Helm of Opposite Alignment ... Think "A Clockwork Orange"

[Celebrim]

Because you are twisting words.

Firstly, the use of violence against another is evil.

Need I remind you that this is the proposition you have to prove. You can't axiomaticly assert it at the beginning and then expect me to accept that without support.

Obviously the act of saving cannot be both good and evil.

Yes, obviously. I believe that is my point.

Therefore, there must be some compromise.

Only I may note if we accept the first proposition. If we disagree that violence used against another is inherently evil, no comprimise is needed and no inherent contridiction is found in the first place.

What level of violence was used, and against whom? When this is defined, some measure must be taken.

Again, I believe that is the contrary position. If we start with, "Violence is neutral. Before we can judge it, we must first take a measure of it.", then the rest of your argument remains intact completely without the need for your first proposition and without the contridiction it immediately raises (obviously, it can't be true that the act of saving someone is both good and evil).

Look at it this way. The act of healing someone is also morally neutral. If I'm healing someone merely so I can prolong the torture I'm inflicting on them, all the goodness normally involved in the act is wiped away. This is because the goodness of the act is defined by the love and compassion it manifests (both in intention and in right action, in actually being the thing it proports and strives to be). Likewise, the evilness of the act is defined in the hate and indifference it manifests (both in intention and in its wrongness of not actually being good for the purpose it targets). The amount of violence involved isn't really the key issue. It's why (and how) the scapel is used.

If violence is merely a neutral act, when does an act of violence become evil?

When its intended to or actually does cause harm rather than weal.

Is it OK to beat a wife for talking back? Punch someone on a whim "he looked at me strange" or "he said he doesn't like green"?

Rhetorical. Is it wrong for me to fight off an adult in the act of harming a child? For a life guard to punch a drowning man, or to tackle terrorist about to commit arson on a building with people in it? For every example of violence being evil, I can raise a counter-example of it being good even by your own given standards. So why do you think that it is the violence that is the moral signifier?

I find it far easier to assume all violence against others wrong, until it is proven it was absolutely neccessary.

It's easier, I agree. My way makes things much harder to judge. But easier doesn't necessarily mean right. "It's wrong to hit.", is sufficient moral instruction for a child. It's not a very grown up philosophy.

With regards to team sports, this is really starting to get ludicrous.

Only because you refuse to address it, and keep throwing red herrings out.

 

[roguerouge]

Can we be a bit more explicit as to how all this abstractness relates to whether eating polymorphed humanoids is cannibalism?

 

[Celebrim]

Oh don't worry. It is falling apart, but the reasons I'd give are rather controversial, and far too controversial for ENWorld.

Most of the decline is connected to the general decline of the West as a whole anyway.

We seem to be largely on the same page then. I wish you the best.

 

[Celebrim]

Can we be a bit more explicit as to how all this abstractness relates to whether eating polymorphed humanoids is cannibalism?

Wrong thread.

This is the thread about the morality of forcing someone to be good.

 

[green slime]

Wrong thread.

This is the thread about the morality of forcing someone to be good.

Indeed.

Which I claim you can't do, without resorting to evil yourself.

 

[green slime]

We seem to be largely on the same page then. I wish you the best.

Thanx! Same to you! Let's see who falls apart more rapidly, shall we?

 

[Celebrim]

Thanx! Same to you! Let's see who falls apart more rapidly, shall we?

That's about the size of it. I'm not placing any bets.

 

[Felix]

Can we be a bit more explicit as to how all this abstractness relates to whether eating polymorphed humanoids is cannibalism?

Oh, oh I'm sorry. This is abuse. You want thread 12A, just along the corridor.

...stupid git...

 

[Slife]

Indeed.

Which I claim you can't do, without resorting to evil yourself.

Let's say we have... oooh, a half-fiend baby, which by definition is always evil. Is putting the helmet on it an evil action?

Let's say it spends all its conscious life with a good alignment, and has never acted in an evil manner. Is it evil to cast wish to restore the half-fiend's original alignment?


Now, instead, let's say we have a half-celestial baby, which by definition is always good. Putting the helmet on it is quite obviously an evil action. Let's say it spends all its conscious life with a evil alignment, and has never acted in a good manner. Is it evil to cast wish to restore the half-celestial's original alignment?

 

[green slime]

Need I remind you that this is the proposition you have to prove. You can't axiomaticly assert it at the beginning and then expect me to accept that without support.

Well, you have to resort to your detect evil spell, then don't you.

Only I may note if we accept the first proposition. If we disagree that violence used against another is inherently evil, no comprimise is needed and no inherent contridiction is found in the first place.

Instead, you are still left with trying to ascertain whether the act as a whole is evil or not, and have a much vaguer guideline with which to judge these actions. Hardly a very satisifactory state of affairs.

Again, I believe that is the contrary position. If we start with, "Violence is neutral. Before we can judge it, we must first take a measure of it.", then the rest of your argument remains intact completely without the need for your first proposition and without the contridiction it immediately raises (obviously, it can't be true that the act of saving someone is both good and evil).

Not violence. Voilence upon others. Voilence, which I might add, implies going against their will. The violence contained in a sports is contained by rules accepted by both parties, and is therefore not above what they are willing to expose themselves to. You still can't shoot people.

Look at it this way. The act of healing someone is also morally neutral. If I'm healing someone merely so I can prolong the torture I'm inflicting on them, all the goodness normally involved in the act is wiped away. This is because the goodness of the act is defined by the love and compassion it manifests (both in intention and in right action, in actually being the thing it proports and strives to be). Likewise, the evilness of the act is defined in the hate and indifference it manifests (both in intention and in its wrongness of not actually being good for the purpose it targets). The amount of violence involved isn't really the key issue. It's why (and how) the scapel is used.

I'd say the act of healing in and of itself is good. in a DnD context (which is where all this is aimed at) it is indeed good. An act can be tainted by motive and intent. Motive and intent can change the moral value of the actual individual action at hand. But the act of healing, regarded in isolation, as a philisophical event, an event free from motive and intent, is basically good.

When its intended to or actually does cause harm rather than weal.

But when the status quo is good, where is the good in violence upon another? If everyone were happy, what good would committing an act of violence upon another bring to the world?

So why do you think that it is the violence that is the moral signifier?

See above. Considering an ideal world, what place is there for violence upon others? Is it then really morally neutral?

It's easier, I agree. My way makes things much harder to judge. But easier doesn't necessarily mean right. "It's wrong to hit.", is sufficient moral instruction for a child. It's not a very grown up philosophy.

Not a very grown up argument, resorting to demeaning remarks. Easier doesn't necessarily mean wrong either.

Only because you refuse to address it, and keep throwing red herrings out.

They're only red because you don't accept the first premise. Any moral premise is subject to the same quandry. Prove that it is wrong to murder. It ends in metaphysical, quasireligious mumbojumbo, and I can always claim: I don't accept that its wrong (in case you are worried, I do consider it wrong). In a similar vein it took hundreds of years to change attitudes to slavery.