Good, Evil, or Gray

[Zappo]

Actually, I don't agree that angels are good and demons are bad. I guess I am a little more hardcore gray than some people, but that may be because I read too much Moorcock as a child and am also a taoist.

There are lots of different types of creatures in the upper planes. Among them, there are a few races that are virtually guaranteed to be good. That doesn't mean that everyone in the upper planes is 100% good. In fact, they most definitely aren't.
The same goes for the lower planes, the chaotic planes, the lawful planes... by the way, the law vs. chaos conflict in Planescape and in my games tends to be even stronger and more important than the usual good vs. evil one.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I don't nec consider myself an apologist, because that innately means that you see something that needs defending or justifying (at least I hope that is the definition you are using instead of the christian version). I do not think there is a need for justification unless you are defensive, I'm not. I just like to put the facts out on the table and give my opinion. That may be a fine line, but it is a line. Yes, I could make a defense as you call it for the Assyrians if I actually knew anything about them, but then I have already stated that I do not believe in a fundamental 'good' or 'evil' but only of an ethical 'right' and 'wrong' so the point would be moot. If you have to use the dnd alignment system then I will completely agree with you that the assyrians were lawful-evil, but then I also say America is the same. Lawful-evil, in the way I read the books, just means you are the epitome of 'selfish' in the sense that you will always put yourself above others and will use the law to back you up, which explains most of the successful societies of the ages. I listed Babylon as Lawful-neutral because it was their *total* relience on Law that was their downfall, much as it was Japan's during world war II, when they were offered a peace treay numerous times as long as they renounced their emporer as god.

I enjoy debating with you basilisk, you have some very interesting thoughts and once you put them forward in an understandable form they are very enlightening, even if I do not agree with them a lot of the time, kudos.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I've found that "moral" and "ethical" are often used interchangably in philosophy and I wasn't intentionally distinguishing between them--such distinctions I often make it harder rather than easier to understand philosophical writing since they aren't consistently distinguished. In fact, the book I'm reading at the moment appears to distinguish between ethics and morality in exactly the opposite of the way that you do. (I suppose I did use that trendy word "mores" to describe the current beliefs of a society about what is praiseworthy and blameworthy).

So, my point was that many apparent differences in moral/ethical belief really boil down to differences in non-ethical belief. To use your example of child molestation, the question of how old one must be to be of marriageable age (which I suppose should be distinguished from screwable age because in our infinite wisdom, a lot of moderns are campaigning to lower the age of consent to 12 or 13 but I've heard nothing of lowering the age of marriage) is morally/ethically significant but not, in itself moral/ethical. The example of the Icelandic blood-feud vs the modern conception of murder does as far as I can tell deal with some moral/ethical issues--the concept of collective guilt for instance--but also includes other non-moral/ethical issues such as the role of government vs. the role of family. (To the Icelander, the family had the duty to avenge a murder; to modern Americans, that is the role of the state).

As for the question of how someone who believes in good and evil would interpret the case of the pacific islanders stoning their parents to guarantee them a place in the hereafter, I think it's quite possible to believe that the practice of stoning parents is wrong and that it is evil without believing that it represents a fundamental difference between my concept of evil and theirs. My interpretation is that said islanders were led into doing evil, not because they had a faulty concept of good and evil but rather because they had false metaphysical beliefs that led them to misinterpret their murder as not-murder. If they came to recognize the error of their metaphysical beliefs, it would be clear to them that their practice was a practice of murder just as I would cease to believe that it was murder if, through some strange process, I came to share their metaphysical beliefs.

In this case, I'm pretty sure we have the same concept of murder as evil--we just have a different view of the non-moral aspects of that practice.

Now, I'm not certain that all apparent differences in moral/ethical belief can be boiled down to differences in non-ethical belief affecting how moral/ethical principles are applied to different social practices and situations. I think there may be some genuine differences in moral/ethical beliefs (but that doesn't lead me to adopt a universal error theory like it does Mackie).

My point, however, was that all of the differences between approved social practices are best explained by substantive differences in moral belief. Many of them are the result of differences in non-moral belief.

That argument relies upon a differentiation between the basic beliefs and principles about good and evil that underly a society's list of approved and disapproved activities and that list of approved and disapproved activities. If you wish to call that the difference between ethics and morality, that's a fair description but I would prefer to describe it as the difference between socially accepted practice and ethics/morality. Not as neat or tidy perhaps, but it doesn't make the comprehensibility of the argument rely upon giving two commony interchangable (or just commonly interchanged) words distinct meanings.

"Now, differences in non-moral belief don't unambiguously account for all differences in perceived social mores but if you peel the effects of different situations and non-moral beliefs away, you find a good deal more similarity between various cultures' ethical beliefs than you would find simply by observing the surface."

I just reread this bit, maybe I am confused, I thought you were pointing out the differences between morals and ethics, but this comment sounds like you are saying they are the same thing? Please clarify.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I can agree with some of what you say. For the record the main reason ethics and morals have been turned into interchangable terms is a problem with laymen (not saying you here because you seem to be able to do your research) since philosophy *does* distinguish between morals and ethics (or at least most philosophical traditions); they just can't agree on whether ethics are the social rules we live by and morals are the personal rules we live or vice versa. You will get a large part of the philosophers today say that ethics are what we, as a society, say is right and wrong (hence why doctors are always talking about ethical questions rather than moral) and that morals are somehow *above reality* in the since that they represent some kind of universal cultural notion of right and wrong. I find that it is truly easier to use them interchangably with most people since no one agrees on which is which.

I have to agree that *religious* societies all over the world tend to agree on what is fundamentally *right* and *wrong* hence why every culture basically share the same basic ten comandments. The reason I tend to think that most societies are fundamentally different is how they interpret those fundamentals. I know that this si where you say that it becomes a non-moral/ethical question but I just don't agree. To me these societies are still *very* different and where the ethical (from ethos) line is concerned they aren't. Ethics, if you look at them as what you must do in order to have civilization (which is the common idea right now, wait ten minutes and it might not be, gotta love philo) then they are fundamentally the same from culture to culture and maybe this is what you are trying to say. I agree with that, only the *flavor* text used is different from society to society. Most societies, in order to be successful as a civilization, must have ideas such as 'blatant theft' is wrong, 'premeditated murder' is wrong, 'rape' is wrong. They may split hairs on what each of those mean, true, but they are all there and I think maybe that is what you are trying to say. This is more a case of Lawful vs Chaos, however, and even the handbook says (or used to at least) that law/chaos is the character's "ethos" where good/evil is their "moral."

Where I think we are getting confused is that you seem (maybe I'm wrong) to lump is good/evil with law/chaos. Whereas it is true that societies have the same basic concept of ethos, their morals are not similar sometimes at all. Since I personally think all moral questions are ethic questions at heart (which here I think we might be more in agreement than I thought) I know that I am not the majority of people. Morals are very fundamental and gut reaction. It goes back to the ten commandments as a good example. Understand that the ten commandments were both an ethical AND moral framework.

The ethical side comes into crime and punishment. It is against the law to "murder" someone and it is against the law to "burglarize" someone. The law, most times has some leeway here and that is where ethics come in. Law allows there to be 'self-defense' and will also usually let you off easy if you say stole a loaf of bread to feed your kids. Ethics are a lot of different shades and is a fine balance between law and chaos if it is to be successful (america has, until recently, been pretty good at this).

The moral side, however, is *very* cut and dried. "thou shalt not kill" means just that, don't kill...period. If you do kill it had better be sanctioned by god himself (which was the ever present loophole in everything moral). "Thou shalt not Steal" meant just that, stealing is *bad.* It doesn't mean that if you steal a loaf of bread from mister rich that's not as bad as say stealing a car, they're both equal in "god's" eye. The ten commandments is a very cut and dried moral framework. Other socities do not always have such a cut and dried form of morals and *that* is where the fundamental difference in societies comes in. To me that makes it a *moral* difference. They may have to prosecute someone for theft but the people themselves may believe that it was justified and not wrong.

America is really hard to use in examples like this because modern america is a true boiling pot of moral thought. You can easily say that 'well if america says this about this and so and so country says this, then morals are similar" and you are right *in a sense.* I am happy to see morals coming into alignment with ethics because I think we need that in order to have "world peace." If you want an idea of where morals are different then look at saudi arabia versus the celts. Saudi arabians, at their basic and original morals see women as objects and nothing more, they are possessions. That is not an ethical stance because it has nothing to do with law/chaos. Giving women the rights of men is *wrong* to them because they see women as objects. The celts, on the other hand, saw women as *higher* than men and saw men as objects. Women could trade men, and it was women who held the power in the culture. These are two very different *moral* archtypes, even though *ethically* they shared a lot of the same laws (cutting off hands of theives, women able to kill husbands for cheating on them).

I don't know if I made any sense, am at work and shouldn't evne be on here, lol, but i hope it was a little coherent at least.

P.S. I guess I should say one other thing: Yes, women as objects has to do with law *presently* but I was specifically talking about the original cultural perspective. Culture usually dictates certain minor laws in societies just like a lot of america's christian laws (such as gay merriage) which do not have a direct effect on law/chaos.

 

[med stud]

After trying to create a world where there were pure Good and pure Evil countries and areas I realized that the Evil countries would get their asses kicked in no time by the good ones; a genuinly good society would mean that people would look out for each other and help each other do their work. Like a communist economy that would actually work. The evil countries would be full of backstabbing and political intrigue combined with repressed lower classes.

Instead the world is grey with some exceptions. Paladins are one of those exceptions; they are pure white Lawful Good. Other exceptions are of course outsiders. The darker grey areas are areas where people have traded in comfortability and freedom for security. A classic case is in an area where civil wars had raged for a long time. The church of Hextor went in and promised the population stability in exchange for their freedom. Hextor puts up heavy rules but if you follow them you can be pretty sure that you wont be raped, murdered or homeless.
A light grey area is where the rulers listen to the paladins and good clerics in exchange for their help. The rulers cant abuse power like rulers normally can but on the other hand are they far from rebellion.

Same goes for Law and Chaos, manifested in order vs creativity in the case of normal human beings. The philosophers of law want to keep the feudal code as it is and generally dont want to change anything. The chaotics want to tear it all up. This means that Lawful good countries can have more problem with the Chaotic goods than the Lawful evils in some circumstances ^^

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Kaleon, I'm enjoying this discussion and I think you hit upon a part of the heart of the matter when you say that I don't distinguish between law/chaos and good/evil. Actually, I don't think there is any coherent definition consistent with the use of the D&D law/chaos axis. I'm sure you have something coherent in mind when you talk about it but I seriously doubt that even half of the D&D uses of lawful and chaotic alignments would match up with it.

I'm going to be going to my weekly game in a bit but I'm curious on a couple of points:
1. At the beginning of your post, you concede that most religious societies share the same moral principles yet at the end of the post, you offer Saudi Arabia--a religious society--as an example of a society with differing morality from the Celts, etc.

2. I think you're wrong about Saudi Arabia (and radical Islamic societies in general). Women are not mere objects even if they are of less value than men. They have a distinct role and place in society that I'm sure involves an assumed value greater than dogs, cats, objects, or infidels. While women are certainly second-class citizens, they are allowed to testify in court (by Sharia law at least) and their word counts for more than that of a non-Muslim.

3. You exaggerate the degree to which morality is cut and dried--more recent translations of the Ten Commandments specify "thou shalt not murder" for instance and that command is much more consistent with the rest of the Jewish law--and don't give adequate attention to the degree that positive law depends upon morality for its force, structure, and credibility. The book of Proverbs, for instance says that men won't despise a man for stealing a loaf of bread but he will still have to pay the legal penalty--implying quite the opposite of the relationship you implied. A poor man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is not regarded as clearly wrong by people who generally consider mitigating circumstances but generally such circumstances are not considered by the law. Interestingly enough, several thousand years later Les Miserables took the exact same theme. The idea that in the eyes of God, sin is sin is indeed occasionally stated the way you state it but it would be more consistent with at least Christian tradition and scripture to say that, while sin is all bad simply by virtue of being sin, some sin is worse than others in much the same way that, while all felonies are bad in the eyes of the law and will generally deny one the right to vote or own a gun, some are worse than others.

On the other end, I think you pay insufficient attention to the idea of just or unjust laws. The conviction that alcohol should be illegal because it is evil certainly drove some of the prohibitionists and the same is true of the abolitionists and slavery. It seems to me that not that you don't see the difference between moral beliefs and cultural/legal practice but that after it creates cultural/legal practice, moral belief loses all interest for you. Otherwise, the distinction between a moral code and its interpretation would be supremely important as legal codes and cultural practices shift as changing non-moral belief influences that interpretation (as it did in the case of slavery) in legal/cultural practice.

 

[Ssyleia]

As a DM I find it interesting to test the PC's morals to the limit. Choosing the greater evil is even fun in a mostly-evil PC campaign. Choosing the less good is even more fun with an all-good party placed amidst a "good vs good" contest.

For example, who's right: the Council of Paladins who swears to defend the good and just monarchy of Goodland or the Army of Liberation who tries to usurp the gov't of Goodland since its rule is arbitrarily (even if just)...

 

[LizardWizard]

True. I guess I took it for granted, perhaps without a good basis for doing so, that we were talking about mature players.

Alas, even physically mature players happen to have juvenile mindset...

 

[ARandomGod]

Too simplistic for my taste.

My current DM has done a good job creating some very interesting situations involving moral quandaries and the nature of good and evil.

But it's always HIS definition of good/evil that gets promoted, isn't it?
(Is it?)
I've been in a campaign whereing moral quandries were thrown in. ANd often my definition of behaviors is different than his. Many behaviors he defines as good I call neutral, some I call evil. Many bahaviors he defines as evil I call neutral, some I call good.

I find it particularly amuzing when a good restricted character (cleric, paladin) behaves in a way my character finds evil... or, metagamilngly, I personally find evil. And yet the GM rules that this was really the only "good" option available.

Of course, that's a major reason I never play any alignment restricted characters in his campaign. Usually pure neutral... occasionally neutral good, because I see the character as good, and as long as the character's not alignment restricted it doesn't matter really.

1) Law is an aspect of chaos, by definition.
2) Both good and evil exist within the demesne of neutral.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Kaleon, I'm enjoying this discussion and I think you hit upon a part of the heart of the matter when you say that I don't distinguish between law/chaos and good/evil. Actually, I don't think there is any coherent definition consistent with the use of the D&D law/chaos axis. I'm sure you have something coherent in mind when you talk about it but I seriously doubt that even half of the D&D uses of lawful and chaotic alignments would match up with it.

Actually I disagree, dnd has a very hard line definition of law and chaos and stay pretty true to it. They define it in the phb and keep pretty close to it. Devils are truly lawful in that they always keep their word, not the spirit of the deal but their exact words. Demons are chaotic because they tend to betray, backstab, and lie as if by second nature. One never knows what to expect with them, whereas, with training, one can deal with devils pretty successfully.

I'm going to be going to my weekly game in a bit but I'm curious on a couple of points:
1. At the beginning of your post, you concede that most religious societies share the same moral principles yet at the end of the post, you offer Saudi Arabia--a religious society--as an example of a society with differing morality from the Celts, etc.

Actually what I said was that most religious societies agree on what is fundamentally right and wrong, not nec that they agree on morals. Morals are lot more varried than simply what is right and wrong. Not sure how to explain this position. Two societies might agree that cold blooded murder is wrong, but that is not where morals end. Morals go on to define what cold blooded murder is. Maybe to this society (and yes i should have used an eastern culture in my exampl since i am lacking in the nuances of saudi arabia and i apologize for that, mark it up to no sleep and being at work.) cold blooded murder is taking a life without first asking that your god take it to heaven whereas in this other society cold blooded murder is the act of stalking and premeditatingly (is that a word?) carrying out the death of someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves. Of course, this opens up the question what is the difference in that and ethics and that is what philosophers argue about. Some (like me) say that morals and ethics overlap a lot, but the reasons behind each are different. Ethics are there to further civilization while morals are there to further spiritual wellbeing. Others argue different points, many say that ethics are nothing but an extension of morals.

2. I think you're wrong about Saudi Arabia (and radical Islamic societies in general). Women are not mere objects even if they are of less value than men. They have a distinct role and place in society that I'm sure involves an assumed value greater than dogs, cats, objects, or infidels. While women are certainly second-class citizens, they are allowed to testify in court (by Sharia law at least) and their word counts for more than that of a non-Muslim.

As I said, I apologize for that example, although I do think it has some validity, I do not know all of the nuances in which it plays out. It some cultures, however, remember that one's dog can testify as well, namely in some ancient japanese cultures based in buddhism. I did grant that they are allowed to kill their husbands if they cheat on them. I do think that in some ways, religiously speaking, the women are treated like cattle and not humans (I make no judgement calls on that for it is just different) but that the ethics of the law give them rights nec to further civilization. I could be wrong, and that is why I retrack them as an example, from now on I will just use the old culutre A. and culture B. you learn to use in logic classes.

3. You exaggerate the degree to which morality is cut and dried--more recent translations of the Ten Commandments specify "thou shalt not murder" for instance and that command is much more consistent with the rest of the Jewish law--and don't give adequate attention to the degree that positive law depends upon morality for its force, structure, and credibility.

Actually this is pretyt much my point, *modern* translations do take this look because we as a society have matured. If you go back and look historically you will still see that they backed up the previous definition with full force. Just because modern translations have toned this down to reflect civilized law does not mitigate the past. The ten commandments, for a very long time, were *very* cut and dried in the christian faith. The jeweish faith has always been a bit softer on some points and harder on others, that is what makes the two faiths different and interesting.

The book of Proverbs, for instance says that men won't despise a man for stealing a loaf of bread but he will still have to pay the legal penalty--implying quite the opposite of the relationship you implied. A poor man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is not regarded as clearly wrong by people who generally consider mitigating circumstances but generally such circumstances are not considered by the law. Interestingly enough, several thousand years later Les Miserables took the exact same theme. The idea that in the eyes of God, sin is sin is indeed occasionally stated the way you state it but it would be more consistent with at least Christian tradition and scripture to say that, while sin is all bad simply by virtue of being sin, some sin is worse than others in much the same way that, while all felonies are bad in the eyes of the law and will generally deny one the right to vote or own a gun, some are worse than others.

One problem here is using christianity as a broad category which I make the mistake of a lot too (evne in this post). I am sure I did not communicate well in my other post, and when I really get into a debate online that is one of my failures. In real life the back and forth nature of conversation helps one refine a point but on here you just plow ahead for a few paragraphs and most of don't go back over things to read them and take time in editing. Fundamental christianity tend to look at sin and being sin as being sin, much the same way some japanese traditions do. There is no excuse for sin, but some sin is easier to forgive than others. I agree with that take on it, my main point was the actual written "rules" say sin is sin. Whether we think god will forgive this sin easier than that one is up to god to decide and is out of our hands. It really doesn't matter what our fellow man thinks, he is not the arbiter of sin. Law, however, makes what our fellow man thinks *matter* whether it is a jury, a king, a potentate or whomever. If that person thinks there are mitigating circumstance then it is within his right to either hand it up the ladder or, in certain stages, outright lessen penalties. This is what I was trying to get at. Morality is above and beyond humanity, it rests in a power/concept/deity and not in the hands of the people living by it. (for the record, yes i understand that humans do change that morality to suit them overtime, as the example you gave of modern translations points out, but that is one of the reasons why I am not sure i believe, personally, in the validity of morals. Remember that I stated at the beginning that I personally do not believe in morals and so am arguing this point from a sholarly/universal position than a personal one.) Law, however, rests completely within *our* hands and we can bend and warp it to a certain point. Once we break it past that point it becomes chaos. Ethics is that line we walk that decides how much we can bend or warp absolute law (usually anyway, there are systems like draconian law and legalism (chinese) which pretty much state that ethics are only valid if they hold as close to the absolute law as they can).

On the other end, I think you pay insufficient attention to the idea of just or unjust laws. The conviction that alcohol should be illegal because it is evil certainly drove some of the prohibitionists and the same is true of the abolitionists and slavery. It seems to me that not that you don't see the difference between moral beliefs and cultural/legal practice but that after it creates cultural/legal practice, moral belief loses all interest for you. Otherwise, the distinction between a moral code and its interpretation would be supremely important as legal codes and cultural practices shift as changing non-moral belief influences that interpretation (as it did in the case of slavery) in legal/cultural practice.

I never said all of the legal code fit with ethics, law, chaos, good, or evil, some of it is just human stupidity. I do not think that, if you research it, the actual law stated that alcohol was illegal because it was evil (yes, some people voted for prohibition for that reason and thought that was why it should be illegal) but because it was causing a decline of civilized behavior (ie law and order). Did prohibition work? Of course not, just like the war on drugs or war on gay/lesbian marriage isn't working. Ethics are a communal thing, and we all have the right to resist if we wish, in order to keep things like draconianism and legalism from taking over (hence humanity's tendency for rebellion). We can completely negate parts of ethical law if we all decide that it isn't, in fact, ethical. You can not do that with morals. If a power on high says something si wrong, then it is wrong until he says otherwise (ie the problem with kosher law, where the original law was created to protect from disease due to tainted meat but is still law because it was handed down by god, even though it isn't a health issue today).

I hope this has cleared my position up some and given you even more questions at the same time, for that is the beauty of philosophy, the questions never end and as we ask them we cement our ideas better as we go.

ziejian