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

Because resorting to force when not in extremis is wrong.
You admitted that you judge the morality of the action based on the context. Why then must force be Evil?

"Because"?

How can it be a neutral act, to punch my coworker in the head as I walk by?
Is it Evil to slap him on the back in congratulations?
Is it Evil to restrain someone from sitting down in the last available seat on the subway when an elderly lady is making her slow way towards it?

You use force in both of those. They are not extreme circumstances, and yet they employ force. If force is categorically Evil, then are they not Evil actions as well?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes.

1) The slap on the back can be mistrued, misinterpreted, unwelcomed and ill-timed. Unless you know the person very well, it is inappropriate behaviour. However, given the level of actual force applied in this particular social situation, it may not even be regarded as violent. However, it isn't up to the slapper to decide if it is or not, but the person slapped. If that person turns around and punches you in the face, who was the transgressor? Was their response appropriate? Is it possible that you misunderstood the situation? That you forgot they had burnt their back in the sun yesterday, and are a tad irritable today?

2) Why do you immediately escalate to restraining someone? In exactly what manner do you suggest to "restrain"? What if they, although apparently young, too suffer from some condition not immediately observable? What ever happened to a) offering your own seat instead, b) actually pointing out the old lady to the transgressor, and eventually c)verbally chastising the transgressor? I cannot condone violence in this situation.

I do not regard a mild touch to be "violent". I haven't stated that all physical contact with other beings and/or objects is evil, no matter how some posters may conspire to misconstrue my statements by applying scientific definitions to everyday words.

Yes "Force" is a definite physical term. It is also an everyday term implying to go against the wishes of another. If someone welcomes your slap on the back, then it is hardly a violent, forceful action against that person's wishes.
 

green slime said:
The slap on the back can be mistrued, misinterpreted, unwelcomed and ill-timed
Is the morality of an action inherent, or does the perception of the action grant it morality?

Why do you immediately escalate to restraining someone?
Not an escalation. Clarification:

We stand next to one another. A seat opens. You begin to walk towards that seat, but I bar your path with my forearm, and then point to the old lady. I arrest your movement towards the seat to keep you from sitting in it.

I do not regard a mild touch to be "violent".
Shall I again suggest that we return to the original "force"? Because force and violence are absolutely interconnected by speed.

And if only violence is evil, then force only becomes evil when it moves quickly. So force isn't to blame, but speed is?

If someone welcomes your slap on the back, then it is hardly a violent, forceful action against that person's wishes.
So the morality of the act is determined not by the action, but by the perception?

It is also an everyday term implying to go against the wishes of another.
Shall we consider "Force" in the Physics sense, and "Compulsion" as regards the wishes of another? Will that help clarify?

What is the difference in the morality of forcing someone to do something (physically), and compelling someone to do something (mentally)?
 
Last edited:

Felix said:
Clarification:

We stand next to one another. A seat opens. You begin to walk towards that seat, but I bar your path with my forearm, and then point to the old lady. I arrest your movement towards the seat to keep you from sitting in it.

Then you have hardly restrained me at all, merely interjected your arm between my goal and myself. Hardly a violent action upon my person.




Felix said:
Shall I again suggest that we return to the original "force"? Because force and violence are absolutely interconnected by speed.

And if only violence is evil, then force only becomes evil when it moves quickly. So force isn't to blame, but speed is?

No, because this is not a discussion of the physical, but the metaphysical. Thus your objections can neither prove nor disprove the case. Evil cannot be measured by mundane means. I assure you. Therefore any attempt to introduce physics into this discussion is futile.

Felix said:
So the morality of the act is determined not by the action, but by the perception?

No. The morality of a specific act, as performed in the physical world is the sum of a large number of factors. However, the concept of an act, in and of itself possesses a certain inherent morality.

It is possible to have the following statements "Slavery is Evil", "Jeffersson is a good man" & "Jefferson owns slaves" all be true at the same time.

Felix said:
Shall we consider "Force" in the Physics sense, and "Compulsion" as regards the wishes of another? Will that help clarify?

Not really. Because we are still unable to provide any "proof".

Felix said:
What is the difference in the morality of forcing someone to do something (physically), and compusling someone to do something (mentally)?

Degrees of evil?

Isn't it better to persuade (Diplomacy check) rather than Intimidate or Dominate? Why do Democracies value Public Debate? Referendums? Why bother? Highly inefficient and dangerously populistic.
 


Dr. Awkward said:
Ah, well then. Perhaps I spoke too soon. As it stands, nobody has ever changed their mind in an alignment thread due to argument. :uhoh:

Sorry to disappoint you.

I should also apologise to the OP for the fact that this thread has disintegrated well beyond its original discussion.

I actually think it would make an interesting adventure/campaign. I just see the society doing it as sliding into LE with remarkable agility.
 

green slime said:
Then you have hardly restrained me at all, merely interjected your arm between my goal and myself. Hardly a violent action upon my person.
My interjected arm has stopped you from doing what you had wanted to do. You asserted that forcing someone to do something was Evil. If it is categorically Evil then "hardly a violent action upon [your] person" is irrelevant. Unless you allow that some degrees of force are not Evil. In which case the manner in which the force is applied determines the morality, not the existance of force in the first place.

No, because this is not a discussion of the physical, but the metaphysical. Thus your objections can neither prove nor disprove the case. Evil cannot be measured by mundane means. I assure you. Therefore any attempt to introduce physics into this discussion is futile.
Shall we consider "Force" in the Physics sense, and "Compulsion" as regards the wishes of another? Will that help clarify?
Not really. Because we are still unable to provide any "proof".
I have attempted to define our terms and you refuse my definitions. Ok. Please define the terms you would like to use, violence seeming to be your favorite.

No. The morality of a specific act, as performed in the physical world is the sum of a large number of factors. However, the concept of an act, in and of itself possesses a certain inherent morality.
If the act determines its own morality, then what does it matter how the act is perceived? I can understand the existance of both True Morality and perceived morality, but what place does perceived morality have in a conversation about True Morality, as this has become?

What does his perception matter if my act of slapping him on the back has its own inherent morality?

Isn't it better to persuade (Diplomacy check) rather than Intimidate or Dominate? Why do Democracies value Public Debate? Referendums? Why bother? Highly inefficient and dangerously populistic.
I don't know what "better" means in this instance. "Good"? "Quicker"? "More telegenic"? And please let's avoid politics in any form.
 

green slime said:
I should also apologise to the OP for the fact that this thread has disintegrated well beyond its original discussion..
Not at all; I'm engaging you as much as the other way around. And I prefer the term, "evolved". :)

And oddly, I seem to have started two alignment threads, one Good-Evil, one Law-Chaos. No wonder I was so unproductive today. ;)
 

Place a sign at your workplace, akin to the slap on the back:
"Fondling female employees is a morally neutral act".
200 years ago, there probably weren't any female employees, but if there were, and they weren't getting fondled, then it was probably their own fault.
Today, we regard it as foul and vile, because: it is an unwelcome violence upon their personnage. Not because of the forcefulness, nor the speed at which the intrepid fondler is capable of. Because it is an invasion of their personal space. A violation of the social contract. A violent act upon another. See? Violence in this sense requires neither speed nor force. Regardless of physics.

Back to the miscreant chair stealer
Your interjected arm has not forced anything upon me, other than perhaps to cause pause in my stride. I'd be a pretty poor specimen of the human race if I found this level of "force" to afford some measure of insurmountable problem. I might be a tad surprised at your forwardness however, and probably appreciative of your keen eyesight, and thank you for bringing the decrepit old bag to my attention. Or I could collapse in a pile of asthmatic TBC, coughing blood and bile up on all in a thirty foot area, before passing out. (and making you and everyone else sitting in a seat feel very self conscious). Still I would not rank the encounter as a violent one. You have not invaded any personal space, nor inflicted any harm upon me in the least. If I fail to manuever around an arm in a crowded bus, then perhaps I should look into alternative methods of transportation.

Slapping your dear friend on the back is different from slapping a complete stranger on the back. Nevertheless, a slap on the back has its own value. Strip away everything, and how would a stranger react to your invasion of their personal space? I can tell you, I do not view this act of inflicting random lunacy upon me as a positive experience. Therefore, devoid of other considerations, walking around and slapping people on the back is unacceptable. I am within my rights to use appropriate force to cause you to desist from slapping me on the back. Hopefully, it would be enough to communicate my displeasure.

Felix, consider the concept of "cup" Not a specific instance of any particular cup, but the idea of a cup. It could be said to be an "ideal" cup. As many people have experienced cups in a wide variety of sizes and shapes, we have no problem recognizing a cup, even if we should come across some new design, shape, or colour, which we have never experienced before.

The many instances of cups are never exactly alike. Yet they all share common attributes that we can recognise. Reflections, so to speak, of the "ideal cup". Even stranger; we can still recognise cups even when certain attributes are absent. Even when they render the cup incapable of performing the duties of a cup.

In this manner, we can also regard actions. We can view actions as having attributes and properties. Reflections of an ideal act. Thus, metaphysically, owning a slave can be regarded as inherently evil, even though in a practical instance, the slave could be treated as part of the family, and even if the slave professes to prefer its position. This raises the question "So what is different?" The specific circumstances modify this "ideal action" as it is applied into a real physical environment.

Thus, it is possible to reduce actions to their bare minimum, and reveal their inner most essence. Violence against others is basically wrong. You need a justifier to excuse your reason for invading their personal space. You need the old lady, just to place your arm in my way. You need at least acquaintenceship and a celebretorial reason to slap someone on the back. Both are still hardly violent acts. Yet without justification, you cannot initiate a violent action against me, and not expect some form of retaliation, whether societal, verbial, or physical. This in itself, says there the metaphysical "ideal action" "violent action against another" with an attribute "wrong". This ideal of course is modified by circumstances as we muddling humans attmept to get by in everyday life. One of the circumstances of course is "Am I provoking or inciting this violence".

Of course, YMMV.
 
Last edited:

green slime said:
I actually think it would make an interesting adventure/campaign. I just see the society doing it as sliding into LE with remarkable agility.

Well, not if we have even more helmets. As soon as one of the helmet placers drifts to LE, *bam*, he registers as evil and someone else places a helmet on the new LE guy to make a new CG guy. Repeat forever, and you would have the society going toward Good much faster than it was going towards Evil, if it could keep producing enough Helmets.
 

Remove ads

Top