I can only illustrate how people -really- feel about this Undeath business, when I RP an amorous, huggy corpse (DK). Then you really see their attitudes ;)
I am entitled to make fun of moral relativism, a concept, which, for the record, is only used when you need to justify someone's crap.
Philosoph are still breaking their mind over the question and discussing/screaming at each other
"What do the words 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' mean?" "What is good, what is evil" "is morality universal applicable?"
yet you and a few others seem to have solved this millenia old mysterium in the philosophical world in seconds. *claps*
Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept.
We cultivate animals just to slaughter and eat them. Are we evil? We cant be good for doing that, cant we?
If I was the animal I would say yes, we are evil. Still, we dont see it as such (most of us).
Our dailies activities kill the world. Are we evil?Cant be good
Our wealth comes and the cost of other human beings, dying everyday. Are we evil? Cant be good...
A priest finds you evil for not going to church. Is he right? Or is he wrong?
Is judaism, christianity or islam evil? right? wrong?
Can you please answer all my question I just posted. It seems you cracked it. So please answer every single question I posted, because I dont know the answer to this questions
EDIT: Sorry didnt see your post
07/11/2018 14:05Posted by TheronarumAnd you still rely on the flawed "many perspectives"-theory. You speak as if pragmatism is supposed to be more valuable than morality because it is universal, but that that's only an assumption
I find not that one overweights the other. I just accept that there are diffrent views at things. Doesnt make one more valid then the other. but while I am accused of thinking pragmatism to be more valuable than morality, i could claim the same mirrorwise. Going so far that some people claim morality (honour) is more valid than life itself. <- What about this?
07/11/2018 14:23Posted by TaxaniaSylvanas Windrunner is a corrupting influence on the Forsaken and the best path for them is one without her or any other dogmatic, controlling leader with an agenda, such as Calia Menethil. We'll see if this ever happens.
While your overall message is true, there is some nuance to it that I feel that needs to be pointed out: as of BtS there is a certain amount of Forsaken population that willingly wants to be that way.
Vellcinda describes them as the “twisted” or downright “evil” ones.
That idolise Sylvanas and whose mindset resonates with her in almost every way. And most of these are the “core” and “first” ones that weren’t raised by her or her Val’kyrs, but by Arthas back during the Third War.
Talking about the RAS, Nathanos, or guys like Belmont.
07/11/2018 14:38Posted by XiaopawCan you please answer all my question I just posted. It seems you cracked it. So please answer every single question I posted, because I dont know the answer to this questions
I can crack it in a different manner, since you insisted.
*Somewhere in Darkshore, two Sentinels watch civilians being slaughtered by an orc......*
Sentinel 1: "We must stop this evil!"
Sentinel 2: "Is it evil, though? From his perspective, it is not evil. He might have hungry children at home!
Sentinel 1:"......What does that even mean? Even if he has hungry children at home, he's killing civilians, that's obviously evil. Lets go!
Sentinel 2: "Ah, but how do you define evil? What is evil? In his eyes, we are evil, is our perspective more valuable then his? If we adopt the view that our perspective is more valuable then his, we are actually justifying his action. Why wouldn't he kill the people who consider him a lesser race?
Sentinel 1: "Were you hitting the moonberry wine again? Lets go, for the love of Elune!"
*Sentinel 2 as the civilians are screaming for help: "AMERICA IS BOTH GOOD AND EVIL, DEPENDS ON THE PERSPECTIVE!"
Sentinel 1: "What even is "America"? What does this matter? You are obviously witnessing an atrocity."
Sentinel 2: "What is an atrocity?"
*at this point Sentinel 1 stabs Sentinel 2, and upon hearing her defense, Tyrande sets her free, because murder can not be evil as evil depends on perspective.*
Xiaopaw, first of all - you're mostly right in the cases you have provided.
But your extreme moral relativism and just doubting absolutely everything because "everything is relative" is a horrible concept.
Allow me to give you an example:
Is a banana yellow? Our eyes see it as yellow but perhaps some alien species see it as blue so we cannot even say that a freaking banana is yellow because we have to consider the concept of relativism!
In life we can either have principles or we can have anarchy.
Moral Relativism, you deploy on a daily basis, is the weapon of anarchy. Imagine what our society would look like if we stopped considering anything evil, because "there are different points of view"...
If I saw someone trying to kill a puppy in the street, I would defend that puppy.
Why? Because I consider that evil.
Would you do that?
Or would you just say that "the concept of evil is relative" and let the puppy die because it's impossible to decide whether killing it was evil or not?
Life is not about deciding once and for all, above the shadow of doubt on a cosmic scale, what GOOD and EVIL "really" mean.
Life is about upholding a set of principles, about commonly deciding what is good and what is evil and doing our best to stick to those commonly accepted things.
THIS is why we frown upon killing puppies, sexually harassing women or burglary. Not because some cosmic entity told us to but because we DECIDED those things are EVIL.
Would you just allow all of these things to happen because there is no cosmic-level definiton of good and evil?
Also, Araphant gave a VERY good example.
But your extreme moral relativism and just doubting absolutely everything because "everything is relative" is a horrible concept.
Allow me to give you an example:
Is a banana yellow? Our eyes see it as yellow but perhaps some alien species see it as blue so we cannot even say that a freaking banana is yellow because we have to consider the concept of relativism!
In life we can either have principles or we can have anarchy.
Moral Relativism, you deploy on a daily basis, is the weapon of anarchy. Imagine what our society would look like if we stopped considering anything evil, because "there are different points of view"...
If I saw someone trying to kill a puppy in the street, I would defend that puppy.
Why? Because I consider that evil.
Would you do that?
Or would you just say that "the concept of evil is relative" and let the puppy die because it's impossible to decide whether killing it was evil or not?
Life is not about deciding once and for all, above the shadow of doubt on a cosmic scale, what GOOD and EVIL "really" mean.
Life is about upholding a set of principles, about commonly deciding what is good and what is evil and doing our best to stick to those commonly accepted things.
THIS is why we frown upon killing puppies, sexually harassing women or burglary. Not because some cosmic entity told us to but because we DECIDED those things are EVIL.
Would you just allow all of these things to happen because there is no cosmic-level definiton of good and evil?
Also, Araphant gave a VERY good example.
07/11/2018 14:38Posted by XiaopawEvil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good.
NO
NO
NO
NO
07/11/2018 14:38Posted by XiaopawWe cultivate animals just to slaughter and eat them. Are we evil? We cant be good for doing that, cant we?
If I was the animal I would say yes, we are evil. Still, we dont see it as such (most of us).
Our dailies activities kill the world. Are we evil?Cant be good
Our wealth comes and the cost of other human beings, dying everyday. Are we evil? Cant be good...
A priest finds you evil for not going to church. Is he right? Or is he wrong?
Is judaism, christianity or islam evil? right? wrong?
Can you please answer all my question I just posted. It seems you cracked it. So please answer every single question I posted
I know you were not talking to me, but it seems that your argument is fallacious.
What I get from your reply is that you believe that we cannot say anything worthwhile about good or evil, since everyone says something different, or because everyone has a different perspective. But the fact that others have another idea of good or evil does not say anything.
If someone says that x is good or evil ALWAYS depends on the context, but that's not the point... the point is if there is a universal ethical theory, yes or no, and everyone saying something else does not prove anything.
So, what I am asking of you is to tell us WHY we cannot accept a universal theory of morality, and more arguments than your previous one.
EDIT
Also, I know what you're trying to do, but there is no reason to doubt things for the sake to doubt them. If you disagree with something that is fine, and I'm happy to discuss that, but please, do provide a good alternative theory so we won't be frustrated in dealing with your points.
Why are we even debating this, Blizzard literally said last weekend that Sylvanas has evil plans.
07/11/2018 14:39Posted by ZaraoThat idolise Sylvanas and whose mindset resonates with her in almost every way. And most of these are the “core” and “first” ones that weren’t raised by her or her Val’kyrs, but by Arthas back during the Third War.
Talking about the RAS, Nathanos, or guys like Belmont.
Sure, there are Forsaken that are made into heartless, life-hating psychopaths by the process of reanimation, their minds twisted in a fashion that makes them feel nothing but an undying envy for the living.
And yes, these 'broken' Forsaken are the ones that are truly devoted to Sylvanas and glad to be used as weapons. If Sylvanas does get pushed out of leadership of the Forsaken, I can almost guarantee that this militant, life-hating faction of the Forsaken will follow her no matter where she goes or what she does.
This is why I think Blizzard has written so many high-profile reanimations into the story as of late. Without Lilian Voss, without Amalia Stone, without Thomas Zelling or Delaryn Summermoon, without Lorash Sunbeam or Sira Moonwarden, perhaps even without Derek Proudmoore, there would be almost no high-profile Forsaken that would have any desire to turn against Sylvanas Windrunner.
While the old guard might serve Sylvanas no matter what she becomes, my prediction is that this new blood will be the foundation of a new Forsaken without Sylvanas once BFA does away with her, something that seems more and more likely with every spoiler we get access to. But that's all this is, a prediction.
07/11/2018 13:47Posted by AraphantI am here with popcorn for the "She is not evil, just pragmatic."
It iS aLL FOr VIctoRY
Nevermind that such callous tactics simply aggravate enemies.
07/11/2018 14:52Posted by ArcturWhy are we even debating this, Blizzard literally said last weekend that Sylvanas has evil plans.
I adore You my human overlord.
Let's start from Sylvanas' ploy. To "condition" the mind of the reborn Derek so that he may kill his entire family in their sleep... That's just cruel. Even by Sylvanas' standards. You would think that, as a Forsaken, she would try to help Derek get over his terrible trauma... But No, she just treates him like a tool.
Isn't this the same woman who was going to kill her own sister in her sleep and raise her as a Forsaken...?
Imagine Jaina's and Tandred's reaction when they see what their beloved brother has become. They won't stop until Orgrimmar is laid to waste by the might of the Kul Tiran Fleet.
By raising Derek Proudmoore, Windrunner didn't just ruin the existence of one man. She spit on the honor and pride of every Kul Tiran. Her insolence must be met with swift vengeance.
And In doing so, you honor yourself.
By raising Derek Proudmoore, Windrunner didn't just ruin the existence of one man. She spit on the honor and pride of every Kul Tiran. Her insolence must be met with swift vengeance.
07/11/2018 14:57Posted by Halasibel07/11/2018 14:52Posted by ArcturWhy are we even debating this, Blizzard literally said last weekend that Sylvanas has evil plans.
I adore You my human overlord.
And In doing so, you honor yourself.
07/11/2018 14:38Posted by XiaopawCan you please answer all my question I just posted. It seems you cracked it. So please answer every single question I posted, because I dont know the answer to this questions
I can crack it in a different manner, since you insisted.
*Somewhere in Darkshore, two Sentinels watch civilians being slaughtered by an orc......*
Sentinel 1: "We must stop this evil!"
Sentinel 2: "Is it evil, though? From his perspective, it is not evil. He might have hungry children at home!
Sentinel 1:"......What does that even mean? Even if he has hungry children at home, he's killing civilians, that's obviously evil. Lets go!
Sentinel 2: "Ah, but how do you define evil? What is evil? In his eyes, we are evil, is our perspective more valuable then his? If we adopt the view that our perspective is more valuable then his, we are actually justifying his action. Why wouldn't he kill the people who consider him a lesser race?
Sentinel 1: "Were you hitting the moonberry wine again? Lets go, for the love of Elune!"
*Sentinel 2 as the civilians are screaming for help: "AMERICA IS BOTH GOOD AND EVIL, DEPENDS ON THE PERSPECTIVE!"
Sentinel 1: "What even is "America"? What does this matter? You are obviously witnessing an atrocity.
Sentinel 2: "What is an atrocity?"
*at this point Sentinel 1 stabs Sentinel 2, and upon hearing her defense, Tyrande sets her free, because murder can not be evil as evil depends on perspective.*
That made me really laugh at work. Trying to hide under my desk.
The luxus of philosophie is of course nothing you have in a conflict. Philosophie is a luxus of peace.
Being part of the object of philosophy you naturaly dont become oblivious on that matter. Of course those sentinels have all right to see that orc as evil.
But what about the orc. His nation suffered under the famine that was thought to be the fault of the Nelfs. He could have lost someone important and hates the Nelfs for what he had to witness during that horrible time. Is he wrong in thinking the Nelfs are evil?
07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelIn life we can either have principles or we can have anarchy.
I just like to question the very basics we see as granted. My mother always told me I was a rebellious pain in the ... behind... and that I ask to many questions.
07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelOr would you just say that "the concept of evil is relative" and let the puppy die because it's impossible to decide whether killing it was evil or not?
If I was confronted by the situation, I would not even thing about the concept but just handle the situation how my guts tell me to do. Philosophical asking is something I do to myself in calm surroundings. The moment a dog attacks for example my little brother, I dont think about evil or good and just protect my kin. Afterwards I can have my moral dilemma and think if killing was necessary.
Life is not about deciding once and for all, above the shadow of doubt on a cosmic scale, what GOOD and EVIL "really" mean.
That is true
07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelLife is about upholding a set of principles, about commonly deciding what is good and what is evil and doing our best to stick to those commonly accepted things.
And here is something that buggers me. Is that really commonly accepted. And if, is it right? Have we thought about everything that it would mean?
07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelTHIS is why we frown upon killing puppies, sexually harassing women or burglary.
Yet in some lands we have commonly accepted values that are unthinkable in our land (like a woman a s nothing to say, marrying a child and so on). For me this is wrong, but am I in the position right?
Suicide is something we frawn upon, yet in Japan it was something that could save your honour and accepted
EDIT: Argh again didnt see you... I write to slow
07/11/2018 14:51Posted by TheronarumSo, what I am asking of you is to tell us WHY we cannot accept a universal theory of morality, and more arguments than your previous one.
We dont even have a universal morality in a country or our world. How could we manage a universal theory of morality? The moment someone from another continent comes into play, we again have different values of morality
07/11/2018 14:52Posted by ArcturWhy are we even debating this, Blizzard literally said last weekend that Sylvanas has evil plans.
I think Blizzard are mostly to blame for this to be honest. They sit on a throne of lies.
They have consistently told us that Sylvanas is not evil, not Garrosh (or worse) and is morally grey while making it harder and harder to believe.
Then at BlizzCon 2018 they say "she has evil plans".
That isn't a clever twist in a story... that's making it pretty damn clear in the story the exact direction the story is heading while saying outside of the story "Wait and see, there will be a surprise, Sylvanas isn't evil"... It leads people to believe that Blizzards intended perception of Sylvanas is to NOT be evil, while showing in game that she is quite clearly evil.
07/11/2018 15:04Posted by CatlathionThey have consistently told us that Sylvanas is not evil
Give me a source. Because the only thing I know Blizzard (specifically Watcher) said was "Azeroth is a world of moral greyness".
07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelLife is about upholding a set of principles, about commonly deciding what is good and what is evil and doing our best to stick to those commonly accepted things.
And here is something that buggers me. Is that really commonly accepted. And if, is it right? Have we thought about everything that it would mean?07/11/2018 14:50Posted by HalasibelTHIS is why we frown upon killing puppies, sexually harassing women or burglary.
Yet in some lands we have commonly accepted values that are unthinkable in our land (like a woman a s nothing to say, marrying a child and so on). For me this is wrong, but am I in the position right?
Suicide is something we frawn upon, yet in Japan it was something that could save your honour and accepted
This is why the goal of humanity should be a total unification of all the cultures ;) So we all have ONE set of values upheld. Equal rights, animal rights and so on.
Go globalization, go!
07/11/2018 15:05Posted by Theronarum07/11/2018 15:04Posted by CatlathionThey have consistently told us that Sylvanas is not evil
Give me a source. Because the only thing I know Blizzard (specifically Watcher) said was "Azeroth is a world of moral greyness".
T: Because Sylvanas is not evil. In the story for her, it’s much more. She’s definitely aggressive, and she definitely believes in having power and control, but I also think that she does take seriously the representation of the Horde. She has a different perspective which is that the Horde will never be safe until the Alliance is wiped out. But, is she acting in a cruel, mustache-twirling evil way? Not really, she’s just trying to defend her people.
Source: https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/4755/explore-claim-resources-and-battle-for-your-faction-world-of-warcraft-interview
I just like to question the very basics we see as granted. My mother always told me I was a rebellious pain in the ... behind... and that I ask to many questions.
Yes, yes, but remember that the unexamined life is not worth living ( ὁ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ, ho anexetastos bios ou biôtos anthrôpôi), which also entails examining your own ideas, something that you seem to ignore.
Philosophical asking is something I do to myself in calm surroundings. The moment a dog attacks for example my little brother, I dont think about evil or good and just protect my kin. Afterwards I can have my moral dilemma and think if killing was necessary.
Aristotle says hello, and tells us somewhere in the Nicomachean Ethics that becoming a right person is not about leaning back with a glass of wine and thinking about those concepts, but actively participating in social life, and being in the social world.
But unto more important matters, I'm still waiting for your reply on my points.
07/11/2018 15:10Posted by CatlathionT: Because Sylvanas is not evil. In the story for her, it’s much more. She’s definitely aggressive, and she definitely believes in having power and control, but I also think that she does take seriously the representation of the Horde. She has a different perspective which is that the Horde will never be safe until the Alliance is wiped out. But, is she acting in a cruel, mustache-twirling evil way? Not really, she’s just trying to defend her people.
Source: https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/4755/explore-claim-resources-and-battle-for-your-faction-world-of-warcraft-interview
Thank you! You are most correct.
07/11/2018 15:09Posted by HalasibelThis is why the goal of humanity should be a total unification of all the cultures ;) So we all have ONE set of values upheld. Equal rights, animal rights and so on.
Go globalization, go!
I would wish for something like that. Like the star trek Federation. Dont know if you watched Voyager but there was an episode that really strucked me. Two crewmember are molded into one new being with an own mind. Everyone becomes friend with him, while morning for the lost of the two crewmans. At the end there is a cure and the molded version begs for his life aksing "Am I not a living sentient being? Dont I have the same rights? How can you kill me to save the two lost?"
The captain decides for the "cure" but you can see the morale dilemma in the last scene on her face. That really struck me.
Maybe watchign to much Star trek and morality subject made me how I am now. Overthinking everything with morale