| Apr 6th, 2004 12:11 PM |
| The_Rorschach |
I understood it 
:scooby snacks and mud puddles
|
| Apr 6th, 2004 04:42 AM |
| kahljorn |
I've said this like a million times before but everyone discounts my thoughts like day old bread at the bakery, assholes.
Omniscients is KNOWING EVERYTHING. Let's think about the word everything. Everything means everything. Not just where every speck of dust is at the same time, but knowing where all the blank spaces in between are at. A truely Omniscient person would kn ow: THE TRUTH, THE FALSE, AND UGLY. It wo uld also have to know the unconceived thin gs, so they can be conceived.
Someday you will have an epiphany and realize there is no real "Truth" anyway, so acting on the false is just as valid.
So in response to your question of freewill, imagine it like this: GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING, this means God also knows ALL POSSIBLE RESULTS OF EVERY OCCASION, when you decide if you're going to take a piss or not he knows that one way You will take a Piss and another he won't. That is true omniscient nature, and that is what most wise people attempt to capulate. Knowing not that what you do and say will have a specific effect, but evolving beyond that into picking the effects and trying to set it into motion.
All that is deep rooted is psychology and sociology, in order to set a little thought from up, a little living domino effect... you just have to consider that everything you do and say, effects everything. Yet what you did was just a result of someone else's shit.
I hope that's not too incoherent.
|
| Apr 6th, 2004 04:06 AM |
| ProfessorCool |
God is good only in movies and television.
|
| Apr 6th, 2004 03:48 AM |
| Big McLargehuge |
Also if God is the only benchmark by which you measure good the concept of "God is good" becomes "good is good" and is there fore meaningless.
|
| Apr 6th, 2004 12:49 AM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CLAspinster
I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.
|
Despite the fact that they're both abstract concepts, I don't see many similarities between math and morality.
Quote:
|
It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.
|
If this is true, God isn't anything morally. He's neither good nor evil, since those terms are only applied to human actions after the fact. "God is good because He says He's good."
|
| Apr 6th, 2004 12:28 AM |
| CLAspinster |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.
|
I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.
Quote:
Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.
EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."
|
It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 11:50 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.
|
Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.
Quote:
|
What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?
|
Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.
EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 10:44 PM |
| CLAspinster |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:
If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."
If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.
|
What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 10:42 PM |
| CLAspinster |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?
|
Disagree. The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 08:26 PM |
| Sethomas |
This thread has taken a turn for the suck.
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 08:06 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Nevermind.
|
| Apr 5th, 2004 07:47 PM |
| Brandon |
Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:
If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."
If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 09:55 PM |
| The_Rorschach |
I like the old Lawful Evil. It gave birth to the sort of Paladins one might associate with the Spanish Enquisition.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 07:12 PM |
| Brandon |
I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?
I also wonder how many nonbelievers would really have the balls to follow through and stand by a rejection of good and evil absolutes when questions like "do you think the Holocaust was evil?" are asked.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 07:00 PM |
| AChimp |
That's from the 3.5 rules. LE is kind of a boring alignment; NE makes for a much more interesting campaign because there's just as much scheming without all the predictability.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 06:53 PM |
| Perndog |
He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.
Where did that come from; since when does being lawful evil make one prejudiced? 
According to that description of the system, I'm True Neutral, but I think I'm Neutral Evil in the 1st edition AD&D DM guide I've got (I can't check because it's at my parents' house).
I like the turn this thread is taking.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 03:23 PM |
| AChimp |
That's up to the DM.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 02:44 PM |
| Emu |
Does using dark magic make you a bad person if you use it for a good end? :/
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 02:27 PM |
| AChimp |
This is all you need to decide morality.
Quote:
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
|
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 12:02 PM |
| Perndog |
It's a matter of how right and wrong are defined, and you can't accuse me of equivocation because "right" has no standard definition; it has a unique meaning within every philosophical paradigm. In monotheistic religions, "right" or "good" means in accordance with divine will. In nontheistic systems such as Buddhism, "right" has different definitions or is subjective and defined individually. The only universal standard for what is right is that it is what people should do according to a given value system. In this model, "right" is defined as socially efficient, and the entire purpose of the system is to provide a definition that doesn't require a spiritual basis for it yet still allows it to be absolute. If you want a specific source for it, the source would have to be human psychology.
So if rightness is defined uniquely (and it must be) within every model, and this model defines rightness as social efficiency, then this model can be correct as long as a superceding source of morality is absent and so long as absolute standards of what works exist.
I doubt it's correct myself. I just want to show that it's possible.
I bet a lot of moral atheists are quite philosophical about it. And Ror said, in essence, that the only way morality is possible is if a deity is accepted as the static and absolute root of it. That's what I think would be objectionable, even to eggheads.
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 10:32 AM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Perndog
It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.
|
You still haven't answered my question yet. What makes actions that create the greatest possible harmony objectively right? What force makes them correct?
I would imagine that those atheists who consider themselves moral are not arguing over morality as has been in the strictly philosophical sense. For example, most of us - even nihilists - would say that we shouldn't kill people, but that does not necessarily reflect on our beliefs regarding an absolute right or wrong.
|
| Apr 3rd, 2004 10:07 PM |
| Perndog |
What if the dynamic nature of laws only shows that the right set of laws hasn't yet been discovered? If the "right laws" do exist, it wouldn't be a matter of acceptability but rather of what works best for a society.
As for morality being solely spiritual, I think millions of atheists who consider themselves moral people will have a serious problem with your statement, especially as you're saying all deity-worshipping religions are acceptable as sources of morality but not atheistic belief systems. The entire purpose of my suggestion was to describe the only possible way (unless someone wants to propose another) that absolute morality could exist without spirituality. Of course, if you and other folks want to classify me as amoral because I am entirely devoid of a spiritual life, I'm fine with that.
By the way, Zoroaster was a living prophet of the god Ahuramazda.
|
| Apr 3rd, 2004 07:53 PM |
| The_Rorschach |
I'm with OaO on this one. Right and Wrong are established by legal cannon. Laws are a reflection of what a society finds acceptable, and therefore have nothing to do with Morality, and are essentially dynamic
Good and Evil are established by doctrine. Morality, is a spiritual concept, and the only the paradigm which can support such is one where God -Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus' God, Muhommed's Allah, the Sikh's Void or Baha'u'llah's "Central Orb"- is accepted as the Absolute from which Morality stems and remains static.
|
| Apr 3rd, 2004 07:41 PM |
| Perndog |
It can be correct if there is a particular set of guidelines that can be applied to make all of humanity coexist with the greatest possible harmony. Or it can be right on a micro scale if there is a such a system for a given group of people but a different system for another group.
|
| Apr 3rd, 2004 07:33 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Then you still haven't answered my question. How can your view on morality be correct without any transcendent right or wrong? How can there be a natural morality?
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
