Aberrant RPG - Who ARE the good guys?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I think strong arguments can be made that the whole of the Teragen is at least partly responsible for the worst excesses of their most radical members.

Consider; They don't condeem each other, they don't act to try to stop each other, etc.  Everything anyone inside the Teragen does is viewed/excused as "pursueing his path" by the other members.  

If your next door neighbor is a serial killer, and you know it, you have a moral (and probably legal) obligation to try to stop him or at least turn him over to the police.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

The Teragen really don't have much of a great care for baselines, even though many believe wholesale slaughter of them is unwise, it is not the worst thing that a Nova can do.

The way they see the issue is: Their next door neighbor is stealing cable, should they report them to the cable company, or should they maintain their friendship.

I hope I sound coherent, It's late at night where I am and I'm very tired...

Dr. Arbitrary

[Smite]

Answer:  "There is no Good and no Evil, all is perception and situation"

Closest I have ever got to Good was when my Character led a World of Darkness purge.  It was an amazing six months utterly destroying most of the factions with in the world of darkness.  (As anyone who watched them get favored has oft wanted)  Vampires were the first to go, followed by just about everything else supernatural.

[Asbjørn]

Closest I have ever got to Good was when my Character led a World of Darkness purge.  It was an amazing six months utterly destroying most of the factions with in the world of darkness.

Wholesale slaughter and genocide? Doesn't sound too good to me...

[Smite]

See its all in how you look at it.  We destroyed things that plagued and fed off mankind.  The world was a better and brighter place for it.  We also brought with us the technologies that benefited our world so much.  

Few people are going to call you down if you just cured their worst diseases, brought in techniques to cleanse the enviroment, and rid them of their secret masters.

Situational Ethics, one of the greatest foundations of man's thinking.

Mass Murder vs Hero

Genocide vs Lives saved.

Who would an average joe side with,  the superhero who brings health, joy, and happiness or some supernatural freak who leaves off the blood of the innocent.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

Answer:  \"There is no Good and no Evil, all is perception and situation\"

I don't see it that way. There is such thing as right and wrong. Our world is not subjective and morality is not subjective either.

I hate to get all philosophical and stuff but this kind of statement just drives me nuts.

Perception and situation is an awful way to approach morality. The only reason it has any appeal is because it eliminates hypocracy, something we all do sometimes.

Ethics presupposes situation. Ethics says that some things are right and some things are wrong, no matter the situation.

To say that ethics is dependent on situation is a useless statement. It is no different than objective ethics once you analyze it's consequences.

Objective ethics states that in situation A, action X is appropriate, in situation B action Y is appropriate.

The way I understand your statement is:

that in situation A, Morality M is appropriate which condones action X. In situation B, Morality N is appropriate which condones action Y.

I don't see how that is different than objective ethics. It just asks the question \"what morality is appropriate for which situation?\"

The only alternative is to say that there is no rule, that any action is appropriate for any situation.

I want you to take your statements literally and see where it gets you.

The world was a better and brighter place for it.  We also brought with us the technologies that benefited our world so much.  

According to subjective ethics, there is no such thing as a better and brighter place because some people might feel differently. And who is to say that the technologies benefited the world, some people might have very different perceptions.

There is such thing as right and wrong. I could prove it, but I've had too much to drink tonight to be coherent so you will have to take my word for it. I suspect that I'm already a little incoherent. ::drunkenmonkey

I guess the question is: on a desert island with only one person, what is right and wrong? Subjectivism has no answer.

Dr. Arbitrary

[knave]

DR A - the question has never been one of subjectivity vs objectivity - it has always been a question of the SUBJECTIVITY OF ETHICS.  Every culture has their own ethics plugin.  On an island of 1 - whatever that one's ethics state still define right and wrong.

Moral people follow their cultural code of ethics.

Immoral people ignore them when its convenient.

Amoral people don't follow them at all.

Then you have a bunch of people who follow other ethical (more unusual) codes - some are compatable - some aren't.  Being an ethical American Satanist could lead to very different behaviour to being an Ethical Australian Agnostic for example.

[Smite]

No matter what the action, I can find a situation that would challenge that ethic.

Ex.  

Killing a child, you wouldn't do it would you.

Now imagine that this child is the anti-christ, who's survival would lead to the end of the world.  Or perhaps he is dying for a horrible disease which keeps him in mindnumbing agony and warps his body.

Or perhaps just killing someone.  We can all think of reasons for killing somebody, situations that even the most level headed of us.

Keep these mind before objective ethics

[Dr. Arbitrary]

the question has never been one of subjectivity vs objectivity - it has always been a question of the SUBJECTIVITY OF ETHICS

I think you might be wrong. The current philisophical trend in the world currently is Post-Modernism which is a pretty new thing. Post-Modernism is based on subjectivity.

Most people think that they are being very clever when they say things like \"it all depends on your prospective\" and \"in the villian's eyes, the protagonist is the bad guy.\" The reality is that these kinds of ideas are infused into our culture, government and educational organizations.

It's effects are cultural awareness programs, politcal correctness, alternative history (blacks discovered flight before whites did thousands of years ago in Nigeria...), the villainisation of historical figures (christopher columbus, the founding fathers of the United States)

Everyone is evil in someone's eyes, but that doesn't mean that everyone is evil.

Think about it, any time you ask someone about right or wrong, unless they are extremely religious, will probably say that it all depends.

Killing a child, you wouldn't do it would you.

Now imagine that this child is the anti-christ, who's survival would lead to the end of the world.  Or perhaps he is dying for a horrible disease which keeps him in mindnumbing agony and warps his body.

The deal with children is difficult because of issues concerning sentience and stuff.

But the issue of whether or not one should kill a person who is in agony is not about flexible ethics.

you say that you would have one's ethical code challenged in a situation like this. The only reason that could occur is as a result of confusion over application of the ethical code that one holds.

If one was truly committed to an ethical code, there would be no question as to what the proper. A person committed to an ethical code that says that killing is always wrong would have no guilt in allowing the person to suffer. A person committed to a code where suffering is evil would put the person out of his misery.

Now both can't be right at the same time, so one (or both) has to be a wrong way of handling the situation.

Dr. Arbitrary

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

There is a saying to the effect that "exceptions make bad laws."

So you can find or invent a case where it would be ethical to kill a child.  Good for you.  But I don't think you are saying that, in general, killing children is an ethical thing, or even that it normally is.  

Those exceptions are why we have juries, so that the law is enforced with some sanity.  But the default setting is still "murder is wrong".  If you think you have an exception, then go ahead.... but remember that you are putting your ass on the line.  As soon as you kill someone, it is up to you to prove that course of action was the correct thing to do.

Which brings us back to the Teragen.  Some of their members take the teragen ideal, warp it into "it is OK to kill whomever I feel like".  All right, fine.  Every movement is going to have nut cases etc.  The question is, "What does the rest of the movement do about them?"  

Answer:  They do (at best) nothing, and (at worse) give them aid.

Geryon is a political terrorist.  That Gravity/Perception blind guy (name?) is a serial killer of novas and an elite.  He also keeps baseline slaves.

When your movement accepts and aids people like that, you become tainted by their actions.  Just because you didn't pull the trigger doesn't absolve you of blame.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I didn't want to do this, but I'm going to give examples.

Objective law: The initiation of physical force upon a rational being is evil.

Force is defined as: coercion in a physical form.

( I might need to tighten the definitions for some other words in this definition to prevent semantic games)

There are NO exceptions. I challenge you to find one.

I'm not trying to preach my specific values. I just want people to acknowledge that there is such thing as value.

Here's an analogy:

" Several people are trapped in a darkened room. One person after looking around finds a door that leads outside. Another person finds a door that leads to the closet. The two begin to argue over which is the correct door. Suddenly another person interupts 'there is no door.' Everyone quiets, nods their head, sits down and spends the rest of their life in the darkness discussing how there is no door."

As for Epoch, I don't see how the Terats can stand him. The problem is that the Teragen who understand the consequences of the Null Manifesto are so few that they have to let the wannabes in the organization if they want to make a real difference.

The problem is that Novas are so far beyond humanity, that it is sometimes hard for the really warped Terats to recognise that humans are rational beings.

Geryon is an entirely different story. As I see it, he is one of the few Terats who have a grip on things. He only kills murderers and terrorists. Novas are getting a bad deal, and Geryon is getting rid of the baseline Hitlers and Stalins.

Dr. Arbitrary

[knave]

Objective law: The initiation of physical force upon a rational being is evil.

Force is defined as: coercion in a physical form.

( I might need to tighten the definitions for some other words in this definition to prevent semantic games)

There are NO exceptions. I challenge you to find one.

Unless the initiation of such force results in less harm than the non-initiation of such force.

ie.  The man is about to push the button.  The button activates a chain of events that destroys everything.  To initiate violence or not to initiate violence.?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Sometime right and ethics are unimportant.  Ethics and even laws are no more than guidelines for stupid people.

The compassionate thinking person says - I will not hurt others because I can visualise the reverse.  I will help others because I can see the benefit of group effort.  I shall not cheat others - because I will know the consequences of such happening to me.  I can see the value of community - but not be blinded by the disatisfaction of other people.  I am part of a whole, but the whole does not rule me.  In short, I consider the consequences of my own actions and the actions of others and act as best I can with the information I have to bring about what I see as the best results possible for everyone involved.

Does this person need anything more?  Probably not.  Does this person generally go around destroying things?  Definitly not.  Is this person helpful to those around him or her?  Absolutely.  So why do laws and ethics exist?  Conclusion - because not all humans are compassionate thinking people - OR - Ethics are what a compassionate thinking person would do - MOST of the time.... written down.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

Pushing a button that will launch nuclear missiles or some such series of events sounds like application of force to me.

It's no different than killing someone who is about to pull a trigger that will cause the propelent of a bullet to explode thus expelling a piece of lead at you at high speeds

If you killed the button guy, it would be in self defense.

Ethics are the consequences of acceptance of an abstract 'good'

different people have different interpretations of 'good' ranging from saving life, aquiring money, sex, pleasure, and so on. Ethics are a set of logical consequences of this good. If one holds that saving life is 'good' then killing someone is not ethical. If one holds that sex is 'good' a totally different ethical code is formed.

Dr. Arbitrary

[Smite]

Yes each person holds a seperate code of ethics. But these ethics are often challenged by new and different situations.  And in fact, the situations you have encountered pervious to the code helped shape it.

You did not come into this world with a fully formed code of ethics.  Your parents told you right from wrong, and brought you to others who added to this as well.  Often contridictions formed from the various sources, and evaulations had to be made.

Very few of us are completely committed to a code of ethics, Fanatics and Close-minded aside.  Are you absolutely certain of what you do for every situation that would ever come across?  And even those who have very sound ethics as normal people often have them challenged when they erupt.  They are then faced with situations that even the most inspired and wise code could not have forseen.

As an abstract, Good and Evil are almost impossible to prove.  No two people can truly agree, though you can get a majority to agree on certain things.  During points in history, people have agree that certain minorities were "bad" ex. Germany.  

My point is that Good and Evil exist on the person alone.  Do what you believe is right but be open to new ideas and opinions.  Aways be willing to evaluate and change as well, because its when you think your right that often you are the most wrong.

[harlequin]

::thumbs-up good and evil are 100% persceptive...

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I disagree. Even though it may be fiendishly difficult for us to determine absolutely what is good and evil, it is still possible.

if Good and Evil exist on the person alone, outside influence has no effect on things and everything is morally acceptable and no judgement of others can be made. On the other hand, if reality has an influence on Good and Evil then unchanging aspects of Good and Evil can be derived from unchanging aspects of reality. (I hope that that last statement is clear to everyone, If not I'll try to put it another way.)

An example of reality affecting Good and Evil is that according to the laws of reality " A cake is either eaten or not eaten. Therefore, one cannot have ones cake and eat it too (without baking another cake). Therefore, the pursuit of having ones cake and eating it too is not good, (it is evil).

This may seem absurdly obvious and stupid. But consider: The economic system "Fascism" is a combination of Socialism and Capitalism. It allows businesses to be owned privately, but are tightly controlled by the government. This is equivalent to having the 'Cake of individual rights' while trying to 'eat it for the sake of the group' at the same time.

One can conclude that Fascism is an evil economic system because it does not obey the laws of reality.

Dr. Arbitrary

[Smite]

"Wanting to have your cake and eat it too" you used as basis for a system.  Interesting.  Say I develop a Magic Regenerating Cake.  When ever you eat some of it, you grow back. By your system I would be even more evil than facism.

Or perhaps my church preached that cake was evil and I don't want cake to begin with.  Am I good or simply diluted?

I am not saying reality doesn't play a part.  The guy who grows up in the projects has a different view of live then a guy who grew up in the burbs.  But that doesn't mean self interest on either of them is necessarily evil.  

All I am saying that while most of us can agree on things we believe to be evil, those concepts are rather the result of the domino effect civilization and religion has had over thousands of years.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

\"Wanting to have your cake and eat it too\" you used as basis for a system.  Interesting.  Say I develop a Magic Regenerating Cake.  When ever you eat some of it, you grow back. By your system I would be even more evil than facism.

That's kind of a red herring there. The Cake analogy is a way of demonstrating the mathematical principle ~(A ^ ~A)

(things cannot be both true and false at the same time) I really cannot see what the consequences of a regenerating cake would be, Do you have any real world examples?

All I am saying that while most of us can agree on things we believe to be evil, those concepts are rather the result of the domino effect civilization and religion has had over thousands of years.

I disagree, Concept formation is a cognitive process, not through mimesis. Certain ethical concepts are held universally (or almost universally) in all cultures not because they imitated their neighbors, but becasuse they used reason to determine that they were true. Most (maybe all, does anyone know?) societies hold murder as evil, even the ones that have been in isolation from the rest of the world.

Dr. Arbitrary

[Joseph]

I'll look for some more concrete examples, but I can give you some basics presently.

Warning! The information below may offend some more sensitive types. I am reciting from memory and may have some details wrong. Please correct me if that is the case.

Certain ancient (used vaguely) cultures would view the killing another of their society with a similar outlook to the Texans. Essentially, very little trial, a whole lot of whoop ass. Killing a human from some other society was treated as nothing more than as if the person had killed an animal. (Chromatics' Blue/Black war, anyone?)

The Dine (Navajo) were this kind of society in the way back when. They were a very isolationist kind of people. Hostile, to boot. While there were wars between bands of the Dine, they were all of one greater society. If a Hopi had wandered onto their lands, though, it was a different matter.

On a related tangent, greater than 30% of old Indian tribe names were "The People" in their respective languages.

The above instance was not representative of every Native American tribe, though. Karuk, Maidu, Yurok, and Pomo (the latter being whom I work with) were all rather amible toward one another, and would attend gathers between bands that shared borders.

Edit: Needless, there were numerous cannibal "spirits" and societies in the Americas. It was almost a norm.

That help some?

-Joseph

[harlequin]

I disagree, Concept formation is a cognitive process, not through mimesis. Certain ethical concepts are held universally (or almost universally) in all cultures not because they imitated their neighbors, but becasuse they used reason to determine that they were true. Most (maybe all, does anyone know?) societies hold murder as evil, even the ones that have been in isolation from the rest of the world.

being a former religion/anthroplogy major i can say with certainity that morality varies quite widely culture to culture. the "agreement" we see today is mostly the result of the forced westernization of much of the rest of the world. and even in the western world killing in the name of country is considered ok. nearly everyday the US bombs someone, or performs "peacekeeping" actions. the US would be the glaring example but in many ways.

and as far as the good and evil being perscpective, my point was that, bush jr. does not think himself an evil man for bombing afghanistan, holding up peace in israel, or threatening iraq with nukes (today's announcement 9_9). he is doing what he thinks is necessary, whether or not the rest of the world agrees with him is another matter.

osama bin laden, same thing. he thinks he is fighting a holy war in the name of good and freedom. he does not see his actions as evil. in his mind he is fighting an oppressive evil on behalf of the downtrodden. to him, the people who died in the world trade tower were the evil ones.

even hitler, did not think what he was doing was wrong, he was doing what he thought was best. in his mind he was doing the world a favor. the rest of the world decried him as a butcher and the epitome of evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he believed he was right. does that make more sense now?

**now before anyone jumps on my back, i'm not saying any of the above people are good, nor do i support any of them or their beliefs, i was simply using them as examples**

[Aninemity]

...you know jo, not all texans are gun toting psychopaths.....there are some that prefer swords...    

and i definately agree w/ you and harle. it's *always* a matter of perspective. good and bad are both very relative terms.

the taking of life is a prime example. whether it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on context and perspective. first, are you talking about animals or humans? is it for food? did they do something to warrant death (execution vs. murder)? assisted suicide?

those are all differing ways to tackle the same issue and not even talking cross culturally it a judgement that is being made on an individual basis.

[Dr. Arbitrary]

good and bad are both very relative terms

Just because people have different conclusions about what is good and what is evil does not mean that they are relative. the good is defined as the ultimate goal of humans. Some think that knowledge is the good, some think that power is the good.

Regardless, there are 2 possibilites for the good.

A: there is a good, it's just a matter of figuring out what it is (What is the meaning of life?)

B: There is no good, everything is relative and has no greater purpose.

The consequences of possibility A are: there is a goal, any action that brings me closer to it is good, any action that pushes me away is evil.

The consequences of possibility B are: since there is no greater purpose, any action is as good as any other. It means there can be no judgement, because there is no standard to judge against.

here's another analogy ( I hope I'm not overdoing the analogies but I think that some people find them useful)

"A bunch of people are in a marathon. Unlike normal marathons, this one does not have marked paths. After a while of running most of the people are off on different roads running in different directions. As a sportscaster, it is your job to determine how well an individual is doing.

If there is a finish line, then the closest people who are running in the correct direction are winning. if someone decides to 'screw the group' and run in a different direction, he is either getting closer to the goal, or farther away and can be judged as such.

If there is no finish line, then there are no winners and everyone is just as lost as anyone else. If one person decides to 'screw the group' and run in a different direction, there is no consequence.  No one can be said to be running in the right or wrong direction"

The only difference between this analogy and the real world is that it's quite tricky to find the finish line. There are indicators towards the right direction, but sometimes they take us through difficult routes that no other runners wish to take.

Dr. Arbitrary

[knave]

As a girl in one of my gaming groups liked to say - One man's meat is another man's whatsit.  

The question is - Who gets to decide which of the people (all of whom are doing what they are doing for what they see are the right reasons) is good and which is evil? - the answer is always whoever is left to write about it.  So -  winning is good.  Losing is evil.  And if you win - make sure that all record of your conquests are expunged quickly before following historians brand you as an evil enslaver / hawk / conquerer / pervert / etc.

mwhahahah

-knave

[Aninemity]

dr a, you're assuming that the finish line is the same for everyone. the runner who goes the opposite direction and says "screw the group" as you put it may simply see a different finish line.

and if there is only one finish line who has the right to be the one who judges its location and difficulty to find? those are things that each person have to decide upon for themselves. noone intentionally looses the race, they just have a different goal (such as letting another win) it's not the finish line that defines morality but the individual runner's goals that define their moral parameters.

[T-dev]

Dealing with this topic is fun for me. Firstly, let me say that to understand who are the "good" or "bad" guys in Aberrant or the Aeoniverse as whole, the company who produced the game. White Wolf, in game system writing, is committed to the idea of relativism. If you don't believe me you have not been reading the World of Darkness in any depth.

Can anyone say Mage?

Now Aberrant is no different. All the groups have moral & immoral aspects to them, much like any organization in the real world, including governments.

No when we ask  who the "good" guys are in a fictitious work, the real question is who are the protagonists. That is of course the PC's. As to the major groups in Aberrants , there are some designed to be more conducive to being protagonistic. Project Utopia & the Aberrants are very good for this purpose. The Teragen & the Directive can be but are harder. I think all would agree that in the main book both groups are written like villians & in their individual supplements they are painted in a better light (or more detailed depending on your point of view).

Jacob

[Joseph]

...the real question is who are the protagonists. That is of course the PC's.

::blush Oops. Sorry, Harle. We'll start acting like good guys now.

Do we have to wear white, though? It hurts!  ???

-Joseph

[harlequin]

::dry sorry joe, simply being the protagonists has not made the groups characters good... or evil for that matter, they are just the random bad things that happen to more or less good people...  ::wacko

[Joseph]

And I quote:

"You took the priest?!? You take everything but the priest! I mean come on!"

Take him back, Pax. I don't care if he "followed you home."

-Joseph

[Ayre el KaBeer]

This goes to everybody in this thread....

HEAVY!!!

::unsure

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I wonder, it seems that the general consensus of enlightened thinkers here are of the opinion that 'Good and Evil all depends on your prespective'

Does this line of thinking apply only to Good and Evil, or does it have applications to other things, like 'the answer to the question '2+2=?' depends on your prespective.

The reason I ask is not to be antagonistic or mocking, but I want to know how deeply this subjective reality worldview is developed in your minds. I am pretty sure I am right about my views of the world (as I am sure you are of your views), but I need to know at what philisophical level to argue. Basically my question is:

what are your beliefs with respect to the following concepts:

1. Metaphysics: the nature of reality,What exists

2. Epistemology: How do we learn about reality

3. Ethics: What is the right thing to do

I really want to make sure everyone knows I'm not trying to be patronizing, I think that if we want to have an intelligent discussion of ethics, we need to all get on the same page.

I'll start

1. The physical world exists, it also is independent of ones consciousness unless physical action is taken

2. Reason, not mystical revelation

3. What is required for survival as a rational being is what is ethical. applications of the mind are good, applications of the fist are bad, (Farming is good, using slave labor to farm is bad)

I have the impression that a lot of you have beliefs that are somewhere along the lines of

1. Reality is created by ones consciousness

2. ?? ??

3. It's not right for me, but it might be right for you.

Is this even close?

Dr. A

[knave]

Dr A.  Your fundamental problem seems to be that you want to categorise everything.  That is the classic failing of the scientist (of course).  The problem is that we do not have sufficient information to assume a bounded system.  In other words - You cannot categorise all human behaviour without knowing every variable that can possibly have an effect on the situation and or past lives of all those involved.  The best that you can do is _predict_ most likely outcome based on what you know about them.

Whilst 2 + 2 will always equal 4, some fictional cultures might not be allowed to add.  Some people might get the equation wrong.  Some people might understand that an answer of 4 might upset others whose opinions they value.  A classic example of this is - your boss says "How much time will it take you to finish this project - we only have 4 days available or we go over budget"... What does Joe Employee say... The answer is most likely - "It depends".  After busting his chops to get it finished in 4 days, Joe Employee might take a sick day - and justify this with - I worked my ass off getting that thing finished - its no wonder i'm run down.

Nevertheless 2 + 2 is a bad example of this topic - since "What are your ethics" is closer to "Which way is left?" than "Which way is West?".

Anyway - here is my take on your categories

1. The physical world exists, but perception of it is not universal.  Differences in perception may be small - but we cannot know because we lack the language to communicate perfectly.  We are forced to rely on 'apparent consensus'... "So - this is the colour we call blue - Ok - Blooo! Everyone got that!"  In other words (heh) there will ALWAYS be misunderstandings.

2. We reason with the tools taught us, but take much on faith.  How many people know how a TV works?  A Hurricane?  Themselves?  Most people will be perfectly happy with working the remote.  When we learn new things we learn by looking for similarities in current knowledge, watching and listening to others, experimenting, and deducing backwards from future experience -- the 'Ahhh - tha'ts why that did that' effect.  Ultimately, most people don't solve everything - they muddle through with some heuristics that they apply whenever they can and ignore a lot of stuff.

3. How would I like to be treated in described situation.  Compassion and empathy basically.   Incidentally, it is my view that application of the Mind may be far more harmful than applications of the fist.  Sticks and stones might break bones - but psychological torture is forever.

Application of Force - of whatever kind - can be harmful... just as the non-application of force can be.  The saying goes that "For evil to prosper, all that is required is for good men to do nothing".  If we followed your 'rules' then there would be no reason to kick the living tar out of the slavelord next door... unless you include that in the set of rules... but I can pretty much guarantee that it is possible to find an exceptional case everytime without the application of some fuzzy logic.  This is why there are courts whose tasks are basically to either apply a law if one exists, or otherwise to decide if the persions involved acted 'reasonably'.  'Reasonably' today is very different to 'reasonably' 40 years ago.  For example, I'm pretty sure my skater punk nephew would have been slapped in jail for phoning up his girlfriend and greeting her with the salutation "Hey, #####"

So - if 'Reason' can change based on time - then it is not a fixed or wholly defined concept.

-knave

[Dr. Arbitrary]

What's wrong with categorization, it's just an application of concept formation, (deciding that blueberries, the ocean and the pepsi logo are all blue) and it's the only way we can really understand our world.

I admit that after thinking about it, the 2+2 thing was kind of a weird example.

I appreciate your answer to the questionairre, I think that what you call faith is actually a little closer to empirical trust. (The last 999 times I pressed the on button the tv turned on, there's a good chance that that it will work that way in the future.)

Let me put the ethics a little differently. In order to live with other men, you must not survive with your fists. If you choose to live with your fists, you are no better than an animal, out of control and unpredictable. That's what I mean by reasonable, Using reason to survive. If I had to make it a maxim it would be: "Don't start any fights, but if someone else does, don't be afraid to finish it"

I hope this clears up some of the weird sounding areas of my beliefs. Thanks for replying, It will help me avoid making points that don't need to be made because they are either already understood as being true, or are irrelevant.

Dr. A

[knave]

There is nothing wrong with categorization as long as you accept that you will be surprised sooner or later because the lines betweent he boxes don't really exist.  There is also nothing wrong with stereotypes per se - they often exist because they are/were true up to a point.  As long as we accept that and don't actually expect every australian to be a rude, drunken lout called Bruce we're ok, cobber.

I used the word faith in its 'trust' context - but not necessarily empircial trust - although it all comes back to that eventually.  People are happy to accept that something does somethingelse - so long as they have faith in or put their trust in the source of that information...  In Psychology they make a differentiation between the two - which is why I did it I guess.

As for the animals... we are animals.  We like to think we're better than animals.  We like to think we're 'civilized'... For many years men would fight duels over matters of honour and status... points of civilization involving ritual combat...  Much like the situation in - oh a pack of wolves say...

Now we do the same in court using new weapons - lawyers.  The effects of this can be the same as any duel of a previous age.  We like to think this is fairer... but can Joe Bloggs realistically fight Microsoft and win?  Well... maybe.  But maybe the peeboy can kill the king's champion... Miracles do happen.

So whether or not we're better than other animals is entirely our decision.  We're certainly more successful... and the winners do get to write the histories... : p  We are our own protagonists!

digressing a bit

About ten or twelve years ago I was reading Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card - I'm positive that you'll have read it.  He had an interesting idea in that.  Basically what it was was this.  We are living in a society based on the female reproductive ideal.

Given that to be successful any species must reproduce itself as much as possible without killing itself off in the process.  And that each member of the species has the task of seeing to it that his or her genetic material gets passed on to the next generation.

The male ideal is to conquer and hold the attention of as many nubile females as possible.  The greatest chance of passing on genes involves impregnating as many of the best (Grade A, 1st class) females as possible since this requires little effort - the impregnating, not the securing.

Any other male is a potential danger as the male does not know with certainty that any offspring produced are his without constant watching.  The male must thus attempt to subdue and dominate other males in the area.  

The female ideal is different, since females are fertile for a shorter period and are also tasked with the rearing of children.  Consequently a child is a large investment of time and energy for a woman - not to mention the various risks associated with actual pregnancy.  Therefore it behooves a woman to ensure that she is 1) Protected and supported by someone she trusts whilst bringing up a child - hence marriage 2) In a society where her offspring is able to continue to reproduce safely with a minimum of risk to the chance for reproduction - hence community and the reduction in physical aggression.

So if we say that Ethics is what we use to live together as a community then Ethics is merely another aspect of the female ideal.

----

-knave

[Dr. Arbitrary]

Mental combat is a more just system than physical combat.

The nature of man is that he is rational. Man can only survive using his mind to provide for himself. Man does not have automatic instinct, he must voluntarily use his mind to find food. This virtue of man is what sets us apart from animals, and it is the only virtue that can sustain him in the world. This is the only virtue.

There is a major advantage to courtrooms over duel pits.

Being in the right is an advantage in the courtroom, in a pit it makes no difference who is right.

Also, I agree with you on the sterotype thing, I always had fun in school when the teacher would say that 'all stereotypes are wrong' I'd reply, "surely there must be at least 'one' stereotype that's right, they can't ALL be bad, that's kind of a hasty generalization about stereotypes"

I think that your observations on society are more of a matter of psychology (what I want to do) rather than ethics (what I should do), I don't deny their truth though. Card was a cool guy, I just finished Shadow Puppets yesterday, the whole Ender series is really awesome, I wish I had read Ender's game earlier.

Dr. A

[knave]

I agree with what you've said Dr A - Especially the point on psychology, but then we are all products of our training.

I do think that having right on your side is the secular version of having God on your side.  Many people in both sides of a clash firmly believe that that's his/her/its position.  Besides which, what might be in the right in the USA court could translate to being in the wrong in a Chinese court.  Which court is right and which is wrong?  Mu - there can be no answer because both make their decisions based on slightly different sets of rules and experience.  That is the heart of what this thread is - its not about whether fists are better than words (I think that the folks on this website are highly unlikely to be the sort to resort to base force - being the bunch of staggeringly intelligent devillishly handsome/gorgeous people that we are ) its about the perception of right.  And really - you can play just about any role playing character that isn't a Psychopath and still have some sort of idea that you are doing things for the right reasons.  This is what anti-heros are about... Protagonists who are generally seen by those around them as doing things that are not in the right.  The people around them can still identify with them if they only know 'the Why'.

As for humans having no automatic instinct.  I think our automatic instinct is to take advantage of our shape and intelligence - to use tools and to build.  We learn from others - but so does every other animal.  Isolate a human from the world and he will likely eventually start doing human-like things just from empirical learning - but will not have the tools to muddle through much of what we are taught by others.  The learning curve would take far longer than with other animals - but then it already does.  We are programmed to function as we do - but then lion cubs play hunt and learn from watching others too.  I realise that this is a question of semantics and definition - you may choose to draw a line at the point that an animal picks up a tool and call everything beyond that reason.  Other people might draw the line at the point that the animal develops faster than light travel... But, really does the animal stop being the animal when it crosses those lines?

No - what I think makes us different to other animals (and I have no proof that this is true ) is that we have the capacity (or perhaps audacity) to say - 'We are more than animals' which allows us to hold ourselves up to whatever ideals are fashionable at the time... and more importantly the ability to identify with something that is us or not even of us.  Compassion is what, I believe, truly separates us from other beasts .

We are what we are but we have the ability - not to change - but to TRY to change.

-knave

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I'm going to admit straight off that I'm no expert on epistemology, but the definining characteristic of man is that he can form concepts. Animals are unable to form anything more then precepts. A dogl sees a white room with a table with a steak on it as "lot's of white... there's something brown over there that smells like something I should eat...I'm getting closer, Oooh, there's something on it that smells good. Yum, it tastes good."

Before anyone starts up some tangent to the effect of "KOKO the gorilla uses sign language" let me say that 'Even if KOKO is sentient, he (and maybe gorillas in general) are a special case and may need to be treated as such but, IN GENERAL, animals are unable to look at a blueberry, a smurf, the cover of the Trinity book and the sky, and determine that the shared characteristic is that they are all blue, then store this information for future use.

I don't think humans have instinct (well maybe a little, but it's nothing compared to free will (Being hungry but resisiting the urge to raid the pantry because you want to see the rest of the movie))

Thinking is a volitonal act. by thinking i mean analysis and such, not having thoughts (which is pretty much impossible to avoid, Try for 1 minute, to have no thoughts)

I can concievably go through a day without thinking, I could stay in bed, whenever the thoughts of getting up arise I could just close my eyes and think sleepy thoughts. Maybe I'd eventually get up to eat something (but if I had planned ahead I would have brought food to my bed the previous day). On the other hand, If I did that too often I would surely die.

When I say 'being right is an advantage in the courtroom'  I don't mean thinking that you're right, I mean actually being right.

Imagine a court case. The state of Sporange has declared that the ratio of a circles diameter to it's circumference is exactly equal to 2. If one wanted to challenge this declaration, it would definitely help to know that the ratio is equal to 3.14159... but only in a forum that embraces reason. In a duel pit it doesn't matter.

I know that many issues aren't as clear as "does 2+2=4 or 5" but I think that if enough effort is given, one can eventually come up with an answer that is reasonably close to the correct one. Some questions like "Is slavery wrong?" is pretty hard to prove, but others like "Which is true: Something exists/nothing exists" is pretty easy, it's pretty self evident that something exists, we might not be sure what it is, but it's there.

I think that it needs to be said that there is a BIG difference between the following positions:

A: Ethical principles are impossible to determine

B: Ethical principles are possible to determine BUT it's really really really hard to do in most cases.

I think that B is the true case. Most people have a nasty habit of giving up when they can't figure out why something is wrong or right. (The average person gets really upset when you ask them why murder is wrong).

Most people can produce reasonable sounding proofs with some effort. (murder is wrong because I wouldn't want someone to murder me ... but do your opinions define right and wrong for other people?) With a little more effort they can analyze the holes in their proofs and make them better. (murder is wrong because it is produces nothing and only destroys... but Is nonproduction bad?). and better (murder is wrong because it is unproductive and production is the purpose of man... but is production the purpose of man?) and so on. Each time the proof is more convincing

Dr. A

[knave]

Most people can produce reasonable sounding proofs with some effort. (murder is wrong because I wouldn't want someone to murder me ... but do your opinions define right and wrong for other people?) With a little more effort they can analyze the holes in their proofs and make them better. (murder is wrong because it is produces nothing and only destroys... but Is nonproduction bad?). and better (murder is wrong because it is unproductive and production is the purpose of man... but is production the purpose of man?) and so on. Each time the proof is more convincing

This is what I'm getting at... you can continue to attempt to increase the 'convincingness' of the proof by induction until it approaches infinity - but it cannot get there - because each time you try to make it more convincing you rely on an assumption that everyone might not agree with.  In this case 'What is the purpose of man?'.  Sooner or later something must be defined or taken on faith.

So we have to trust conscience at some point.  Ahhh - but what is that? ... and we chased our tales ever so intellectually until we all fell over.

The court argument - point taken - in the eyes of the court you being right _might_ make a difference - but then this is likely to be settled out of court - or equivalently - outside of a duel.  A duel is a coin toss with your skill and your opponent's being modifying factors.  A court case is a coin toss with the lawyers skills, the judge, possibly the media, the jury, the police and your actual actions being outside factors.

Before anyone starts up some tangent to the effect of \"KOKO the gorilla uses sign language\" let me say that 'Even if KOKO is sentient, he (and maybe gorillas in general) are a special case and may need to be treated as such but, IN GENERAL, animals are unable to look at a blueberry, a smurf, the cover of the Trinity book and the sky, and determine that the shared characteristic is that they are all blue, then store this information for future use.

I can see where you're going - but you're wrong in the way you've said it.  Besides Pavlov's dog - which is classical conditioning, operant conditioning has been proven to work on creatures as 'stupid' as chickens.  There is an experiment called the 'Superstitious Chicken' where a chicken has shown the ability to learn - to peck its cage in a certain place to get food to appear.

Classical Conditioning - a conditioned response to stimuli.  Ring a bell when presenting food.  After a while - all you need do to get the dog to salivate is ring the bell.  It makes the association - bell = food.

Operant Conditioning - A process of behavior modification in which the likelihood of a specific behavior is increased or decreased through positive or negative reinforcement each time the behavior is exhibited, so that the subject comes to associate the pleasure or displeasure of the reinforcement with the behavior.  In other words, every time the dog fetches the stick on his own - give him a biscuit.

What we don't know (but suspect not) is if animals are sentient of their sentience - which would make them truly sentient.  

As for humans - yes we have the ability to delay gratification in favor of some other action - but then a herd on the move doesn't have individuals stopping to munch either.  Generally our instinct is: to think.

Existence of ethical principles - can they be proven?  no.  Can their existence be proven sufficiently to be 'good enough' yes - for a particular time and place.  Are these principles universal - no.  are they affected by location: yes.  are they affected by time?  yes.

Therefore - ethics = moral fashion  - which makes criminals and people who nick each others' papers moral fashion victims

Do your opinions define right and wrong for other people?

Well - your opinion is one voice in the community's opinion - and like it or not the community defines right and wrong for its members and those who choose to live within it.  This does not mean that you will not find members of a community following differing ethical codes.  The question is though, is the code that those members are following compatible?  Judaism and Christianty are but Christianity and Satanism are not.

-knave

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I'm not talking about conditioning or association, I'm talking about concept formation. I doubt that a dog could learn to fetch a ball according to color. fetch the RED ball, fetch the BLUE ball. (Disclaimer: if I get one comment about how dogs are colorblind, there is going to be some carnage)

Also, I disagree on the claim that it would take an infinite amount of time to form a perfect argument. I agree that any argument will always go back to an assumption, but these basic assumptions can be tested for meaning. I would imagine that a perfect argument would be based on the fact that existence exists.

I think that thinking is not instinctual. If it was truly instinctual it would be impossible to resist.

Here's an example.

I'm going to make a statement, I then want you to not think about it for 5 minutes. Do whatever you can, just don't think about any of it's consequences. Do jumping jacks, smack yourself over and over again, Maybe even think about something else.

Here goes.

2 corresponds to a line of length 2 it's length is 2

2*2 corresponds to a square with side length 2 it's area is 4

2*2*2 correspons to a cube with side length 2 it's volume is 8

2*2*2*2 corresponds to ? with a side length of 2, it's ? is 16

STOP THINKING ABOUT THIS.

think about puppies instead.

If thinking were truly instinctual, we would be helpless to resist it. I admit, it's kind of tricky when we put it in lab conditions, but how often do most people think about how things work. If it was instinctual, whenever someone got into a car, they would wonder. How does this work? I think that with little kids it's instinctual, how else would they learn how to think. But it kind of goes away after a while until people can go weeks without wondering about anything.

Dr. A

[T-dev]

FIrstly let me say that this discussion has far trascened the level of an RPG. However, I do like the turn this thread has made.

The throw my two cents in let me bring up a thought. When speaking of such basic concepts as the purpose of man or the nature or sentience ( or consciousness for that matter) two related concepts must be examined presuppositions & axioms.

The two concepts are so close as to almost be one.

The idea here is that every human thought, idea or belief system has foundational assumptions. These assumptions are difficult at best to prove. Morality is no exception.

Lastly there is a concept in the paradigm of science that I like a lot. The idea is that of uncertainity. Since all work of man is fallible because (there are no infallible human beings), all work must constantly be examined constantly & we must face that at the end of the day everything we believe or know could be wrong.

Lastly in the context of Aberrant & all these lofty thoughts, I think this particular RPG offer great avenues of the exploration of philosophical issues, especially in the area of ontology. What makes humans human. With novas in the picture a lot of fundement questions about the nature of humanity can be asked.

Just a thought

here is me & Mother Nicotine ::smokin  hahaha

[Dr. Arbitrary]

I was thinking that this conversation might be a little off topic, but the question of the topic is: who are the 'good' guys?

Also the falliability thing, it's more applicable to science. Mathematics and Philosophy deal with idealized quantities and are easier to check for validity.

The axioms that I'm aware of as being unconditionally true are:

A is A

Either A or ~A

~(A and ~A)

Also

Existence exists,

I think therefore I am (maybe)

I agree that Abberant has ties to philosophy. Utopia and Teragen are pretty much a battle of Altruism and Egoism. Mysticism and some other philisophies that I'm less familiar with are also incorporated too.

It's a pleasure to have you join the discussion, I hope you will continue to contribute.

Dr. Arbitrary