does it sits at the table with you and the world dances at his or her whims.

Of course if your problem is that the DnD lore doesn't recognise a DM then well DnD worlds also don't have character sheets with allignments or D20s or bonus actions, initative or anything that exists as a mechanical standpoint. And as we are talking something that exists as a mechanic saying the GM doesn't exist carries about as much weight as saying neither do bananas.

[mgshamster]

Okay, but DnD worlds don't have beings of absolute power: gods, DMs, or otherwise.

True or not, D&D does have a source of objective morality/alignment: the outer planes. Each of the outer planes embodies one of the eight alignments (excluding neutral), with another outer plane for the shades between the alignments, for a total of 16 planes. And then there's the Outlands for the neutral alignment.

One way to determine your alignment is to physically visit an outer plane. If you feel in tune with that plane, you're of that alignment. If you feel a profound sort of dissonance, then your alignment does not match that plane's alignment. Kind of an in-character check.

So for the purposes of the game, I would say that alignment/morals are objective.

[BurgerBeast]

Perhaps I cannot be bothered to go back and read through every last post of your rhetoric just so I can debunk on of your points I missed for you to say that is not the one you are looking for.

If you have a point you truly want to make tell me it now. Otherwise it would be you rather try to "win" a debate then you finding out who is correct.

I’m talking about the first post I made in this thread. The one you bothered to read and then attempted to criticize, but failed. I’m not hiding anywhere. That’s the beauty of the forum. People can read it and see the truth for themselves.

I’ve addressed every post you directed me. You’ve ignored more than one of mine.

In the short few posts you’ve made here I would quite happily wager a large sum of money on your (1) not having a master’s degree in ethics, or (2) having earned said degree from a community college, online university, or religious university. Having a masters in philosophy and repeatedly making the types of mistakes you’re making would be the equivalent of having a degree in mathematics and being incapable of arithmetic.


(Directed at wunderkid)

You ignored this.

Typical...

No matter what points I make you will respond with rhetoric. Im done with you.

He probably ignored it because you were talking to me when you said it. Just admit you are wrong here and apologize, or be deservedly accused of being a complete fool. At the very least your inability to read and follow your own conversations is inexcusably sloppy. If you don’t care enough to follow along, then why should anyone care what you have to say?


I think you'll find that people have a hard time letting go of their preconceptions. Though yes, the mentality that indirect action somehow makes you less responsible for the outcome is certainly to blame as well.

How you can claim the opposite seems absurd to me.


Anytime someone tries to do this someone inevitably thinks of a situation where said action is the right choice

Not so. The torture of another sentient being solely for the purpose of amusement is often pointed to as universally evil.


In this scenario there are three possible actions you can take:

Kill the mother
Kill the sister
Order the madman to kill both

You are responsible for whichever action you take, no matter who pulls the trigger.

You’re wrong. I can choose to do nothing. There are a number of other things I can do, too. I can plead with the madman. I can wrestle the madman for his gun. There are plenty of other options.


No, I needed to use the word "almost" because not all moral dilemmas involve lives.

My point remains. Moral dilemmas are designed to create the illusion of lack of choice and to relocate blame by playing on guilt.


No. You called the cornerstone of civilization evil, so you have to prove your case.

I did no such thing.


Also utilitarianism does not necessarily treat every life as equal.

Inever said it does.


(Wall of text)

Yep, your advice is pretty spot on. But I’ve never had a problem engaging such pigheadedness on it’s own level. If someone wants to be belligerent, it’s always illustrative to dish a little back. A bit like agreeing to fight the prick at the bar who threatens everyone but never expects anyone to agree to a fight.

But I do think there is objective morality in real life. One of the nuances that I think people often overlook is that subjective phenomena can’t, in principle, be studied. All of the raditional subjects exist because they are our best ways of learning objective truth.


So what's your stance there? Flipping the switch to redirect the train from five to one is thought to be correct by 9/10 people. Do you disagree?

I think the moment you choose to switch or not switch the train, you are committing an evil. Because that’s the point where intention enters the problem. At that point, you are making a conscious choice to kill someone, without (to my mind) a morally justifiable reason. So anyone in that situation should do everything they can to save everyone, and in so doing they would be doing the morally correct thing, regardless of outcome.


For what it's worth, I think you are right that you are always at fault for what you do. I also happen to think that you are at fault for inaction. There's plenty of fault to go around!

I’m not sure where I stand on inaction. For instance, why should I be any more at fault for the train not switching tracks than if I was never there? Another question: how “close” do you have to be to the action to be culpable? Are we all evil because we’re allowing the third world to starve? Does that make us all evil? Do we have to be close enough to make a difference? Does that mean that people who pay more attention to their surroundings are circumstantially more likely to be evil because they are more aware of those who need help?

[smcmike]

I think the moment you choose to switch or not switch the train, you are committing an evil. Because that’s the point where intention enters the problem. At that point, you are making a conscious choice to kill someone, without (to my mind) a morally justifiable reason. So anyone in that situation should do everything they can to save everyone, and in so doing they would be doing the morally correct thing, regardless of outcome.


In this scenario, you've already seen the possibilities. The switch is at hand and the choice has to be made. There is no time to think of some other solution - this choice has been presented to you, and whatever you do, you will be aware that you either pulled or did not pull the lever, with full knowledge of the consequences. Sucks, but that's life sometimes.



I’m not sure where I stand on inaction. For instance, why should I be any more at fault for the train not switching tracks than if I was never there? Another question: how “close” do you have to be to the action to be culpable? Are we all evil because we’re allowing the third world to starve? Does that make us all evil? Do we have to be close enough to make a difference? Does that mean that people who pay more attention to their surroundings are circumstantially more likely to be evil because they are more aware of those who need help?

These are good questions. The first answer, I think, is that you are responsible because the choice was presented to you, just as we are all responsible for all of the choices presented to us.

I don't know if we are all evil. Maybe? I know I'm implicated in a lot of horrors as a meat-eating member of the first world consumer class. On the other hand, I don't accept the strict utilitarian argument that proximity doesn't matter at all, best presented by Dickens in Bleak House in the character of Mrs. Jellyby.

[BurgerBeast]

In this scenario, you've already seen the possibilities. The switch is at hand and the choice has to be made. There is no time to think of some other solution - this choice has been presented to you, and whatever you do, you will be aware that you either pulled or did not pull the lever, with full knowledge of the consequences. Sucks, but that's life sometimes.

My stance is still that it is not my fault that the people will die. I did not tie them to the tracks. Someone did. That someone is to blame. If I change the direction of the train, then I chose to direct the train at innocents. The fact that it is already may be true, but there is no possible way you can blame me for it. I never started the train moving, and I never tied anyone to the tracks. I have no moral responsibility for what is about to occur until I choose to act, and in this way, acting will be an intentional action to commit an evil.



These are good questions. The first answer, I think, is that you are responsible because the choice was presented to you, just as we are all responsible for all of the choices presented to us.

I don't accept this. The consequence of this line of thinking is that someone else can me present me with choices and thereby guarantee that I do an evil thing. I reject this. I find it to be an ill-guided view. I am not responsible for the choices presented to me. The person who enacted or presented the choice is responsible. I am responsible for my own choices and actions. I do not recognize the right of anyone to force me to choose anything. That is a fundamental principle of autonomy, as far as I am concerned.


I don't know if we are all evil. Maybe? I know I'm implicated in a lot of horrors as a meat-eating member of the first world consumer class. On the other hand, I don't accept the strict utilitarian argument that proximity doesn't matter at all, best presented by Dickens in Bleak House in the character of Mrs. Jellyby.

I'm sorry to say that I don't know the reference. Is it utilitarian to say that proximity doesn't matter?

[Malifice]

Since in this scenario I am saying that the hero knows with 100% Certainty that he can save thirty innocents by killing one innocent then if he decides to try to save them both when there is not a clear way to do it then he is putting 30 lives at risk.

Which is of course, impossible.


If being good is risking 30 lives to try to save 1 then being good equates to being illogical.

Morality isnt logical. Ask Batman or Superman. Be a hell of a lot more pragmatic to simply snap Luthor or the Jokers necks and get on with it.

If you want to be pragmatic, you can be, but you're probably not good.

Look at the Punisher. He's highly 'pragmatic'. Hes also evil though.

[Formless Entity]

So you aren't really interested in intent, then, only outcome. That's more consistent.

Why not a life or death sentence, exactly? What if the evidence showed that harsh penalties for specific crimes were extremely effective deterrents, and through a bit of math we can see that by deterring these crimes, we increase the overall good, even if we have to torture a few people to death to make the point?

Incorrect.

I think the justice system should be based on outcome. But someone's morality comes from intent.

[Formless Entity]

Which is of course, impossible.



Morality isnt logical. Ask Batman or Superman. Be a hell of a lot more pragmatic to simply snap Luthor or the Jokers necks and get on with it.

If you want to be pragmatic, you can be, but you're probably not good.

Look at the Punisher. He's highly 'pragmatic'. Hes also evil though.

Are you seriously quoting fictional characters as good moral examples?

[Formless Entity]

My stance is still that it is not my fault that the people will die. I did not tie them to the tracks. Someone did. That someone is to blame. If I change the direction of the train, then I chose to direct the train at innocents. The fact that it is already may be true, but there is no possible way you can blame me for it. I never started the train moving, and I never tied anyone to the tracks. I have no moral responsibility for what is about to occur until I choose to act, and in this way, acting will be an intentional action to commit an evil.


With that logic that mean that not giving CPR when you know how to is not an evil act.

[Formless Entity]

I’m talking about the first post I made in this thread. The one you bothered to read and then attempted to criticize, but failed. I’m not hiding anywhere. That’s the beauty of the forum. People can read it and see the truth for themselves.

I’ve addressed every post you directed me. You’ve ignored more than one of mine.

In the short few posts you’ve made here I would quite happily wager a large sum of money on your (1) not having a master’s degree in ethics, or (2) having earned said degree from a community college, online university, or religious university. Having a masters in philosophy and repeatedly making the types of mistakes you’re making would be the equivalent of having a degree in mathematics and being incapable of arithmetic.


Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy.

Do you know what that means?

Of course you do not care, because you do not care if you are correct.


You care about "winning".

[Formless Entity]

Morality isnt logical.

Evidence please.

[smcmike]

My stance is still that it is not my fault that the people will die. I did not tie them to the tracks. Someone did. That someone is to blame. If I change the direction of the train, then I chose to direct the train at innocents. The fact that it is already may be true, but there is no possible way you can blame me for it. I never started the train moving, and I never tied anyone to the tracks. I have no moral responsibility for what is about to occur until I choose to act, and in this way, acting will be an intentional action to commit an evil.

I don't accept this. The consequence of this line of thinking is that someone else can me present me with choices and thereby guarantee that I do an evil thing. I reject this. I find it to be an ill-guided view. I am not responsible for the choices presented to me. The person who enacted or presented the choice is responsible. I am responsible for my own choices and actions. I do not recognize the right of anyone to force me to choose anything. That is a fundamental principle of autonomy, as far as I am concerned.

No one tied anyone to the train tracks. They are working there, obliviously, and it's coming too fast for them to get out of the way.

The world doesn't care if you reject it. It just is, and you are responsible for living in it whether you reject it or not.



I'm sorry to say that I don't know the reference. Is it utilitarian to say that proximity doesn't matter?

If you like long novels, I highly recommend Bleak House.

But, generally, yes, utilitarianism rejects proximity as a valid factor in determining the greatest good. If you are able to do more good for strangers on the other side of the world than for your neighbors, you should help the strangers.


Incorrect.

I think the justice system should be based on outcome. But someone's morality comes from intent.

Ok, so is it ok to punish good people who have done nothing wrong if it causes a beneficial outcome?


Are you seriously quoting fictional characters as good moral examples?

Are you seriously suggesting there is something wrong with quoting fictional characters on a forum devoted to Dungeons and Dragons?

[The Zoat]

Ok, so is it ok to punish good people who have done nothing wrong if it causes a beneficial outcome?


I think yes to this is a perfectly viable position. Someone whom through no fault of their own is a danger to others on a sufficiently large scale should be prevented from doing so, even if that would 'punish' them.

[LordVonDerp]

So the DM doesn't have the power to decide on every single possible aspect with utmost final say? Because last I checked DMs could do exactly that.

Of course they can't, they answer to 4+ other people.

[Democratus]

This is a fascinating perspective. So a truly good person could possibly live a life where he perpetrates countless evils, and a truly evil person could possibly better the people and society around him with every act. And most people will be a mixed bag, a combination of focusing on intent or actions. Society will usually judge them based on the actions, and friends will generally judge based on intent.

I like it. What do the gods judge?

Quite true. I read a great short story once about a good person who had been tricked into doing great evil without his knowledge. He thought he was operating a machine that kept power going to the city but was really operating a machine that was killing thousands every day. When finally confronted by the resistance he had no idea why he was seen as a villain or was hated so much.

This is a fairly extreme example but it serves to point out that one's intentions are what makes the person good or evil, regardless of the outcome of the actions.

As for the gods. They don't control what is evil or good. Evil and good are absolutes in D&D. Even the gods aren't all powerful. They can be replaced, killed, created, etc.

Gods serve the portfolio and concept to which they are associated.

[LordVonDerp]

Not so. The torture of another sentient being solely for the purpose of amusement is often pointed to as universally evil.


Torture is an action. Torture for the sake of amusement is an action with an intent.



You’re wrong. I can choose to do nothing.

Of course you can choose to do nothing, but by doing so you are also choosing to order the execution of both people.



There are a number of other things I can do, too. I can plead with the madman. I can wrestle the madman for his gun. There are plenty of other options.


Maybe there are other options, though neither of your suggestions would work.




My point remains. Moral dilemmas are designed to create the illusion of lack of choice and to relocate blame by playing on guilt.
No they're designed to symbolize some element of real life.



I did no such thing.



Inever said it does.







Here'san excerpt from your original post:



Utilitarianism is evil in disguise because it places a value on human life (by making the claim that all lives are equal - it is not the place of humans to make such claims). Note that living one's life as though all humans are equal and following the golden rule are not immoral ways to behave. It's only when one is confronted with choices about life and death, and sees himself or herself as fit to make judgments about who shall live and who shall die, that he or she is committing an evil.

So yes, you did claim that utilitarianism treated all lives as equal, and that the cornerstone of civilization was evil.
Without judging the value of a life there can be no laws, no peace treaties, and no stability.

[RickAllison]

My stance is still that it is not my fault that the people will die. I did not tie them to the tracks. Someone did. That someone is to blame. If I change the direction of the train, then I chose to direct the train at innocents. The fact that it is already may be true, but there is no possible way you can blame me for it. I never started the train moving, and I never tied anyone to the tracks. I have no moral responsibility for what is about to occur until I choose to act, and in this way, acting will be an intentional action to commit an evil.




I don't accept this. The consequence of this line of thinking is that someone else can me present me with choices and thereby guarantee that I do an evil thing. I reject this. I find it to be an ill-guided view. I am not responsible for the choices presented to me. The person who enacted or presented the choice is responsible. I am responsible for my own choices and actions. I do not recognize the right of anyone to force me to choose anything. That is a fundamental principle of autonomy, as far as I am concerned.



I'm sorry to say that I don't know the reference. Is it utilitarian to say that proximity doesn't matter?

Actually, your arguments illustrate why I hate the alignment scale being called Good and Evil. I know it's a relic from earlier times, but a scale that used less charged words would be better, as it seems odd that someone can be Evil, but fighting for Good or Good, but fighting for Evil.

In the case of the train, the only Evil option available I see is doing something to ensure both groups were killed. This is because when you did this (or neglected to), you have made the choice to let everyone die. Choosing one or the other cannot be evil because you aren't removing life, you are choosing which lives that have been removed by the situation will be brought back. This can be neutral at worst, and could be good depending on why you choose which group you did (maybe the one person was a doctor who was finalizing a cure for a terrible disease that would save millions).

The "Take a Third Option" choices are where things get muddied, due to the intersection of actions and intents. If saving everyone is plausible, choosing a course of action with that as a result is a distinctly Good option. If it is not possible, but the person still tries while knowing that it is likely he will kill everyone, it is neutral in my eyes because he is allowing his pride to dictate his choices. For probabilities in the middle, it is harder to judge, but it isn't really Evil (unless the person actually wants them to die).

So there is my position. Moral dilemmas don't Good/Evil decisions, but rather Good/Neutral.

[Vogonjeltz]

Your idiom is off little consequence.

I'd have to disagree, it speaks directly to intentions on outcomes not mitigating evil acts. i.e. The Ends Do Not Justify The Means.


So are you saying the D&D world(s) runs on divine command theory?

I was clarifying why "Might Makes Right" is fallacious.


In those scenarios there was not only a choice between one person and thirty if there was a way to save them all.

I am talking about a situation where there is not a way to weasel out of it.


Since in this scenario I am saying that the hero knows with 100% Certainty that he can save thirty innocents by killing one innocent then if he decides to try to save them both when there is not a clear way to do it then he is putting 30 lives at risk.

If being good is risking 30 lives to try to save 1 then being good equates to being illogical.

First, maintaining a moral and ethical stance in the face of adversity isn't weaseling by any stretch of the imagination.

Second, the future is unknowable. The protagonist (let's reserve judgment on if they are a hero until they actually are one) can in no way ascertain that there's no means by which all can be saved.

Being good means attempting to help others, showing compassion, do no evil, etc...

You've taken to conflating Utilitarianism with Good, which is a categorically incorrect statement.


To your first point I would like to point out that this is a thought experiment.

To your second point I would like to point out that lawful=/=logical and doing what results in the greatest good for the greatest number is what is right. It is not being arrogant enough to try to do something you cannot and risk everyone else's lives to uphold your false sense of righteousness.

Again your interpretation would paint good aligned heros as people with good intentions but a huge problem with humility.

And unless this thought experiment takes place in a universe where the future is 100% knowable there's no meaningful benefit to be derived from acting as if there was. There's no purpose to a thought experiment where the outcome is without application.

Utilitarianism is bankrupt as a guiding principle in that the actual outcomes are unknowable, rendering any action morally void. The true hubris is claiming to know the outcomes when such is a lie. Doing harm to hope for good ends is foolish.


I understand this well having a master's degree in ethics.

However I would say that again.

Killing the one innocent to kill thirty innocents is the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it was not a 100% certainty that there was not a possible way to save all 31 and it was merely a very small chance that something else could be done.

I do not think it is ethical to put thirty innocent lives on the line.

So I ask you who accomplishes more?

The person who kills one innocent to save 30.

Or the persona who lets all 31 die because he did not accept the situation?

A) Appeal to Authority (I have a master's degree in blahdity blah) is a fairly well documented fallacy. Your reasoning is not better, or inherently correct because you are a person of perceived authority.

B) There is no choice beyond attempting to save someone, anyone, or not. How those people are saved is as much a moral choice as whether or not to act at all. By choosing evil means, the outcome is rendered evil. There are non-evil means to make the attempt; they may carry less weight with you, but that in no way invalidates the morality of the decision. If you choose to murder to achieve a goal, you've committed evil, period, there's no moral difference between crossing that threshold once or a thousand times.

C) There's no benefit to accomplishing more if one must partake in evil to do so.


Roman Law, Ancient Chinese Law, and the Law Code of Hammurabi all had such provisions.
More than that though a LG character values the stability and relative peace despite the sacrifices made to achieve it.

I'd posit this is more descriptive of the Lawful Neutral, adherance to the code at all costs, rather than Good.


Also you have yet to explain how doing the greatest good for the greatest number is an amoral viewpoint.

Outcome is irrelevent to the question of morality because outcome is unknowable.


So let's see how the scenario plays out by your logic. Two people are drowning and Elfangor has his hands on one. He figures that he could probably save this one if he abandoned the other, or he could try and save the other one and they would both probably die. By your line of thinking, ensuring at least one person survives is more evil than almost certainly letting both die.

This is distinct from the given scenario in that both are currently in danger, whereas in the original scenario one can only be removed from danger by forceably placing another in danger that they were not previously in.

i.e. One man is drowning, you can save him, but only by dragging another under water. There's nothing at all wrong with saving who you can in the time possible, but there would be something wrong about killing one to save another. (And before we get there, risking ones self is different than having someone else risk it for you).


Agreed, and in fact this is the place from which most views claiming that morality is objective begin. If we can point to a single act and say, without a doubt, that it is evil, regardless of who is observing it and under what circumstances, then we have a pretty solid basis to begin a discussion about morality that is objective.

Not all observerers necessarily understand morality (or ethics) well enough to correctly conclude on all counts. Some might even be using systems that have glaring logical flaws (Utilitarianism, Consequentialism), but carry on nevertheless.


You define acts instead of intentions as good and evil.

What is the basis for this?

That's how the word morality is defined in the english language.

Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Behavior: "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others."

Acts = Behavior = Morality. Didn't you say you have a Masters degree?


That's an ...interesting idea, but unfortunately moral dilemmas almost by definition force you to make such a call.

Except in the same way that one can not know the future, one can not know the value of the lives in peril. Without such information, any judgment call claiming to be based on the utility is, for good or ill, worthless.

[wunderkid]

Of course they can't, they answer to 4+ other people.

No they really don't. Rule one of role play games is the DM has final say. He may listen to other players. And if he choses to do what they are requesting and this largely dictates the difference between a good and bad GM. But at the end of the day the decision is 100% his.

So yes there is an omnipotent God, who may if he choses listen to other beings. But GM has final say. In a game if the GM at the table declares apples and pork pies fall from the sky, then they do. And if he declares an act is evil. It is an evil act. Within that game.

[smcmike]

No they really don't. Rule one of role play games is the DM has final say. if he declares an act is evil. It is an evil act. Within that game.

While I generally agree with the idea that the DM gets to make the world, there are limits. A DM can say that the world (society, the gods, the planes) treats that act as evil, but the player doesn't need to accept that society, the gods, or even then planes are right.

[wunderkid]

While I generally agree with the idea that the DM gets to make the world, there are limits. A DM can say that the world (society, the gods, the planes) treats that act as evil, but the player doesn't need to accept that society, the gods, or even then planes are right.

The player doesn't need to accept it no. But from a mechanics perspective which is what we are looking at it would be an evil act. The player is more than welcome to believe the balor in front of him is actually a friend but that doesn't make it so from a mechanics perspective.

[smcmike]

The player doesn't need to accept it no. But from a mechanics perspective which is what we are looking at it would be an evil act. The player is more than welcome to believe the balor in front of him is actually a friend but that doesn't make it so from a mechanics perspective.

What mechanics, exactly? How often do mechanics actually come into it?

[BurgerBeast]

Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy.

Do you know what that means?

Yes, in fact I do. Congratulations on getting one right. But instead of explaining, I’ll just let you continue to talk and illustrate it for us:


Of course you do not care, because you do not care if you are correct.


You care about "winning".

Thank you. Note that when I poisoned the well, I did it in response to you accusing me of employing rhetoric. Fire with fire, so to speak. If you don’t see the humour in accusing me of poisoning the well and then immediately doing it yourself, then I pity you.


No one tied anyone to the train tracks. They are working there, obliviously, and it's coming too fast for them to get out of the way.

In fairness, I think my point still remains. I never caused them to be on the tracks and I never caused the train to move toward them.


Torture is an action. Torture for the sake of amusement is an action with an intent.

Fair distinction. This reveals the loaded language that can come into play when someone uses the word rape to imply an action, when rape is really an action and an implied intent.


Of course you can choose to do nothing, but by doing so you are also choosing to order the execution of both people.

I reject this. I’m not sure how you can call them the same thing. It’s got “blame the victim” written all over it. By this logic, you can blame a battered wife for the beating that her husband lays on her children, and you can blame the Jews who walked into the showers at Auschwitz for the gassing of the other Jews present. No thanks. Autonomy demands that one be accountable for their own actions. You have no right to judge anyone for the things they don’t do. That is pretty clear to me. (We can get into quibbles over what it means to simply not do something versus choosing to do nothing. But here I mean the former. The latter is indeed a choice. It's informative but it can quickly degenerate into debates such as that about "what is nothing?").


Maybe there are other options, though neither of your suggestions would work.

Whether they work has nothing to do with it. We’re talking about morality, not pragmatism. They are in conflict in this case, and in many others. When Gandalf stood against the Balrog, even if he had failed (i.e. the Balrog killed the whole fellowship) it would. have carried the same moral weight. You judge it to have been pointless, but that is independent of its moral character.


No they're designed to symbolize some element of real life.

Okay. This is either irrelevant because you can symbolize “some element of real life” and still be completely unrealistic (I don’t think I need to give examples in the context of today’s sci-fi and fantasy obsession), or it’s patently false because moral dilemmas are designed with some pretty obviously contrived circumstances that are anything but realistic.


Here's an excerpt from your original post…

…So yes, you did claim that utilitarianism treated all lives as equal, and that the cornerstone of civilization was evil.
Without judging the value of a life there can be no laws, no peace treaties, and no stability.

You’re absolutely right. I apologize for being wrong and confusing, and I wish to retract that part. I’m not sure what I was thinking when I wrote it, but I don’t think that utilitarianism is in any way based on the notion that all lives are equal. I do think that most moral reasoning (irrespective of utilitarianism) is founded on giving equal consideration to all lives (which doesn’t necessarily imply valuing them or treating them equally).

If I might offer an explanation for the error, I was trying (poorly, I admit) to maintain the point that the quantification of human life is not something I accept. So some examples that have continued through the thread, such as choosing to kill one to save thirty, are ill-guided (and incidentally are not even simply answered by utilitarianism, because that would require estimations/calculations of the resulting good of each choice).


So there is my position. Moral dilemmas don't Good/Evil decisions, but rather Good/Neutral.

I sounds like we more or less reason the same way, and even though it may appear that we default in different ways (I see the potential of evil in the options), it's not a relevant difference, because I would never condemn the "evildoer" (or "neutral-doer") in this case. Rather, I'd have sympathy for him and the fact that he was forced to commit an evil by circumstance.


Not all observerers necessarily understand morality (or ethics) well enough to correctly conclude on all counts. Some might even be using systems that have glaring logical flaws (Utilitarianism, Consequentialism), but carry on nevertheless.

I agree, but I consider whether something is apparent to someone to be different from their ability to discern it. So in other words, there will always be people who can't understand things, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. Not sure how clear this was: I agree with you but I intended to phrase in such a way s to make it irrelevant.

[smcmike]

In fairness, I think my point still remains. I never caused them to be on the tracks and I never caused the train to move toward them.

Autonomy demands that one be accountable for their own actions. You have no right to judge anyone for the things they don’t do. That is pretty clear to me. (We can get into quibbles over what it means to simply not do something versus choosing to do nothing. But here I mean the former. The latter is indeed a choice. It's informative but it can quickly degenerate into debates such as that about "what is nothing?").

Ok, let's try some more hypos then.

Same train scenario, but this time the second track is empty. You can divert the train with practically no effort and no risk of harm. If you don't, people will die. Is doing nothing really ok?

Also, we come into the world embedded in it, and live in a web of duties and obligations. If I simply fail to pay attention while my daughter plays by a swimming pool, I think it's fair to blame me for my inaction when she falls in and drowns.

The battered wife or other co-victim scenarios have some factors which moderate the blame that can be placed, but imagine a non-battered wife who stands by and watches her husband beat a child. Is she blameless?

[BurgerBeast]

Ok, let's try some more hypos then.

Thanks for engaging and thanks for the challenging questions.


Same train scenario, but this time the second track is empty. You can divert the train with practically no effort and no risk of harm. If you don't, people will die. Is doing nothing really ok?

No, certainly not. I don't claim to have thought this through entirely, but the difference must lie somewhere in the following distinction: here there is a choice between doing something evil and doing something that is not evil. I don't think it presents a dilemma to a good person. There is a clear-cut correct choice here. This also brings to light that my aversion to "choosing between two evils" is really that the consequence is that it allows one to use the threat of greater evil to justify evil.


Also, we come into the world embedded in it, and live in a web of duties and obligations. If I simply fail to pay attention while my daughter plays by a swimming pool, I think it's fair to blame me for my inaction when she falls in and drowns.

Agreed. Again I don't think this is a dilemma for a good person.


The battered wife or other co-victim scenarios have some factors which moderate the blame that can be placed, but imagine a non-battered wife who stands by and watches her husband beat a child. Is she blameless?

I'd go farther than saying there are factors that moderate the blame, and (absent any new, relevant information) they are blameless. [edit: the last sentence was regarding the battered wife scenario. The next sentence regards the new (non-battered) scenario] So the wife has to be blamed for sure, but not for the beating. For standing and watching a beating without trying to stop it.

I think we've finally hit the nail on the head (thanks!). I think that there are degrees of evil and that failing to stop a beating can be (and generally is) less evil than beating someone. I need time to digest this and see if I agree with it, and see how affects my position/thoughts on the matter.

[LordVonDerp]

No they really don't. Rule one of role play games is the DM has final say. He may listen to other players. And if he choses to do what they are requesting and this largely dictates the difference between a good and bad GM. But at the end of the day the decision is 100% his.

So yes there is an omnipotent God, who may if he choses listen to other beings. But GM has final say. In a game if the GM at the table declares apples and pork pies fall from the sky, then they do. And if he declares an act is evil. It is an evil act. Within that game.

No, the first rule of DnD is that the players are choosing to be there, therefore the DM does not have absolute authority.

[RickAllison]

Thanks for engaging and thanks for the challenging questions.



No, certainly not. I don't claim to have thought this through entirely, but the difference must lie somewhere in the following distinction: here there is a choice between doing something evil and doing something that is not evil. I don't think it presents a dilemma to a good person. There is a clear-cut correct choice here. This also brings to light that my aversion to "choosing between two evils" is really that the consequence is that it allows one to use the threat of greater evil to justify evil.



Agreed. Again I don't think this is a dilemma for a good person.



I'd go farther than saying there are factors that moderate the blame, and (absent any new, relevant information) they are blameless. [edit: the last sentence was regarding the battered wife scenario. The next sentence regards the new (non-battered) scenario] So the wife has to be blamed for sure, but not for the beating. For standing and watching a beating without trying to stop it.

I think we've finally hit the nail on the head (thanks!). I think that there are degrees of evil and that failing to stop a beating can be (and generally is) less evil than beating someone. I need time to digest this and see if I agree with it, and see how affects my position/thoughts on the matter.

Side note: It is far more likely that diverting the train to the one person will end up resulting in more Good. If one person is in the threat of the train, there is a greater likelihood that someone (maybe the switch-flipper...) can get them off.

In the case of the two people drowning, saving one and going back for the other could be a more Good choice because at worst you only save one, but a second person present or even the primary swimmer can still swim down and have a comparable probability of success (only weighted by one body instead of two, so can swim faster).

[smcmike]

One more question: what if it's your job to man the switch? You have agreed to manage the flow of traffic for the safety of all, and this is why you're in the position to save the five or the one. Does that change anything?

Here's another hypo:

Let's say you are in charge of a surgical center after a major disaster. 10 people need immediate blood transfusions, or they will die. For some reason you have a very limited supply of blood. You can help nine people who just need a small transfusion, or you can help one person who needs a massive transfusion. This is easy, right? I think this is analogous to the train switch.

Let's say that instead of one very needy victim, you have one healthy universal donor. If you drain him completely, killing him, you can save all 9 people. This seems analogous to the fat man train example.

[Millstone85]

Let's say you are in charge of a surgical center after a major disaster. 10 people need immediate blood transfusions, or they will die. For some reason you have a very limited supply of blood. You can help nine people who just need a small transfusion, or you can help one person who needs a massive transfusion. This is easy, right? I think this is analogous to the train switch.

Let's say that instead of one very needy victim, you have one healthy universal donor. If you drain him completely, killing him, you can save all 9 people. This seems analogous to the fat man train example."Blood supply" scenario:
* 10 people are in mortal danger.
* You can save 1 or 9 out of these 10.

"Blood donor" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Train switch" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Fat man train" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

There is meant to be only one difference between the two train scenarios: whether you kill a distant person through a switch or are in physical contact with your victim. Your moral judgment doesn't actually matter in this test, only how emotional factors might cause inconsistencies in it.

[Democratus]

Let's say you are in charge of a surgical center after a major disaster. 10 people need immediate blood transfusions, or they will die. For some reason you have a very limited supply of blood. You can help nine people who just need a small transfusion, or you can help one person who needs a massive transfusion. This is easy, right? I think this is analogous to the train switch.

Let's say that instead of one very needy victim, you have one healthy universal donor. If you drain him completely, killing him, you can save all 9 people. This seems analogous to the fat man train example.

This is pretty easy. You save all you can without killing the donor. Some people may die, but their life-threatening condition wasn't caused by you. So their deaths are not caused by you.

Saving some of them is a good act. Not harming the donor is a good act. Done and done.

[smcmike]

"Blood supply" scenario:
* 10 people are in mortal danger.
* You can save 1 or 9 out of these 10.

"Blood donor" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Train switch" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Fat man train" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

There is meant to be only one difference between the two train scenarios: whether you kill a distant person through a switch or are in physical contact with your victim. Your moral judgment doesn't actually matter in this test, only how emotional factors might cause inconsistencies in it.

Fair enough. I consider the single man on the tracks to be in potential danger - he is in the zone of fire, in a way that the fat man is not.

Your definition of moral judgment may be different than mine.

[Millstone85]

Fair enough. I consider the single man on the tracks to be in potential danger - he is in the zone of fire, in a way that the fat man is not.Please allow me a TRPG metaphor. This psychology test is like a diceless game, and admittedly a lame one. If the player chooses inaction, the 9 NPCs are 100% absolutely going to die while the 10th NPC is 100% absolutely not going to suffer any harm. The DM has informed the player of this fact and offered them the power to "switch" the fates of the NPCs. What's more, any question from the player, such as "How do I know all this?" or "Why is there no other option?", will be answered by "It is a simplified model. I don't have to explain it".


Your definition of moral judgment may be different than mine.I meant your choice to kill the 10th person and save the other 9 people or not. The designers of this psychology test were less interested in your answer than in how it might change between the two versions.

I don't remember how well they accounted for test subjects just not accepting these rules. Maybe they would say you are subconsciously trying to justify your irrational decision by introducing luck into the scenario.
Here come the test results: "You are a horrible person". That's what it says: a horrible person. We weren't even testing for that.I am mocking them, not you. :smalltongue:

[Formless Entity]

I'd have to disagree, it speaks directly to intentions on outcomes not mitigating evil acts. i.e. The Ends Do Not Justify The Means.



I was clarifying why "Might Makes Right" is fallacious.



First, maintaining a moral and ethical stance in the face of adversity isn't weaseling by any stretch of the imagination.

Second, the future is unknowable. The protagonist (let's reserve judgment on if they are a hero until they actually are one) can in no way ascertain that there's no means by which all can be saved.

Being good means attempting to help others, showing compassion, do no evil, etc...

You've taken to conflating Utilitarianism with Good, which is a categorically incorrect statement.



And unless this thought experiment takes place in a universe where the future is 100% knowable there's no meaningful benefit to be derived from acting as if there was. There's no purpose to a thought experiment where the outcome is without application.

Utilitarianism is bankrupt as a guiding principle in that the actual outcomes are unknowable, rendering any action morally void. The true hubris is claiming to know the outcomes when such is a lie. Doing harm to hope for good ends is foolish.



A) Appeal to Authority (I have a master's degree in blahdity blah) is a fairly well documented fallacy. Your reasoning is not better, or inherently correct because you are a person of perceived authority.

B) There is no choice beyond attempting to save someone, anyone, or not. How those people are saved is as much a moral choice as whether or not to act at all. By choosing evil means, the outcome is rendered evil. There are non-evil means to make the attempt; they may carry less weight with you, but that in no way invalidates the morality of the decision. If you choose to murder to achieve a goal, you've committed evil, period, there's no moral difference between crossing that threshold once or a thousand times.

C) There's no benefit to accomplishing more if one must partake in evil to do so.



I'd posit this is more descriptive of the Lawful Neutral, adherance to the code at all costs, rather than Good.



Outcome is irrelevent to the question of morality because outcome is unknowable.



This is distinct from the given scenario in that both are currently in danger, whereas in the original scenario one can only be removed from danger by forceably placing another in danger that they were not previously in.

i.e. One man is drowning, you can save him, but only by dragging another under water. There's nothing at all wrong with saving who you can in the time possible, but there would be something wrong about killing one to save another. (And before we get there, risking ones self is different than having someone else risk it for you).



Not all observerers necessarily understand morality (or ethics) well enough to correctly conclude on all counts. Some might even be using systems that have glaring logical flaws (Utilitarianism, Consequentialism), but carry on nevertheless.



That's how the word morality is defined in the english language.

Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Behavior: "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others."

Acts = Behavior = Morality. Didn't you say you have a Masters degree?



Except in the same way that one can not know the future, one can not know the value of the lives in peril. Without such information, any judgment call claiming to be based on the utility is, for good or ill, worthless.

The future is unknowable?

if that is true then your actions mean nothing.


You made a claim that ultilataisnism is not moral but foolish but did not provide evidence. So I will dismiss that as rhetoric.


A) That was me saying you do not have to explain basic ethical principles to me, I was not using it as a way of saying I am automatically correct. Therefore it is not an appeal to authority.

B) You have yet to define good and evil so labelling as such is pointless. Now under your logic you should always try to save as many people as possible even if the result would actually lend itself to more people being killed. That is extremely foolish and ignorant.

C) You made a statement without offering a support, so I will dismiss that as rhetoric.

I would posit your stance as Lawful Neutral, you adhere to your code no matter how many lives it will claim in the end.

Yu have yet to provide evidence for how these codes are flawed. I am interested to see what your code is, because it is sounding a lot like divine command theory.

Logical Fallacy: Argument by definition.

As I am pointing out I am referring to whether a person is doing good or evil in an objective sense. Your definition is of no consequence.

[Formless Entity]

"Blood supply" scenario:
* 10 people are in mortal danger.
* You can save 1 or 9 out of these 10.

"Blood donor" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Train switch" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

"Fat man train" scenario:
* 9 people are in mortal danger.
* A 10th person isn't in danger.
* You can save all 9 by killing the 10th.

There is meant to be only one difference between the two train scenarios: whether you kill a distant person through a switch or are in physical contact with your victim. Your moral judgment doesn't actually matter in this test, only how emotional factors might cause inconsistencies in it.

Sacrifice yourself to help the others is what a good aligned person would do, kill the fewest amount of people is what a neutral character would do, and not help at all or kill all of them is what an evil person would do.

[Formless Entity]

This is pretty easy. You save all you can without killing the donor. Some people may die, but their life-threatening condition wasn't caused by you. So their deaths are not caused by you.

Saving some of them is a good act. Not harming the donor is a good act. Done and done.

If you allow a murder to take place is that evil?

[Millstone85]

Sacrifice yourself to help the others is what a good aligned person would doSpecifically made impossible by the scenario. You are not fat enough to stop the train and you know it. No, your sacrifice wouldn't save even one of these people and you know it. No, there isn't a bag of potatoes that you could reach and take with you in the very nick of time. The only third option is you, the real you, leaving the table where someone has given you this fictional binary choice.

[Formless Entity]

Specifically made impossible by the scenario. You are not fat enough to stop the train and you know it. No, your sacrifice wouldn't save even one of these people and you know it. No, there isn't a bag of potatoes that you could reach and take with you in the very nick of time. The only third option is you, the real you, leaving the table where someone has given you this fictional binary choice.

You still could in the blood supply scenarios.

[Millstone85]

You still could in the blood supply scenarios.You are the only AB+ in the story! Okay, I just made that one up, but it is in the spirit of this kind of scenario.

[wunderkid]

No, the first rule of DnD is that the players are choosing to be there, therefore the DM does not have absolute authority.

You seem like you're one beyond dense person. That's not even close to any kind of rule. That's a good GM vs bad GM. The GM is under no obligation to do anything the the players want. A bad GM can sit down and make a royal hash of the game and then the players will leave ending the game. But what the GM says within the game is law. To argue that is to argue one of the core principles to all RPGs that the GM is the adjudicator of the game.

[BurgerBeast]

The future is unknowable?

if that is true then your actions mean nothing.

Complete non sequitur. Evidence?

Never mind. The future is unknowable. That's why sports and gambling are exciting. It's also the reason why not everyone chooses the winning lottery numbers. There is no good reason to leap from "the future is unknowable" to "your actions have no meaning." None. This has been eloquently destroyed by Shelley Kagan on his iTunes open university course, titled "Death."


You made a claim that ultilataisnism is not moral but foolish but did not provide evidence. So I will dismiss that as rhetoric.

If you have a Master's degree in ethics, then (1) you are already more than aware of the criticisms levelled at utilitarianism and (2) you therefore don't need evidence.


A) That was me saying you do not have to explain basic ethical principles to me, I was not using it as a way of saying I am automatically correct. Therefore it is not an appeal to authority.

Yet every other point you've brought to this discussion demonstrates that you do not have a degree in ethics, let alone a master's degree. You are to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to science (granted on a smaller scale). You need to stop impersonating learned peoples and misrepresenting the subject of philosophy.


B) You have yet to define good and evil so labelling as such is pointless. Now under your logic you should always try to save as many people as possible even if the result would actually lend itself to more people being killed. That is extremely foolish and ignorant.

You are allowed to call it foolish and ignorant. The point is that it is still moral. Someone else might call self-sacrifice foolish and ignorant. In your view it is still moral. See how that works?


C) You made a statement without offering a support, so I will dismiss that as rhetoric.

Then you don't understand what rhetoric is. Master's degree?


Sacrifice yourself to help the others is what a good aligned person would do, kill the fewest amount of people is what a neutral character would do, and not help at all or kill all of them is what an evil person would do.

These guidelines are way too restrictive. For example, an evil person could easily help some of the people if it suited his or her interests.


You seem like you're one beyond dense person. That's not even close to any kind of rule. That's a good GM vs bad GM. The GM is under no obligation to do anything the the players want. A bad GM can sit down and make a royal hash of the game and then the players will leave ending the game. But what the GM says within the game is law. To argue that is to argue one of the core principles to all RPGs that the GM is the adjudicator of the game.

Someone had to say it. Seconded.

[smcmike]

You seem like you're one beyond dense person. That's not even close to any kind of rule. That's a good GM vs bad GM. The GM is under no obligation to do anything the the players want. A bad GM can sit down and make a royal hash of the game and then the players will leave ending the game. But what the GM says within the game is law. To argue that is to argue one of the core principles to all RPGs that the GM is the adjudicator of the game.

Insults on the internet, who woulda thunk it?

The point is valid. Yes, the DM has ultimate authority within the game, but the fact that this authority is contingent upon player buy-in is a significant limitation.

You use a few legal terms, so let's try an analogy - the DM is Congress and the Supreme Court - he makes the law, and he adjudicates disputes about its meaning. The players are the executive - the legislators and the courts can write whatever they want, but those writings are meaningless without someone to carry them out.

[pwykersotz]

Insults on the internet, who woulda thunk it?

The point is valid. Yes, the DM has ultimate authority within the game, but the fact that this authority is contingent upon player buy-in is a significant limitation.

You use a few legal terms, so let's try an analogy - the DM is Congress and the Supreme Court - he makes the law, and he adjudicates disputes about its meaning. The players are the executive - the legislators and the courts can write whatever they want, but those writings are meaningless without someone to carry them out.

Maybe...but I've never played in or run a game where the DM ruling on morality was called into question in that same game. If the DM says that Balor is now pure good, the players roll with it. If the DM says that it is immoral to desire gold, the players roll with it. That's part of what makes the game interesting to me, actually, is playing off of the absolute laws handed down by the DM. The DM says "this enemy is unaffected by your sword" so I find another weapon. The DM says "this element consumes your shadow and thus your soul" so I retreat to grab a Shield Guardian and see if that can handle the element. The DM says "lying is pure evil and the universe judges you as worthy of hell for telling that person a convenient fib" so I test my morality against the universe and see which one breaks first. I've never seen any player do otherwise.

Technicalities of player buy-in aside, it's not only the DM's privilege, it's their JOB to be the laws of the universe. Even if they operate on pure subjective morality, they're still setting that up as a universal law. That doesn't stop the players from operating how they want in response to that though.

[Formless Entity]

You are the only AB+ in the story! Okay, I just made that one up, but it is in the spirit of this kind of scenario.

So you are trying to force a scenario like everyone else does.

[Formless Entity]

Complete non sequitur. Evidence?

Never mind. The future is unknowable. That's why sports and gambling are exciting. It's also the reason why not everyone chooses the winning lottery numbers. There is no good reason to leap from "the future is unknowable" to "your actions have no meaning." None. This has been eloquently destroyed by Shelley Kagan on his iTunes open university course, titled "Death."



If you have a Master's degree in ethics, then (1) you are already more than aware of the criticisms levelled at utilitarianism and (2) you therefore don't need evidence.



Yet every other point you've brought to this discussion demonstrates that you do not have a degree in ethics, let alone a master's degree. You are to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to science (granted on a smaller scale). You need to stop impersonating learned peoples and misrepresenting the subject of philosophy.



You are allowed to call it foolish and ignorant. The point is that it is still moral. Someone else might call self-sacrifice foolish and ignorant. In your view it is still moral. See how that works?



Then you don't understand what rhetoric is. Master's degree?



These guidelines are way too restrictive. For example, an evil person could easily help some of the people if it suited his or her interests.



Someone had to say it. Seconded.

Are you going to stop with personal attacks?

[RickAllison]

Are you going to stop with personal attacks?

More a deconstruction that is entirely reasonable based on the lack of information inherent to a forum such as this. He never made a personal attack, he questioned your qualifications based on lack of any evidence from your arguments consistent with an expert in that field. It is an attack on your credibility as an expert, not your character.

[Formless Entity]

More a deconstruction that is entirely reasonable based on the lack of information inherent to a forum such as this. He never made a personal attack, he questioned your qualifications based on lack of any evidence from your arguments consistent with an expert in that field. It is an attack on your credibility as an expert, not your character.

I find it annoying that he is claiming that I should know that Utilitarianism is a flawed model yet he refuses to share how it is a flawed model.

Frankly I find that he is trying to say that I am using my degree to make me some kind of authority then shooting down his strawman in order to detract the argument and expecting me to follow through with it.

Frankly I find that insulting my intelligence.

[RickAllison]

I find it annoying that he is claiming that I should know that Utilitarianism is a flawed model yet he refuses to share how it is a flawed model.

Frankly I find that he is trying to say that I am using my degree to make me some kind of authority then shooting down his strawman in order to detract the argument and expecting me to follow through with it.

Frankly I find that insulting my intelligence.

Every model of philosophy is flawed. If there was a non-flawed philosophical system, wouldn't all of that discipline revolve around it as any philosophy without flaws must necessarily be perfect and thus render all discussion to the contrary moot? The flaws of different philosophies drive the study of them all as we refine them through thorough discussion.

[Temperjoke]

Okay, to sum up, almost no one wants separate objective/subjective alignments on the character sheet. Then 7 pages worth of arguing about defining good versus evil which show, to me at least, that having the objective alignment which reflects your status in your DM's story/game world versus what your character thinks he is, isn't that bad of an idea, it's just that everyone thinks that their subjective alignment is correct regardless of what the world at large might think.

Also there was a lot of people throwing around skewed scenarios and shouting "fallacies" at each other, while attempting to insult each other as indirectly as possible to avoid getting hit with infractions. Did I miss anything?

[RickAllison]

Okay, to sum up, almost no one wants separate objective/subjective alignments on the character sheet. Then 7 pages worth of arguing about defining good versus evil which show, to me at least, that having the objective alignment which reflects your status in your DM's story/game world versus what your character thinks he is, isn't that bad of an idea, it's just that everyone thinks that their subjective alignment is correct regardless of what the world at large might think.

Also there was a lot of people throwing around skewed scenarios and shouting "fallacies" at each other, while attempting to insult each other as indirectly as possible to avoid getting hit with infractions. Did I miss anything?

Nope, you pretty much hit it on the head. There have been some constructive arguments, but many have been either flawed or having to point out the flawed arguments.

[BurgerBeast]

I find it annoying that he is claiming that I should know that Utilitarianism is a flawed model yet he refuses to share how it is a flawed model.

I said that there is a history of criticism. Nietzsche, for example. But traditionally Moore and Sidgwick. A quick google search will get you these criticisms in argument form. But if you have a Master's degree in Ethics, then this is a fundamental part of your education. Not knowing or recalling this is nearly on par with not knowing what Kant's categorical imperative is. Or a mathematician not knowing who Euclid was or what the commonly asserted problems with Euclidean geometry are.


Frankly I find that he is trying to say that I am using my degree to make me some kind of authority then shooting down his strawman in order to detract the argument and expecting me to follow through with it.

That's exactly what it looked like, on the face of it. Frankly, it still does.


Frankly I find that insulting my intelligence.

And how do you think the member feels when you repeatedly accuse of him of subscribing to Divine Command Theory? Is there any greater insult to anyone's intelligence? You need a mirror, friend.


Nope, you pretty much hit it on the head. There have been some constructive arguments, but many have been either flawed or having to point out the flawed arguments.

Seconded. But, believe it or not, I do feel like I’ve learned something from the exercise.

[RickAllison]

I said that there is a history of criticism. Nietzsche, for example. But traditionally Moore and Sidgwick. A quick google search will get you these criticisms in argument form. But if you have a Master's degree in Ethics, then this is a fundamental part of your education. Not knowing or recalling this is nearly on par with not knowing what Kant's categorical imperative is. Or a mathematician not knowing who Euclid was or what the commonly asserted problems with Euclidean geometry are.



That's exactly what it looked like, on the face of it. Frankly, it still does.



And how do you think the member feels when you repeatedly accuse of him of subscribing to Divine Command Theory? Is there any greater insult to anyone's intelligence? You need a mirror, friend.



Seconded. But, believe it or not, I do feel like I’ve learned something from the exercise.

Frankly, I Kant make any sense of these arguments, they seem to just be Nieztche cases. I would love to see More good arguments, but the more I Mill over everything, the more I realize the answer is served up on a silver Plato, already Locke'd in.

... I'll stop now.

[Regitnui]

Frankly, I Kant make any sense of these arguments, they seem to just be Nieztche cases. I would love to see More good arguments, but the more I Mill over everything, the more I realize the answer is served up on a silver Plato, already Locke'd in.

... I'll stop now.

Don't. There's probably more value in that post than most of the preceding arguments, since philosophical debates by there nature get nowhere.

[BurgerBeast]

Don't. There's probably more value in that post than most of the preceding arguments, since philosophical debates by there nature get nowhere.

Philosophical debate (and by extension philosophical understanding) is the intellectual bedrock on which all knowledge rests. Give up philosophy and you give it all up: mathematics, the natural sciences, the humanities, the fine arts.

So to say that philosophical debates by their nature get us nowhere is just about as wrong as you can be. All of the truth we will ever discover is grounded on philosophical understanding.

Granted much of what has gone on here doesn't qualify as philosophical debate, but that is clearly beside your point.

[Regitnui]

Philosophy as in asking questions about the world and quantifiable long since segued into the realm of the physical sciences. They don't call it natural philosophy anymore. Modern philosophy asks bigger questions as to the nature of being, which is an answerable without a radical leap forward in physical science or a violent supremacist regime physically testing them on thought criminals and dissidents. Ergo; philosophy debates go nowhere.

But I do see where you're coming from, and it's important to underline I'm not saying philosophy is useless. Questioning what we known is vital to the advancement of science and civilization. However, without solid evidence or even a way of creating solid theoretical bases, philosophy is a little bit mired down by its current subject matter.

[Millstone85]

So you are trying to force a scenario like everyone else does.Yes.

There is no point in discussing this train story if we do not accept it for the cruel dilemma it is supposed to be. You can say the whole setup is stupid. You can say a good person would never believe in the no-win scenario. You can refuse to answer. But you can't say here is the correct C answer to this A or B question.

[Democratus]

If you allow a murder to take place is that evil?

To what murder do you refer?

[BurgerBeast]

Philosophy as in asking questions about the world and quantifiable long since segued into the realm of the physical sciences.

This is a commonly held misconception in the sense that it misrepresents what actually happened. The physical sciences never replaced philosophy. Philosophical inquiry led to the discovery of and justification for the scientific method as a superior form of inquiry into the natural world. While this may sound semantic, it isn't. The physical sciences and the assumptions they make are justified only because of philosophical reasoning.

Moreover, philosophy casts a much broader net than the physical sciences, so even if one considers science to have "replaced" philosophy (which it didn't - scientific questions are just a subset of philosophical questions for which the scientific method works best), the physical sciences are more narrow in scope. So all of the questions to which the scientific method doesn't apply are strictly philosophical questions. Since the beginning, it has been the bane of philosophy that every time progress is made, it gets swept into a subset of knowledge that becomes (mistakenly) considered distinct from philosophy itself.


They don't call it natural philosophy anymore.

No, but it is still in essence the same thing. Since the discovery and justification for the scientific method, we know (because of philosophy) that the scientific method provides the best approach to answering questions about the natural world. From a modern perspective, this might seem trivial, but when people first starting asking questions, it wasn't apparent that there are universal laws, for example. In other words, it wasn't obvious that the natural world behaves in a predictable way. Philosophical reasoning lead us to the understanding that weather is predictable, for example. This discovery led to the logical conclusion that we could investigate the laws via the scientific method. Even when the inorganic universe was discovered to be predictable, it wasn't obvious that the organic world is, but we reasoned (using philosophy) that it might be. Moving closer to modern times, some of us still grapple with whether human behaviour can, in theory, be fully understood scientifically.


Modern philosophy asks bigger questions as to the nature of being, which is an answerable without a radical leap forward in physical science or a violent supremacist regime physically testing them on thought criminals and dissidents. Ergo; philosophy debates go nowhere.

Again, as philosophy progresses, the "answerable" questions get moved into the fields that are most appropriate, which gives the illusion that philosophy only grapples with intangibles and unanswerable questions. Philosophy is what allows us to move questions into their relevant subject areas. It is also the basis for justifying those subject areas in the first place.


But I do see where you're coming from, and it's important to underline I'm not saying philosophy is useless. Questioning what we known is vital to the advancement of science and civilization. However, without solid evidence or even a way of creating solid theoretical bases, philosophy is a little bit mired down by its current subject matter.

Agreed. I think practically we're on the same page. But I do think the distinction is important. However matter-of-fact my presentation of these ideas sounds, I'm not claiming to be right. I'm presenting my side as strongly as I can in the hope of being rebutted.

[smcmike]

So all of the questions to which the scientific method doesn't apply are strictly philosophical questions.

This is perhaps picking nits, but there are whole realms of inquiry outside of "strictly philosophy" to which the scientific method doesn't apply, unless you use an broader definition of philosophy or of science than is usual nowadays.


Philosophical reasoning lead us to the understanding that weather is predictable, for example.

Again, unless you include "all of human thought" within the bounds of philosophy, this seems like quite a stretch. Actually, even "all of human thought" is probably too narrow for predicting the weather, since animals do this instinctually.



Again, as philosophy progresses, the "answerable" questions get moved into the fields that are most appropriate, which gives the illusion that philosophy only grapples with intangibles and unanswerable questions. Philosophy is what allows us to move questions into their relevant subject areas. It is also the basis for justifying those subject areas in the first place.

Nits picked, I'm generally pro-philosophy. I just wouldn't base this stance on utility.

[pwykersotz]

Regarding the merits of philosophy, I just love examining worldviews. If you're willing to look at them with an open mind, you can learn a lot about yourself and others. Especially once you are able to pinpoint the lies and convenient half-truths you tell yourself to justify your own assumptions. It is a great tragedy when someone uses philosophy as a bludgeon instead of a learning tool.

Philosophy, in my mind, doesn't exist to justify what you already believe, it exists to question limits that you would otherwise take for granted. I'd argue that makes it very applicable to the physical world, because the questions we can ask lead us to investigate from new angles. Math, logic, and the scientific method are incredibly powerful tools, but while we can't give up on improving those tools, we also can't give up on the idea that there might be more tools out there.

I don't have too much of a point, but these ramblings are my thoughts from the comments above. :smallsmile:

[BurgerBeast]

This is perhaps picking nits, but there are whole realms of inquiry outside of "strictly philosophy" to which the scientific method doesn't apply, unless you use an broader definition of philosophy or of science than is usual nowadays.

I don't mind nit-picking at all. But I hold the view that all realms of inquiry are decidedly inside the realm of "strictly philosophy," except that they might also belong to a more specific realm as well (which is a subset of philosophy). The classic five branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. Logic and epistemology underpin any and all attempts to think about anything. Metaphysics and Ethics are still, as far as we understand, best learned through philosophical argumentation. Political science is somewhat intruded upon by the social sciences but is still largely based on philosophy, and in my view much of the social science is misapplied.


Again, unless you include "all of human thought" within the bounds of philosophy, this seems like quite a stretch.

I do. So, not a stretch for me.


Actually, even "all of human thought" is probably too narrow for predicting the weather, since animals do this instinctually.

My turn to nitpick. There are relevant differences to be found between being able to predict the weather, knowing that you have the ability to predict the weather, and understanding that the weather is predictable. Note that I said philosophical thought led us to understand that the weather is predictable.



Nits picked, I'm generally pro-philosophy. I just wouldn't base this stance on utility.

Fair enough. I'm not saying you do this, but many of my colleagues and superiors mistakenly associate philosophy the subject with something akin to "having a philosophy on life" or "one's outlook" or some other nebulous and largely noncommittal form of speculating. Not saying you're doing this. Just saying it's an apparently popular misconception.

[smcmike]

I don't mind nit-picking at all. But I hold the view that all realms of inquiry are decidedly inside the realm of "strictly philosophy," except that they might also belong to a more specific realm as well (which is a subset of philosophy). The classic five branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. Logic and epistemology underpin any and all attempts to think about anything. Metaphysics and Ethics are still, as far as we understand, best learned through philosophical argumentation. Political science is somewhat intruded upon by the social sciences but is still largely based on philosophy, and in my view much of the social science is misapplied.

I suppose I was merely reacting to your willingness to allow science a separate sphere, despite the fact that it is underpinned and informed by philosophy. There are many such areas of knowledge, particularly if you are laying claim to the process of thinking itself.



My turn to nitpick. There are relevant differences to be found between being able to predict the weather, knowing that you have the ability to predict the weather, and understanding that the weather is predictable. Note that I said philosophical thought led us to understand that the weather is predictable.


Are there? Maybe this is one of those places where philosophy loses me. It inevitably does.

[BurgerBeast]

I suppose I was merely reacting to your willingness to allow science a separate sphere, despite the fact that it is underpinned and informed by philosophy. There are many such areas of knowledge, particularly if you are laying claim to the process of thinking itself.

I think you might've misunderstood me. Science is a subset of philosophy, as are all the traditional school subjects. I use the qualifier "traditional" because contemporary "subjects" are often not subjects at all. Rather they're topics.

[Vogonjeltz]

The future is unknowable?

if that is true then your actions mean nothing.


You made a claim that ultilataisnism is not moral but foolish but did not provide evidence. So I will dismiss that as rhetoric.


A) That was me saying you do not have to explain basic ethical principles to me, I was not using it as a way of saying I am automatically correct. Therefore it is not an appeal to authority.

B) You have yet to define good and evil so labelling as such is pointless. Now under your logic you should always try to save as many people as possible even if the result would actually lend itself to more people being killed. That is extremely foolish and ignorant.

C) You made a statement without offering a support, so I will dismiss that as rhetoric.

I would posit your stance as Lawful Neutral, you adhere to your code no matter how many lives it will claim in the end.

Yu have yet to provide evidence for how these codes are flawed. I am interested to see what your code is, because it is sounding a lot like divine command theory.

Logical Fallacy: Argument by definition.

As I am pointing out I am referring to whether a person is doing good or evil in an objective sense. Your definition is of no consequence.

The future is unknowable, it's not a question, it's a statement of fact. There is simply no guarantee that outcomes match expectations.

Actions have meaning insofar as there is intent behind them and the actions themselves are or aren't harmful.

Intent alone is not enough, Consequence alone is not enough. Because for all ones good (or ill) intentions, actual outcomes remain unknown until they happen.

I provided the reasoning: Utilitarianism dictates that the action which produces the most good for the most people is itself the most good morally. This requires that one knows the actual outcomes to weigh against one another.

In other words: Utilitarianism is only rational under perfect information, which exists under no circumstances.

By the way, rhetoric means persuasive arguments, often regarded as lacking in meaningful content. That does not apply.

A) The statement functioned as shorthand for you being an expert and therefore correct, your intent for the desired outcome did not apply to the actual outcome. How interesting.

B) I don't have to define them, D&D has working definitions in place. Good and Evil cover varying degrees of compassion and selfishness respectively.

C) The statement stands alone. If one commits evil, it taints the outcome.

Incorrect, my stance is Neutral Good. It is to do what one can to help others without causing undo harm, neither fully eschewing systems nor being overly restricted by them. It's the middle ground of Law and Chaos, focused on Good.

I'd think Divine Command Theory would require reference to a deity, which I haven't. So you'd be incorrect on this accusation.

We share the definition provided by D&D, that makes it an objective determination, measurable.


And how do you think the member feels when you repeatedly accuse of him of subscribing to Divine Command Theory? Is there any greater insult to anyone's intelligence? You need a mirror, friend.

I admit I had to look it up because I try not to judge a book by its cover (even though divine command would otherwise sound fairly explanatory).


Also there was a lot of people throwing around skewed scenarios and shouting "fallacies" at each other, while attempting to insult each other as indirectly as possible to avoid getting hit with infractions. Did I miss anything?

I like to pick apart the argument, find the weakness and refine by removing those weaknesses. That makes the argument stronger, and if that involves tearing out any reference to a false logical argumentation, then it's for the best (for both the presenter and those who disagree, for whatever reason).