Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hahahahahaha!

7 (41.2%)

Nooooooooooo!

10 (58.8%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Rolepgeek]

What about the girl who has cancer, and didn't want to get treatment for it despite the treatment having an 85% or so success rate when they catch it at the stage it was at, and being forced to undergo it anyway?

My point is that your definition of Good is different from other people's, ans saying that Good is obvious and always the same no matter the circumstances is rude, to be blunt, because you're basically saying that your viewpoint is automatically better than everyone else's.

[Stirk]

Ok, so good is objective in many cases, not most cases. I'll concede on that point.

Anyone else things Andres has been watching too much shonen anime? He needs to watch something more morally ambiguous, like Seinen.

Anyway, isn't the entire point of politics moral ambiguity? I don't know a lot about Australian politics, so I could probably give a few examples from America. Abortion, the Death Penalty (Or really prison system in general), Immigration, or even Economics all have two sides who would fight tooth and nail saying they are the ones in the moral right.

[LuckyKobold]

KI'Tork just wants to force feed the Mortals whether they want it or not, That's good right?

[Dutrius]

I'd probably be the guy who doesn't talk much, spends most of his time outside and goes to archery club.

[Stirk]

KI'Tork just wants to force feed the Mortals whether they want it or not, That's good right?

If it is evil, it is certainly a bizarre and harmless form of it. Though I guess it would really change the meaning of Malakath's "evil eaters"...

[hector13]

Ok, so good is objective in many cases, not most cases. I'll concede on that point.

Anyone else things Andres has been watching too much shonen anime? He needs to watch something more morally ambiguous, like Seinen.

+1

Anyway, isn't the entire point of politics moral ambiguity? I don't know a lot about Australian politics, so I could probably give a few examples from America. Abortion, the Death Penalty (Or really prison system in general), Immigration, or even Economics all have two sides who would fight tooth and nail saying they are the ones in the moral right.

There is a kidnapping case though that's not quite politics. At least on a grand-scale...

But yes, your point is well made.

Andres also seems to be under the impression we have a Lawful-Chaotic Good-Evil morality system in the game, for some reason. I think the whole Good/Evil thing is up to players, rather than any type of system, which is why Good/Evil is so subjective, because we all have different ideas over what's good.

For example, the second hypothetical situation I illustrated above, in which the drug only extends life, I don't see the man as Good like I do in the first example, as giving his wife the drug is now for his benefit rather than her's. A longer life is not necessarily a better life.

[Andres]

What about the girl who has cancer, and didn't want to get treatment for it despite the treatment having an 85% or so success rate when they catch it at the stage it was at, and being forced to undergo it anyway?

That's a shade of grey without more context.

Anyway, isn't the entire point of politics moral ambiguity? I don't know a lot about Australian politics, so I could probably give a few examples from America. Abortion, the Death Penalty (Or really prison system in general), Immigration, or even Economics all have two sides who would fight tooth and nail saying they are the ones in the moral right.

I don't know a lot about Australian politic either. We argue about the same things you mentioned minus the death penalty and prison system. As for moral right, shades of grey exist, though in many cases it's merely a case of blue-orange morality.

For example, the second hypothetical situation I illustrated above, in which the drug only extends life, I don't see the man as Good like I do in the first example, as giving his wife the drug is now for his benefit rather than her's. A longer life is not necessarily a better life.

CONTEXT. It's hugely important. Does the wife want to live? Then the husband is doing good. Does the wife want to die? That's grey. Is the wife in a massive amount of pain and wants to be allowed to die to finally escape it but the husband is just keeping her around because he'll miss her? That's evil. Again, CONTEXT.

[Stirk]

Internet acting weird class about to start short version:  Andres, I don't think you understand what blue and orange morality is. Could you explain how you are trying to use it?

[Rolepgeek]

Blue and orange morality is nowhere near as common as you think it is, Andres. BOM is when a being's ideas are too alien for us to grasp, at all. What you keep describing is just forms of morality that are different from your own and therefore you are declaring them nonsense, effectively, in an attempt to avoid having to give a better argument.

Good is not objective, due to the simple fact that objective means most everyone/any given outside observer could agree as to what X was or meant. And that's already been shown to not be the case for morality, because everyone views it differently.

That said, I really dislike when people use "Good is subjective!" as an excuse to be festering cockbites. (coughSomeNihilistscough)

[Andres]

Internet acting weird class about to start short version:  Andres, I don't think you understand what blue and orange morality is. Could you explain how you are trying to use it?

Basically a morality system outside of the Black/White morality system, including Chaotic/Lawful, technically. Basically anything outside of what's obviously morally black, white, or grey is blue-orange to me.

What you keep describing is just forms of morality that are different from your own and therefore you are declaring them nonsense, effectively, in an attempt to avoid having to give a better argument.

Incorrect assumption and conclusion. I'm not declaring them "nonsense" to avoid having to give a better argument, I just think that's right. Secondly, I'm not declaring other morality systems nonsense or not worth having - just that they're outside black-white morality. (Grey is included in black-white morality, if that wasn't clear before.)

[Rolepgeek]

Morality isn't as simple as black, white, or grey. And it wasn't an assumption; it was an observation. That is to say, from my perspective that appears to be what you're doing. Declaring things to be blue and orange as if that resolves the whole issue. Because the things that matter, in morals? Those are the ones that aren't obviously black or white or even grey.

For example, hypothetical scenario, which will likely become the next civil rights issue in around 30 years. AI.

[Andres]

Morality isn't as simple as black, white, or grey.

It is when you're talking about black-white morality.

Because the things that matter, in morals? Those are the ones that aren't obviously black or white or even grey.

"Morals" as we think of them now are made of black-white morality and various blue-orange moralities. Saying that morality - ALL morality - is subjective is rather pointless because with all the various morality systems available of course it's going to be subjective.

For example, hypothetical scenario, which will likely become the next civil rights issue in around 30 years. AI.

Context?

[Vgray]

I wonder where you got the idea to talk about AI from...

[DreamerGhost]

Organic inferiors are unwelcome here.

[Stirk]

Basically a morality system outside of the Black/White morality system, including Chaotic/Lawful, technically. Basically anything outside of what's obviously morally black, white, or grey is blue-orange to me.

Exactly. That isn't what it means. Since you seem to be talking about the trope, it specifically says

Note that cases involving solely a misapprehension of facts and consequences do not count here no matter how alien the reasons; if, for example, a race of aliens thinks killing is okay because its own members respawn within a day with no harm done, and mistake humans as working the same way, that doesn't mean they wouldn't balk at killing if they realized the degree of harm it causes to other creatures. In this case, they may be working by comprehensible moral standards and just gravely mistaken about the implications of their actions.

And things like humans having different opinions on things is a lot smaller than that. You are misusing and misunderstanding the terms.

It is when you're talking about black-white morality.

But we aren't. You are, and you don't really understand what that is  .

For example, hypothetical scenario, which will likely become the next civil rights issue in around 30 years. AI.

And will it be right next to our flying cars? That is a huge overestimate of our scientific advancement in the next 30 years. Or a huge simplification of how difficult it is to create an AI.

*****

Anyway, since you seem to keep using TV tropes language, you might as well go check the pages of what you are saying. I suggest trying the "Laconic" section to avoid confusion.