Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6284809" data-attributes="member: 42582">The use of &quot;ethics&quot; to describe L/C, and of &quot;morals&quot; to descibe G/E, is largely a Gygax thing.In ordinary English, ethics and morality are near enough to synonyms (eg there is no difference between &quot;moral principles&quot; and &quot;a person's standards of behavior concerning what is and is not acceptable&quot; - the latter is just a definition of the former).In contemporary English-speaking moral philosophy, the word &quot;morality&quot; is often used to describe that part of ethics which deals with duties to others; the non-moral part of ethics would then deal with duties to self. In this usage, which is the only one that actually draws a meaningful distinction between the two words, whether to lie or keep a promise is a matter of morality (duty to others). Whether to be lazy or active would be a matter of (non-moral) ethics.If we think of L/C as non-moral ethics, then the lawful person is the one who diligently pursues self-cultivation, while the chaotic person is irresolute. In D&amp;D the stereotypes are the monk or paladin vs the bard or barbarian.The only problem with this is that, in D&amp;D, L and C are meant to be hostile to one another, whereas there is no reason why a dligent person and an irresolute person should be hostile to one another, unless they are forced to spend a lot of time in one another's company.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6284809, member: 42582"] The use of "ethics" to describe L/C, and of "morals" to descibe G/E, is largely a Gygax thing. In ordinary English, ethics and morality are near enough to synonyms (eg there is no difference between "moral principles" and "a person's standards of behavior concerning what is and is not acceptable" - the latter is just a definition of the former). In contemporary English-speaking moral philosophy, the word "morality" is often used to describe that part of ethics which deals with duties to others; the non-moral part of ethics would then deal with duties to self. In this usage, which is the only one that actually draws a meaningful distinction between the two words, whether to lie or keep a promise is a matter of morality (duty to others). Whether to be lazy or active would be a matter of (non-moral) ethics. If we think of L/C as non-moral ethics, then the lawful person is the one who diligently pursues self-cultivation, while the chaotic person is irresolute. In D&D the stereotypes are the monk or paladin vs the bard or barbarian. The only problem with this is that, in D&D, L and C are meant to be hostile to one another, whereas there is no reason why a dligent person and an irresolute person should be hostile to one another, unless they are forced to spend a lot of time in one another's company. [/QUOTE]

Verification