<<My debate has never been that the immortals are perfection incarnate, however I still contend that they are beyond our man-made morality, and inherently neither good nor evil.>>

Once again I understand your position, but you are aware that there are reasonable challenges to your particular opinion here right?

<<To do this, guess what you'll need to do, make value judgments. You can argue about, rights, or arrogance, but the fact of the matter remains. Only an ignorant unenlightened mind would put blind faith in something that was imperfect, and prone to error.>>

<<This constitutes all religion then...>>

RL or DR? I'm talking DR here. Keep in mind this isn't a forum to throw cheap shots at religion I'm not particularly religious myself, but still it's bad pool.

<<Unfortunately, I could bring forth RL examples of how there is much variability in concepts human moralities. But alas, last time I did so I was drug off on a tangent about how I can't use RL examples...>>

Unfortunately it would be a tough sell for you. Being a Soc. major, I'm well aware of the fact that basically all cultures known to man have remarkable moral commonalties. Variability's yes, but what varies is insignificant to the amount of common ideals represented within their moralities. It's not a question if common morality exists, it's a mostly a question as to how these moralities are applied.

<<I never stated that the immortals don't make value judgments about each other. I have always contended that the immortals have their own concepts of justice and morality. However, they are also known to each other. They are equal to each other, and they are the creators of the rest of us underlings. Their constructs of morality are going to be different from ours, because we cannot necessarily understand them.>>

I'm sorry but suggesting the idea that murder, torture, and theft is on equal par with the ideals of justice, mercy and compassion is patently ignorant. Frankly it blows my mind how you could believe this. To accept this view, it forces one to stretch the limits of credulity. The point is if the gods all have multiple judgments about each other, then whose should we follow? To make such a decision would require, surprise!, a value judgement!

<<Again, Chadatru might see them as evil. However, has Chadatru ever stated to humankind that Boltof is evil?>>

Heh, do you doubt that he would?

<< He might also see boltof as doing what Boltof has to do to accomplish certain goals. A behavior by itself is not evil or good, the outcome is...>>

The ends justify the means eh? Great slogan for the guild.

Immanuel Kant wrote brilliantly about human morality. He makes the case that morality is determined on three levels. Motive, method, and outcome. I would highly recommend you take a look at it.

I just have one more question for you in this section.

On top of that, dividing the concept of behavior and outcome is confusing and leads to inconsistencies. Using your logic I could defend the position that it's not wrong to torture people, what's wrong is that people suffer because I do it. It's just double-talk.

<<Give me an example of black and white, with no contextual intermediary...>>

The unjust killing of innocent life. AKA murder. Now try and rebut this without contextual intermediary.

<<Unfortunately people are subject to the same environmental (internal and external) forces as all other animals, and as such I don't see much of a distinction between their and our behavior.>>

This is where you really miss the point I think. We as humans have similar urges, but what separates us from animals? The ability to transcend our primordial instincts for the good of all. If you feel content living like an animal more power to you.

<<Why is it you decree that intelligence necessitates responsibility? Is this some part of natural morality? How do you define intelligence?>>

I believe knowledge necessitates responsibility, yes this is part of natural morality, is that so hard to grasp?. Furthermore I was speaking of wisdom or knowledge not the ambiguous concept of intelligence you seem to be pushing here. For us to argue morality, we'll have to accept the pretenses that come with it. Otherwise, it's pointless to discuss the issue. If something is indeed truly moral, then challenging it's moral significance is redundant and gets us nowhere.

<<I agree it is a value judgment to label someone as arrogant. However, we have a clear cut concept of what arrogance is. Unfortunately, for the issue of morality we do not, we have differences of opinion as to what morality is. I doubt threes much variation in what marks arrogance.>>

You assign significant all consuming value in your understanding of "arrogance" but asking you to judge wrong and right is simply overwhelming? I don't think you're being intellectually honest here. I think their exists just about the same amount of disagreement in regard to what classify's arrogance as there is in regard to issues of wrong and right. I can't believe you'd actually try and make this point.

<<This is the point I'm trying to make, the more you attempt to avoid judgments, the more you wind up making. :) Value judgments are an inherently natural and unavoidable. Sometimes we like to make ourselves feel justified and superior in our decisions by trying to convince ourselves that we're not making value judgments, but in the end we are really just deluding ourselves.>>

<<Nice attempt at a cut.>>

I apologize I didn't mean it to sound like that.

<<I never stated that I dn't make value judgments. I stated that in regards to questioning a gods actions and labeling them by OUR standards is arrogant and a worthless value judgment. >>

Yes, but again that's presuming that OUR standards are not their standards. Who's to say the gods don't follow natural distinctions of wrong and right? That's really the issue here. Not the fact that we have completely different opinions.

<<If you want to hear more about this feel free to email me at my play.net addy...Suffice to say morality is not as cut and dry as you would like to think. >>

I never said morality was cut and dry. I'm merely suggesting that it can be ascertainable and comprehendible.

<<You may still argue that this is immoral behavior, would you say the same thing about non-human animals that engage in such behavior? I am not in any way shape or form advocating infanticide, in fact I am among the "moral" majority that thinks its a heinious act.>>

The point is we're not animals, we're humans. We are not slaves to our desires and instincts, we are enlightened and intelligent, sentient beings unlike any on Earth. You seem to conveniently dismiss this fact.

I would love to see a criminal use your rationalizations here to explain to a judge how he shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes because they were the product of his animal instincts. He'd be laughed out of court.

The point is all of society recognizes that we are not merely creatures ruled by instinct, we are something much more magnificent. A higher form of life, a transcendent and intelligent being, an individual. Thus making the rules for us different from the rules for animals. Of course this is basic philosophy, I don't even know why you're even trying to argue this point.

<<Just as with my above example the vast majority will not understand the behaviors of the individual.>>

I contend this is neither true nor relevant. Wasn't it yourself who suggested that only the outcome matters?

<<That behaviors themselves are not moral or immoral. The value judgment we place on them due to our own concepts of morality are the only things that define the action. The behavior just is...>>

Okay this is like the 20th time you've said this. I understand your point, but I feel you're not really answering my objections and charges here. Instead I feel like you're trying to dance around them, which is why, I beleive you feel compelled to constantly repeat your assertions.

<<e you basing this on the legal sense or the moral sense? From a moral viewpoint I don't see a distinction...>>

Yes, I contend it's wrong to unjustly take an innocent life, from a moral vantage point. Which in turn is what our "legal-sense" originates from.

Thanks again,

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

Brittany:

>Yes, I contend it's wrong to unjustly take an innocent life, from a moral vantage point. Which in turn is what our "legal-sense" originates from.

By saying that it is unjustly taking a life, you have already attached a value judgement to it, thus making it a bit redundant to say that it is wrong. Murder is, of course, ammoral because that is the definition of murder.

Lennon:

>My debate has never been that the immortals are perfection incarnate, however I still contend that they are beyond our man-made morality, and inherantly neither good nor evil.

Is there any in-game evidence to support this? If you look at the Immortals in the traditional perspective, of 39 seperate entities, they are actually very simple morally. Do you think Botolf would ever have an inner conflict about blackmailing someone or Aldauth about killing someone? No, the immortals have a set behavior that they consistantly subscribe to, disregarding context. That makes them more akin to animals than beings of ultimate morality to me.

The question still remains, though, can we place value judgements on them, even if we have a higher moral standard. We have about as much right to do that as we do the animals, as they can not comprehend doing anything else. It's all instinct.

The problem arises if we assume that the gods are not individuals, but rather pieces of a whole, whether that is the All god or a light/dark/neutral conglomeration, as was suggested at the beginning of this thread. In that case, the immortal would actually be making moral decisions by deciding which form to represent itself as. It would be similar to the struggle between the ego, super ego, and id, in the case of the three-part god.

Player of Linras Cauldrath - not a psychology, philosophy, or sociology major

<<By saying that it is unjustly taking a life, you have already attached a value judgement to it, thus making it a bit redundant to say that it is wrong. Murder is, of course, ammoral because that is the definition of murder.>>

Exactly my point. Some things are indeed Black and White. and cannot be justified with context.

But you have to understand the question it was addressed to.

<<Give me an example of this (a action that can be classified as Black or white) without intermidiary context.>>

Well how bout murder, murder by it's definition is wrong. There's your example, point proven. Granted that's all determined upon whether you accept the premise of murder being unjust. But I doubt that it's a subject we'd all disagree on.

My motive was to prove that some things cannot be justified, and if you accept the premise, then you cannot refute the claim. But to reject the premise would be to compromise your intellectual credibility. It's the classic bait and trap manouver.

My philosophy professor used it alot on the Physcology majors. :)

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

>Well how bout murder, murder by it's definition is wrong. There's your example, point proven. Granted that's all determined upon whether you accept the premise of murder being unjust. But I doubt that it's a subject we'd all disagree on.

Going by the definition of murder being wrong, however, it is not black and white whether or not any given thing is murder. The legal definition is clear, but the courts must account for extinuating circumstances (self-defense, for example) to determine if they consider it morally wrong or not.

>But to reject the premise would be to compromise your intellectual credibility.

Not a concern of mine. ;)

Anyway, this bait and switch is good on the surface, but looking into it more deeply, it can be seen that you switched the definition of the word you were using partway through. You were using the definition of murder being morally wrong to prove that the definition of murder being premeditated killing was morally wrong. Would it be wrong to, for instance, kill Osama bin Laden with premeditation? Some would say "yes," while others would say "no." It isn't even black and white for a more concentrated version of the legal definition of murder.

Given:
A=0
a=1
B=A+1

Proof:
B=0+1
B=1
1=a+1
1=1+1
1=2

Something isn't right there.

Player of Linras Cauldrath - computer science major, who puts logic above personal credibility

>(mr' der) - 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

>Hm... okay, so if it's not against the law to kill someone, it's not murder, therefore it's not wrong.

In my opinion, your conlusion relies on faulty logic which I will address in a bit.

First, I think this is the very point that was being debated. Are some things, like murder, "wrong" regardless of context or definition? Brittany seems to be saying "yes", there are things that are black and white regardless of what context is assigned to it or what definition man places upon it. Lennon seems to be saying "no", the "act" just "is" and it can only become black or white once it is viewed within a particular context. You also seem to be saying, "no" that an act only becomes wrong once man (or some group) defines it as being so.

(I hope Brittany and Lennon will forgive me if I have mistated their arguments, which I have, admittedly, simplified)

Now, to address your argument about the definition of murder, I would say that in my opinion , in your case there are two wrongs.

Wrong number one, murder is subject to a higher morality and remains "wrong" whether it is defined as being unlawful or not.

Wrong number two is in the failure, of whatever group you are speaking of, to pass a law against murder. They have ignored the higher morality and tried to substitute man made "definitions" for morality.

I've enjoyed reading the whole debate, Lennon and Brittany are obviously well spoken but are probably right to realize that they have come to an empasse where there isn't likely to be any mutually acceptable conclusion.

So the question remains, and apparently must be answered by each person individually - can (or should) man hold the gods to man's own understanding of morality. Are the gods subject to this "higher" morality, or is it "arrogant" for man to presume to judge the gods?

Gloryarm

<<May I suggest that the reason we're not getting anywhere in this argument is because you're using examples of social science to debate an issue of philosophy. You're bemoaning my strict adherence to old philosophers, yet you fail to realize that issues such as morality, virtue and honor cannot be fairly addressed through conventional science. They are matters of the higher mind.
Similarities between humans and animals are interesting but irrelevant when discussing issues of morality and higher thinking. As I'm sure you realized animals do not comprehend such things, they lack a superego, as Freud put it.>>

As I stated I am not going to argue this anymore, its pointless...But I will make a couple quick comments: Freud was also wrong, very few psychologists these days, put any stock in his core theories. He did help bring the concepts of the unconscious and psychotherapy to popular understanding (but these ideas were "borrowed" from others)...

As far as your contention that morality cannot be addressed through conventional science, I highly suggest taking a peek at some of the current work being done on this topic within the fields of science and not philosophy...

<<PS by the way, what feild of science are you in exactly?>>

I have a Masters of Ethology and Evolutionary Psychology, with a minor in Biologcal Anthropology. I am currently working towards my PhD in Evolutionary Psychology as well as a teaching certificate. My undergraduate majors were Social Psychology and Biology with a minor in Philosophy ::grin:: that was a mouthful =P

I actually passed my logic course. Go me!

First of all, the proof was not meant to prove anything. It was an extremely simple set of equations meant to show what redefining the definition of something during the middle of an proof could do to change reality. I will never (never meaning in the forseeable future) post a formal proof, as I find them both boring and useless to the average reader.

As for your bait and switch, here is your definition in the post I was referring to before:

>Well how bout murder, murder by it's definition is wrong.

This is the more moralistic definition of murder. However, before you posted this:

>Yes, I contend it's wrong to unjustly take an innocent life, from a moral vantage point. Which in turn is what our "legal-sense" originates from.

The legal sense differs from the moral sense in that it is clearly defined without moral terms.

The legal definition of murder: Killing with premeditation.

The moral definition of murder: Killing unjustly.

Now, looking at your proof (the way it comes across) of there being something that is black and white:

Premise:

Murder is killing unjustly.

Murder is killing with premeditation.

Premeditation has no degrees. It either occurs or does not occur.

Killing has no degrees. Something is either dead or not dead.

Proof:

Murder is unjust, therefore it is morally wrong.

Murder is morally wrong, therefore killing with premeditation is morally wrong.

Premeditation is black and white. Killing is black and white. Therefore, murder is black and white.

Conclusion:

Something that is black and white can be morally wrong.


In the above proof, the two definitions of murder were both assigned to it and made equivalent, while they are not. Killing unjustly is black and white morally, but not logically, as unjust is not well-defined logically. Killing with premeditation is black and white logically, but not morally, as killing, premeditation, and the combination of the two are not well-defined morally. The legal system acknowledges this by the exceptions it allows (self-defense and executions, for instance).

I will acknowledge that you did not directly state that you were using the legal definition of murder, however it is a neccasary part of the proof, unless I am missing something, thus implying that you were making use of it. Either that or you were making some large logical leaps.

Player of Linras Cauldrath

Linras, I originally wrote up a wordy and booring diatribe about why I thought the premises of your proof were flawed. I even posted it for like half an hour, but I decided to pull it. Why? Well because it veers off onto bunny trails at times and because overall it's really not that important an issue to argue over. But I will admitt your logic seemed sound, I just diagreed with the terms of your premise. And as I'm sure you know, anyone can whip up a proof that works, usually the devil is in the details, not in the equations.

Thanks as allways,

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

PS Linras if you'd like a copy of my original post, send me your pigeon. At PTAH@play.net ....