D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[lall]

If by “slavery” you mean the “slavery mindset” that altruism is a good value, then yeah, because that’s the premise of the thread.

So if opposing slavery is evil, I would imagine those who are good or neutral would at the least be indifferent to slavery and perhaps for it. They might even own slaves themselves.

 

[Hriston]

So if opposing slavery is evil, I would imagine those who are good or neutral would at the least be indifferent to slavery and perhaps for it. They might even own slaves themselves.

Yes, those who are good would uphold altruism (ie be "for it"), and those who are neutral would not be opposed to it. I'm not sure what "own slaves" would mean in this context. Since altruism doesn't involve treating other people as property and actually calls for freeing of literal slaves, I think this is where your rather tortured metaphor falls down.

 

[Staffan]

So if opposing slavery is evil, I would imagine those who are good or neutral would at the least be indifferent to slavery and perhaps for it. They might even own slaves themselves.

See, the thing is that having obligations is not the same as slavery. They're part of living in a society. If you want to be free of obligations to your fellow man, go live on an island somewhere without connections to anyone else.

 

[lall]

Yes, those who are good would uphold altruism (ie be "for it"), and those who are neutral would not be opposed to it. I'm not sure what "own slaves" would mean in this context. Since altruism doesn't involve treating other people as property and actually calls for freeing of literal slaves, I think this is where your rather tortured metaphor falls down.

To be altruistic is to be subservient. If I’m altruistic, I enter into voluntary slavery. If I believe being good requires one to be altruistic, I expect that good folks will also enter into slavery. Doesn’t sound like a call for freedom.

See, the thing is that having obligations is not the same as slavery. They're part of living in a society. If you want to be free of obligations to your fellow man, go live on an island somewhere without connections to anyone else.

I’m okay with an obligation to not impose a negative to others, but having to provide a positive is slavery.

 

[Hriston]

To be altruistic is to be subservient. If I’m altruistic, I enter into voluntary slavery. If I believe being good requires one to be altruistic, I expect that good folks will also enter into slavery. Doesn’t sound like a call for freedom.

Subservient to whom or what? Slavery is not voluntary. It is forced.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If by “slavery” you mean the “slavery mindset” that altruism is a good value, then yeah, because that’s the premise of the thread.

While the premise of the thread is indeed that you need to be altruistic to be good, it describes evil as "oppressing, murdering and harming other". You can just "don't care" without being evil given the parameters of the thread.

Yes, those who are good would uphold altruism (ie be "for it"), and those who are neutral would not be opposed to it.

Not necessarily. While they could just be "not opposed to it", and just don't practice altruism themselves, there is space in the OP's definition of what Good and Evil are for Neutral actors to actively oppose altruism, as long as they don't resort to murder, harming and oppressing altruistic people. They can morally oppose them and denounce altruism, they can deride them and make fun of them, they can banish them from their Neutral land (depending on whether one count that as harming) or just refuse to have anything to do with them, for example. There were real life philosophers who condemned altruism, yet never acted out on their conclusion violently, so they'd both oppose good and yet not be evil under the thread's definition.

 

[Hriston]

While the premise of the thread is indeed that you need to be altruistic to be good, it describes evil as "oppressing, murdering and harming other". You can just "don't care" without being evil given the parameters of the thread.

The poster to whom I was responding said altruism being a value of good is a "slavery mindset" to which the muscular neutrals are opposed. That's more than just not caring. It's an inversion of morality. It's saying something good is actually bad. This is what evil thinks.

Not necessarily. While they could just be "not opposed to it", and just don't practice altruism themselves, there is space in the OP's definition of what Good and Evil are for Neutral actors to actively oppose altruism, as long as they don't resort to murder, harming and oppressing altruistic people. They can morally oppose them and denounce altruism, they can deride them and make fun of them, they can banish them from their Neutral land (depending on whether one count that as harming) or just refuse to have anything to do with them, for example. There were real life philosophers who condemned altruism, yet never acted out on their conclusion violently, so they'd both oppose good and yet not be evil under the thread's definition.

I don't think you can be opposed to good and not be evil yourself. That's what it means for good and evil to be opposites.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

So if opposing slavery is evil, I would imagine those who are good or neutral would at the least be indifferent to slavery and perhaps for it. They might even own slaves themselves.

So you are equating owning people as property with having responsibilities?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I don't think you can be opposed to good and not be evil yourself. That's what it means for good and evil to be opposites.

The consequences of that would be that it's impossible to be a muscular neutral, which is contrary to the premise of the thread, which gave a specific definition and asked how muscular neutrals would fit within these parameters. If you can't oppose Good without being Evil, it runs contrary to the premises of the thought experiment, as nobody can be Muscular Neutral, so there must necessarily be a way to oppose good without being evil. Also, the OP never mentionned good and evil as opposite, just having different sets of values, only one of which is directly contradictory (killing vs respect for life).

The poster to whom I was responding said altruism being a value of good is a "slavery mindset" to which the muscular neutrals are opposed. That's more than just not caring. It's an inversion of morality. It's saying something good is actually bad. This is what evil thinks.

Yes, he was referring, I think, to the idea that Good forces people to be altruistic (either by being a dictatorship in disguise, a dystopia like Ultima V's Lord Blackthorn perverting the virtues, or just plain magical brainwash so you are obliged to be altruistic instead of having free will), which was something possible in the first post's defintion. Since then, the definition of Good for the purpose of this thread was later clarified such as the absolute victory of Good wouldn't brainwash people into doing anything, I think his conclusion (leading to muscular neutral opposing that) is therefore outside the topic at hand. Maybe he missed the clarification, in page 3.

Edit: also, I don't think his solution would fit because if his proposal even based on the original defintion, since in this case, muscular neutral would oppose a brainwashing Good, they wouldn't oppose a victory of Evil over Good (since Evil would certainly force people to do thing (oppression is one of their core values) as much as Good would if Good could, the logical activity for Neutral would be to wipe out both Good and Evil, not ensure their continued existence).

 

[Clint_L]

To be altruistic is to be subservient. If I’m altruistic, I enter into voluntary slavery. If I believe being good requires one to be altruistic, I expect that good folks will also enter into slavery. Doesn’t sound like a call for freedom.

I’m okay with an obligation to not impose a negative to others, but having to provide a positive is slavery.

It is not, and you are using a fallacious slippery slope argument to double down on a really bizarre and utterly offensive interpretation of altruism. If you think that choosing to act kindly towards others is the same as being their legal property, then you need to do some learning about the actual history and horrifying human experience of slavery.

Think about the implications of your words. Slaves are not altruists. They are the victims of horrifying exploitation, abuse and suffering. Stop tossing the word around like it has no history. It reads like the argument of a clueless first year student. It is not making the point you think it is. Let it go.