Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7364516" data-attributes="member: 4937">I only present the silver rede as a simple but familiar axiomatic moral system that has the attribute of passivity with respect to others.   Like the 'Golden Rule', in the real world it might be part of a much larger system of thought instead of more or less the whole of it, and what is coming along side it might change the implementation. I think that different CN philosophies might disagree over this point and still be more like each other than they would be like something else.  Some CN's might hold that of course one had to see to the health and well-being of the self, since it was ultimately the self that had value.  These philosophies might advocate against suicide for example.  Other CN's might argue that ultimately, what was right and good was freedom and that this must include the freedom to do harm to oneself (or what someone else considered harm to you), and these philosophies might consider suicide an innate personal right, to be exercised at the discretion of the individual.  No one could tell someone else whether their life was worth living; they'd have to decide that for themselves.  If you really strongly start believing that your choices have to increase the health of the self, then you are very quickly going to start edging into CG territory, because it quickly becomes a moral imperative that if you must treat yourself well, that you should also extend this treatment to others - not merely acting so as to not harm them, but to also actively encourage their health as well.   And as soon as you do that, you become the sort of 'moral busybody' that a chaotic neutral considers one of the first steps toward error.</blockquote>

Verification