[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[Tiefling]

I didn't mean perfect in general, but you do seem to clearly say that you're perfect at determining Right and Wrong.

 

[SemperJase]

I didn't mean perfect in general, but you do seem to clearly say that you're perfect at determining Right and Wrong.

Actually, I at least inferred the opposite. I try to abide by a moral standard. I admitted that I am fallible and do not always live up to that standard, most often by bad choice, but sometimes by bad judgement in not recognizing the choice is wrong.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

And because of this, if we don't abide the same moral standard in game, we run the risk of becoming thieves, murderers, rapists and necrophiliacs?

Yeah... Right...

 

[SemperJase]

And because of this, if we don't abide the same moral standard in game, we run the risk of becoming thieves, murderers, rapists and necrophiliacs?

No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.

 

[Tiefling]

Actually, I at least inferred the opposite. I try to abide by a moral standard. I admitted that I am fallible and do not always live up to that standard, most often by bad choice, but sometimes by bad judgement in not recognizing the choice is wrong.

Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?

Originally posted by SemperJase


Yes I do.

Can you clarify?

Originally posted by SemperJase


No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.

Evidence?

 

[Mallus]

There is actually emperical proof that disagrees. A recent study shows that the more TV young boys watch, the more likely they are to act violently. (As an aside, I do not believe that there is no wisdom without empiracal proof. In other words, one does not always need a study to determine truth in life although it necessary for science).


Yes I do. I try to live by a moral standard, not a moral relative.
Where variables come in is how fallible people live by an infallible standard.

Please forgive me intruding on this exhange BC and SJ, but...

1) SJ, its always good to consider exactly what you've learned from looking at the empircal data. In this case, while I don't doubt the studies' findings, I have to wonder about the host of other social, cultural and economic factors at work. The fact so much parenting {and socialization} gets done by televsion in the first place always seemed more a contributing factor to antisocial behavior than its content.

and...

2) BC said infallible. You're dodging his question. From your point of view the system your using to view the world yields incorrect results sometimes. Thus you do not have access to an infallible system in practice. Its kidna like saying this artificial heart's perfect, except when the person you've transplanted it into's body gives out and dies. Well, its a perfect artificial heart when its sitting on the workbench... Function matters.

What's worse, when you're talking about moral stances, if you claim the that fallibility is always in the person, not the ideal, what you've done is made the ideal completely unverifyable by any means available to actual living people. In this way moral absolutism renders absolute moral positions essentially arbitrary. Its good because it is, and if it seems bad in some situations, the problem is you...

 

[SemperJase]

2) BC said infallible. You're dodging his question. From your point of view the system your using to view the world yields incorrect results sometimes.

That is an incorrect charactization. If followed, the standard I use never lead to an incorrect result.

The problem is that due to human fallibility, the moral standard I subscribe to is not always followed. An analogy: our laws say that murder is immoral. Yet people still murder. It is not the standard that is at fault, but the murderers.

That is of course unless you believe that murder is moral (which I doubt you do.)

 

[blahbleh]

Wow, This debate sure took a distasteful turn with the whole "Southerners deserve to die" argument. But at least Samper limited himelf to slaveholders (and possibly their wives and children; he hasn't been clear). Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense). Turning an argument about a game into a declaration of whether real people deserve to die is wrong, and thankfully the discussion has moved away from it before anyone could unceil their plan to punish those who do evil by going door-to-door and killing their firstborn sons.

Oh, and a question for Samper. Does disagreeing with you make me a bad person? Or am I going to Hell if I don't storm the WOTC office and hold a public burning of issues Dragon 300 in their parking lot? Just looking for some guidance.

Blahbleh

 

[SemperJase]

Oh, and a question for Samper. Does disagreeing with you make me a bade person? Or am I going to Hell if I don't storm the WOTC office and hold a public burning of issues Dragon 300 in their parking lot? Just looking for some guidance.
Blahbleh

Again, I have not said that. I have yet to condemn anyone for their belief and I have no intention of doing so.

Have I been extended that same courtesy?

 

[Mallus]

That is an incorrect charactization. If followed, the standard I use never lead to an incorrect result.

The problem is that due to human fallibility, the moral standard I subscribe to is not always followed. An analogy: our laws say that murder is immoral. Yet people still murder. It is not the standard that is at fault, but the murderers.

That is of course unless you believe that murder is moral (which I doubt you do.)

1) Well, my argument was that if the standard cannot always be followed correctly, its not infallible {in any meaningful way} from that individuals point of view. This is where relativity comes in very handy...

2) BC was talking about knowledge; the ability to discern right from wrong immediately, without process. So a better example... a murder trial. No matter how perfect the legal code of a state may be, its still up to the jury {or a judge} to ascertain a defendants guilt. Thus the system, on the whole, is fallible. The jury has no way to determine absolutely truth from falsehood.

BC wasn't asking you about the nature of the law, he was asking you as a juror...

And no, for the record, murder==bad...{well, usually}.