An Introduction to good and evil

well, it is a fallacy....but anyway......

As you stated, it is only out of chosen and stubborn ignorance that one avoids ideas simply because they are new.

the appeal to novelty should not be used to convert back to theism. it should be used to prevent the equally ignorant attitude that all new ideas are better than X idea because all new ideas are inherently better than "old" idea Z.

As you said. try a new idea, if it doesn't work, scrap it.

Exactly. So there's no need for theism in terms of rejecting new ideas either.

And I'm still not seeing how that'd be relevant to law even if it was necessary.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Exactly. So there's no need for theism in terms of rejecting new ideas either.

I would argue that a refined form of theism could be used to rally around to reject ideas. Then again, a refined form of theism will probably end up closely reflecting something close to our current logical axioms. So I'm not saying that theism is needed for the above quoted task, but could be potentially used that way.

And I'm still not seeing how that'd be relevant to law even if it was necessary.

If you are living in an "evil" dictatorship, theism could prove a useful tool for breaking the bondages of said government.

American colonies breaking away from King George, to give a crude example. (now we have our own King George. pfff.....)

Originally Posted by morval

I would argue that a refined form of theism could be used to rally around to reject ideas. Then again, a refined form of theism will probably end up closely reflecting something close to our current logical axioms. So I'm not saying that theism is needed for the above quoted task, but could be potentially used that way.

If you are living in an "evil" dictatorship, theism could prove a useful tool for breaking the bondages of said government.

American colonies breaking away from King George, to give a crude example. (now we have our own King George. pfff.....)

You could just as easily rally people around another ideology. If you rally people around a religion to get them to overthrow a government, then your movement is based on religion, and people will want to replace a dictatorship with a theocracy. Achieving little in terms of overthrowing oppression. And even this has little to do with just rejecting newer ideas.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

You could just as easily rally people around another ideology. If you rally people around a religion to get them to overthrow a government, then your movement is based on religion, and people will want to replace a dictatorship with a theocracy. Achieving little in terms of overthrowing oppression. And even this has little to do with just rejecting newer ideas.

Sure, you could just as easily rally people around another ideology. I'm just posing that it can be done with a theistic ideology.

It's interesting that you mention the fact of replacing the former oppressive regime with a theocracy.

With the American revolution, you had a Protestant people who were escaping K. George for religious reasons. When they decided that they had achieved what they wanted, they recognized that they were in danger of becoming the very thing it was that they were trying to escape. So instead of rallying around a theocracy, they rallied around a democracy.

With the American Revolution you had a people that were protesting against the British Empire's regime for reasons of being taxed without being allowed to vote. It wasn't protestants disputing the regime of the Church, or if they did that barely came into it, because Britain was also a protestant country at the time.

The decision to become a democracy was grounded in the fact that they were fighting FOR democracy to begin with. The American Revolution had little, if anything, to do with religion.

America came about as colonies because they were escaping religious persecution. They decided to escape political persecution as well with the taxation bit. The problem with taxation is that the only way to escape is it through legislation or becoming your own country. They did, and decided to create separation of church and state. England was protestant, but the colonists weren't the kind of protestants that K. George liked.

I'm pretty damn sure it was mostly down to the taxation without representation, and nowhere near as much to do with religion. And even if it were to do with escaping from religious persecution, that's not necessarily rallying your people under the banner of a religion you believe is superior to the previous religion. You're simply rallying them under the idea of having the freedom to believe whatever they like, or at least being free to believe differently to what the government tells them, and not as much to do with replacing one state religion or ideology with another.

Theism is just another set of shackles for the people to wear.

There should be no chains binding anyone.
Honestly, if there were no laws preventing it, I would definitely have killed someone by now, and stealing isn't much of a big deal the way I see it, especially if it's from some completely rich corporation. (actually, it's not the law which prevents me, it's more the difficulty of corpse disposal :3)

This doesn't make me evil, doesn't even make me immoral, it makes me amoral, because I do not bind myself to the system's of others, unless it suits my purposes, and even then it is nothing but a trick.
I manipulate systems to my own benefit whenever I can.

You're the most chaotic neutral person I have ever seen

EDIT: Never mind, chaotic evil

Hm, I saw Aziel as Neutral Evil from what was said there. (although on the chaotic side of it)

Sage of Earth and morval, I believe it was actually both, but each was more important at different times - Religious Persecution was the reason they left toward the "new world" in the first place, but it was taxation without representation which was the major factor in ceding from the British Empire (after all, they were still being taxed before they became the US).


As for my stance on the main issue here, I believe that since no two people do, or even can, see morality the same, it is best to let everyone do as they wish. Although this may seem irresponsible at first glance, just think of this: When a person is hard done by, they don't feel very good, and if they notice other people feeling the same way, the nature of human empathy will, for many people, make them want to help the other person.

Hrm... after rereading that paragraph, I realize I may not have explained my stance very well, but I can't really think of how to elaborate. ^_^;; Feel free to ask anything if you want to figure out what I meant.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

Theism is just another set of shackles for the people to wear.

There should be no chains binding anyone.
Honestly, if there were no laws preventing it, I would definitely have killed someone by now, and stealing isn't much of a big deal the way I see it, especially if it's from some completely rich corporation. (actually, it's not the law which prevents me, it's more the difficulty of corpse disposal :3)

Which you only really need to do under law.

This doesn't make me evil, doesn't even make me immoral, it makes me amoral, because I do not bind myself to the system's of others, unless it suits my purposes, and even then it is nothing but a trick.
I manipulate systems to my own benefit whenever I can.

Lawful evil. Follows and uses the rules for personal gain.

I prefer to see myself as Lawful Neutral. Because I am the Law, the only law that people need ever acknowledge.

As for my stance on the main issue here, I believe that since no two people do, or even can, see morality the same, it is best to let everyone do as they wish. Although this may seem irresponsible at first glance, just think of this: When a person is hard done by, they don't feel very good, and if they notice other people feeling the same way, the nature of human empathy will, for many people, make them want to help the other person.

So you would have an anarchy? Sure, some people will help others of their own volition, but think about the large majority that will do more harm than good, because humanity is a selfish little race which needs to be given incentive before helping others.

As I stated once, law and morality are two different things. Law only exists to keep society running smoothly, regardless of morals. Though some things that are morally outrageous also happen to be against the law, the law either prohibits what is detrimental to society, or enforces what is helpful to society.

Therefore regardless of forcing people to follow moral ideas, some laws are necessary to keep society functioning. As the needs of society change, so can the law.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

So you would have an anarchy? Sure, some people will help others of their own volition, but think about the large majority that will do more harm than good, because humanity is a selfish little race which needs to be given incentive before helping others.

As I stated once, law and morality are two different things. Law only exists to keep society running smoothly, regardless of morals. Though some things that are morally outrageous also happen to be against the law, the law either prohibits what is detrimental to society, or enforces what is helpful to society.

Therefore regardless of forcing people to follow moral ideas, some laws are necessary to keep society functioning. As the needs of society change, so can the law.

On a social level, yes I think anarchy would be better, but on a political level, anarchy is, like communism, usually only good in theory, so I don't actually worry that much about it.

A few questions: What is "morally outrageous"? How would you define "detrimental to society" and "helpful to society"? How do you know if society needs change? And if society ran smoothly all the time, wouldn't there be no change?

Although one or more of the above questions may seem to have objective answers, I can guarantee that each and every one of them is subjective. It is all because the law, as it is now, is decided by the few for the many. Even counting places where everybody votes for the lawmakers, the lawmakers cannot be perfectly in tune with society and all its kinks, and so the law will not make things run as smoothly as you seem to be saying.

Anarchist Morality | libcom.org

I don't necessarily understand where anarchism comes into play here...I've really no idea how it fits into philosophical constructs of morality. It touches upon them, yes, but it really doesn't concern itself with such ethics.

Originally Posted by morval

Were you quoting the words of some obscure anarchist? I hope so. It will make it easier for me to say my next thought.

Soulless virus.
Except viruses manage to reproduce.
Can you do that?

Been taking Heath Ledger's recent performance to heart I see.

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing him perform in that film.

I wasn't quoting anyone. That's all me baby.
Your virus mention makes little to no sense though.

Granted there is always room to clarify.

Bwa ha ha, Azi is haz roll'd lawful evils.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing him perform in that film.

I wasn't quoting anyone. That's all me baby.
Your virus mention makes little to no sense though.

Granted there is always room to clarify.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? I haven't the heart to clarify right now. I find it fascinating how many masks you manage to hide your true self behind. Then again, we all have our own masks. I don't have time to peel others masks away for them. I have enough trouble getting my own off.

Ok, morval, if you want to be a bit rude, allow me to point out that you made no grammatical sense.

Sorry, but I don't do riddles. Either reword it or explain.

I will in this edit, attempt to divine what you tried to say.

I could probably assume you are insulting me, by calling me soulless, and a virus.
Which well makes you disrespectful to me, then you mention reproducing which makes little to no sense, as viruses do not "reproduce" as much as they "convert".
They utilize cells to clone themselves, I don't see reproduction as a cloning process.
But yes, I have the ability to reproduce, which really doesn't make sense of any sort in you asking me that.

I can see now that if you leave it as is without clarification, you have now made yourself out to be a self-righteous hypocrite.

You criticize me for my honesty, and yet you aren't perfect. You are in no position to judge others. I'm a survivor, and I do what it takes to survive. I am as they said, lawful evil, I am not chaos, I have motives in every single thing I do. I am ordered.

It figures that only Sage had the ability to tell that crucial difference between chaos and law.

So yea, sure leave it without clarification, you haven't got the heart, and that makes you neutral, not good. So drop the righteousness.

I'll opt for the unspoken choice of inaction this time.

Originally Posted by morval

ehem. I don't have time to read everything so far, but from what I can gather, SoE is saying that beliefs should be put aside for laws unless there is an objective and justified reason behind those beliefs.

Aren't laws just codified beliefs about what's best for society?

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

There should be no chains binding anyone.

Freedom ain't free.

Originally Posted by morval

I'll opt for the unspoken choice of inaction this time.

You mean the cop-out.
Somehow it is you who is better suited at inflicting harm, not I. Strange, that you feel you can criticize me, when perhaps it is yourself who needs to be scrutinized.