Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 3662098" data-attributes="member: 1325">Well, you have to resort to your detect evil spell, then don't you.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.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. 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. 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? See above. Considering an ideal world, what place is there for violence upon others? Is it then really morally neutral?Not a very grown up argument, resorting to demeaning remarks. Easier doesn't necessarily mean wrong either.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.</blockquote>

Verification