D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Hriston]

It can be that. It can also be having to do something for someone else.


Having to serve others is slavery, even if voluntary.

What do you mean by "having to"? This seems to imply an obligation to be altruistic. Where does that come from? And how do you reconcile that with the service being voluntary? You seem to be contradicting yourself. No one is forcing you to be good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What do you mean by "having to"? This seems to imply an obligation to be altruistic. Where does that come from? And how do you reconcile that with the service being voluntary? You seem to be contradicting yourself. No one is forcing you to be good.

More importantly, they framed the discussion in the following way (emphasis added):

If I sit on my hands, others will label me some other alignment, tarnishing my reputation. To be the perceived best neighbor, I have to enter into voluntary slavery.

In other words, the alleged problem is not that there is some kind of entity actually using coercion on anyone else, despite that being actually required for something to be slavery. The problem is that sitting on one's hands fails to result in being "the perceived best neighbor." What lall wants is a world where sitting on your hands persuades others that you are in fact the best of neighbors, or at least the best type of neighbor.

And, frankly? That's bunk. People are not going to give anyone a reputation of "being the best neighbor" for doing diddly-squat. You earn a reputation through positive acts, not an absence of negative acts--and, more importantly, you do in fact have to earn that reputation, not simply be gifted such a reputation from others for nothing.

To expect others to simply go along with your definition of what is best--and, in the doing, to laud you as the best--without any work or persuasion on your part IS coercive. Like, literally. You are expecting others to adopt your standards of behavior without actually convincing them of that standard, and without doing anything at all that would evince benefit from that standard for them. That sort of thing could only occur when someone coerces someone else.

Altruism is not slavery. Expecting altruism before you grant someone a reputation of being the best neighbor is not slavery. The only way altruism becomes slavery is if you ruin it by actually engaging in coercion, just as others have said--using violence of some kind (including things like starvation or confinement) to actually force someone to do beneficial things for others against their own will.

If your only problem is that people won't think you're awesome unless you do altruistic things, you aren't being enslaved. You're living in a society, where others get to decide what reputation you have. Get used to it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is not true. Muscular neutrals, like neutrals in general, can be unopposed to the tenets of both good and evil, assisting and using the tactics of either as they see fit to maintain balance between the two. It's understood that good and evil is a dichotomy.

If Evil is defined as "anything that is not good" in a dichotomy, then Neutral would be Evil when they attack Good to prevent the victory of Good over Evil. By definition, for a third side (Neutrals) to exist, it can't be a dichotomy. Good and Evil can be opposite, but this can't exclude a vast amount of Neutrals and maybe even very few actual Good and Evil.

Good is associated with morality, and evil is its immoral opposite. The OP defines the morality of good and what the inversion of that morality looks like. Harming others is the opposite of altruism (helping others).

The opposite of altruism can also be selfishness, not harming other. Unless you think that just not caring is equal to actively harm other people.

Also, even then, the notions don't oppose themselves directly. I can help people and harm people at the same time, that's why I don't see the OP's explanation as an illustration of the opposition. For example, if I institute a rule saying that children must go to school. I am helping them (because they'll be better off in the long run), while harming them by depriving them of their freedom (to choose their education level according to their goal) and the ability to start their life without a load of debt if I choose not to make education free. If you truly believe that giving tickets to people for speeding will save their lives by making them drive safely, you're helping them and at the same time harming them by taking their money by force.

I don't think either of these measures would make us Good or Evil.

The reverse is also true, if someone uses the tools of Good to promote Evil. For example, a philosopher who would explain that exploitation of the fools is not harm, so there is no reason not to scam people, reasoning that the onus in on them to be intelligent and not fall for it. If the philosopher wouldn't harm, coerce or kill anyone, he would certainly be neither Evil (he doesn't fit the definition) nor Good.

That's making good into evil. The premise of the thread is good is actually good, which is why I posted up-thread that the only way I can see muscular neutrality being "justified" is through ignorance. They are misguided non-believers who view the victory of good as undesirable yet also rightly fear the triumph of evil, so seek to forestall the victory of either.

The information that Good wouldn't oppress was added in page 3, so someone who didn't read the 40 or so pages and answering the first post wouldn't necessarily know that it was clarified later. It may be the case for the poster to whom you're replying, who goes by the idea that the absolute victory of Good would imply that he loses his ability not to be Good.

Part of the clarification was that an absolute victory of Good wouldn't force anything, so there would be noone being forced into anything. Actually, it's even debatable how we would notice an actual absolute victory of Good if everyone can still freely behave evilly as much as they want.

 

[Maxperson]

Subservient to others. I have to be concerned about and try to help others.

Should be. Not have to be. If you had to be, you wouldn't have the choice you do now, and have apparently rejected.

There is no slavery here, only your misguided perception that there is.

 

[Mind of tempest]

If Evil is defined as "anything that is not good" in a dichotomy, then Neutral would be Evil when they attack Good to prevent the victory of Good over Evil. By definition, for a third side (Neutrals) to exist, it can't be a dichotomy. Good and Evil can be opposite, but this can't exclude a vast amount of Neutrals and maybe even very few actual Good and Evil.



The opposite of altruism can also be selfishness, not harming other. Unless you think that just not caring is equal to actively harm other people.

Also, even then, the notions don't oppose themselves directly. I can help people and harm people at the same time, that's why I don't see the OP's explanation as an illustration of the opposition. For example, if I institute a rule saying that children must go to school. I am helping them (because they'll be better off in the long run), while harming them by depriving them of their freedom (to choose their education level according to their goal) and the ability to start their life without a load of debt if I choose not to make education free. If you truly believe that giving tickets to people for speeding will save their lives by making them drive safely, you're helping them and at the same time harming them by taking their money by force.

I don't think either of these measures would make us Good or Evil.

The reverse is also true, if someone uses the tools of Good to promote Evil. For example, a philosopher who would explain that exploitation of the fools is not harm, so there is no reason not to scam people, reasoning that the onus in on them to be intelligent and not fall for it. If the philosopher wouldn't harm, coerce or kill anyone, he would certainly be neither Evil (he doesn't fit the definition) nor Good.




The information that Good wouldn't oppress was added in page 3, so someone who didn't read the 40 or so pages and answering the first post wouldn't necessarily know that it was clarified later. It may be the case for the poster to whom you're replying, who goes by the idea that the absolute victory of Good would imply that he loses his ability not to be Good.

Part of the clarification was that an absolute victory of Good wouldn't force anything, so there would be noone being forced into anything. Actually, it's even debatable how we would notice an actual absolute victory of Good if everyone can still freely behave evilly as much as they want.

in whose version of reality do good and oppression overlap?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

in whose version of reality do good and oppression overlap?

Whenever you start to create rules to prevent evil behaviour? "You should not steal" is a good maxim. It is morally thought good to not steal. People who don't steal are lauded. But nothing is done to prevent stealing. I'd guess if a society just stops there, they'll have a lot of thievery.

"You should not steal, or we'll hang you" is quite oppressive. The intent is Good (promoting respect for other), the method is Evil (one gets killed). Reality had those codes (like the judicial system in England in the 18th century), showing it's possible to overlap.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Whenever you start to create rules to prevent evil behaviour? "You should not steal" is a good maxim. It is morally thought good to not steal. People who don't steal are lauded. But nothing is done to prevent stealing. I'd guess if a society just stops there, they'll have a lot of thievery.

"You should not steal, or we'll hang you" is quite oppressive. The intent is Good (promoting respect for other), the method is Evil (one gets killed). Reality had those codes (like the judicial system in England in the 18th century), showing it's possible to overlap.

although hanging is overkill if you look at every code, law or ethical system the agreement of do not steal is seen thus the only oppression can be found in the enforcement.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

although hanging is overkill if you look at every code, law or ethical system the agreement of do not steal is seen thus the only oppression can be found in the enforcement.

Then you need to decide the exact level of oppression you feel isn't oppression (hanging is too much, is chopping your hand OK? What about a fine? Up to which amount...) which is straying from the absolute given by the OP as their definition.

At which point I can see a group being Neutral because they are oppressive: once you have determined that Good is "punish thievery with a 347 gp fine" and Evil above, they might nonetheless want to go for a 354 gp fine. They see that Good is somehow having a victory over Evil (which is unclear how it would work, since they'd need to have absolute victory over evil without killing, oppressing or harming anyone, while Evil might just do its own thing in its own country...) and they don't want to be next.

 

[Maxperson]

Whenever you start to create rules to prevent evil behaviour? "You should not steal" is a good maxim. It is morally thought good to not steal. People who don't steal are lauded. But nothing is done to prevent stealing. I'd guess if a society just stops there, they'll have a lot of thievery.

"You should not steal, or we'll hang you" is quite oppressive. The intent is Good (promoting respect for other), the method is Evil (one gets killed). Reality had those codes (like the judicial system in England in the 18th century), showing it's possible to overlap.

I don't think the intent is to promote respect for others so much as to promote "don't take stuff that isn't yours or you will pay the price."

 

[lall]

That's an unfortunate hill to die on, Lall. But it's up to you to pick them for yourself.

No one else is going to buy into your absolutely rotten definition of altruism or helping others as 'subservience', though. So you'll have to die on it, alone.

At least you'll have the view uncrowded.

The MN won’t be taking me out, though they may remove my shackles on the way to killing the good.

What do you mean by "having to"? This seems to imply an obligation to be altruistic. Where does that come from? And how do you reconcile that with the service being voluntary? You seem to be contradicting yourself. No one is forcing you to be good.

If I have to be altruistic to be good, and I desire a reputation as a good neighbor, I have to enter into slavery. I agree no one is forcing me. I could instead choose freedom, but my reputation would suffer and everything else equal, society would marginalize me and ultimately, my standard of living would decrease. I would think the invading MN folks would see both as bad options, so they take out supporters of that system.

More importantly, they framed the discussion in the following way (emphasis added):

In other words, the alleged problem is not that there is some kind of entity actually using coercion on anyone else, despite that being actually required for something to be slavery. The problem is that sitting on one's hands fails to result in being "the perceived best neighbor." What lall wants is a world where sitting on your hands persuades others that you are in fact the best of neighbors, or at least the best type of neighbor.

And, frankly? That's bunk. People are not going to give anyone a reputation of "being the best neighbor" for doing diddly-squat. You earn a reputation through positive acts, not an absence of negative acts--and, more importantly, you do in fact have to earn that reputation, not simply be gifted such a reputation from others for nothing.

To expect others to simply go along with your definition of what is best--and, in the doing, to laud you as the best--without any work or persuasion on your part IS coercive. Like, literally. You are expecting others to adopt your standards of behavior without actually convincing them of that standard, and without doing anything at all that would evince benefit from that standard for them. That sort of thing could only occur when someone coerces someone else.

Altruism is not slavery. Expecting altruism before you grant someone a reputation of being the best neighbor is not slavery. The only way altruism becomes slavery is if you ruin it by actually engaging in coercion, just as others have said--using violence of some kind (including things like starvation or confinement) to actually force someone to do beneficial things for others against their own will.

If your only problem is that people won't think you're awesome unless you do altruistic things, you aren't being enslaved. You're living in a society, where others get to decide what reputation you have. Get used to it.

The thought is that one shouldn’t have to be a slave to be good. Personally, I would be embarrassed if I expected my neighbor to be subservient to me. I agree everyone has different definitions of what is best and I don’t expect anyone to adopt my definition. I think MN would argue that based on reason/logic, being good should not necessitate being a slave. They don’t try to convince any “good” person of that, they just take them out.