Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4650955" data-attributes="member: 834">Every single philosopher of amorality, such as Sartre and Nietzche, are included in the greater paradigm of moral relativism.Some people like the edge of claiming they are amoral, but unless they suffer from some form of mental disorder, they are indeed moral relativist.&nbsp; After all, you talk about giving 'all factor due consideration'.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; But how do you value each factor?&nbsp; Which factors deserve more consideration?&nbsp; That depends on your own set of values.&nbsp; Your own moral values...&nbsp; That's why two men confronted to the same set of factors won't necessarily take the same decision.&nbsp; It is not because one is lazy, ignorant or stupid.&nbsp; It's because, for example, one man values personal freedom above family and the other weigh these thing inversely.&nbsp; No matter what you claim, you have such values, you have your own way of prioritizing things like freedom, friendship, personal comfort and security.&nbsp; So you are not amoral.---There were only 9 alignment.&nbsp; It's obvious you could get two LG in conflict.&nbsp; But if they are LG, they will use a Casus Belli and respect the rules of war.In D&amp;D 3.5, Good had a specific meaning.&nbsp; Everytime Good and Evil can be defined for the entire (campaign) world, you are talking of the very definition of moral absolutism.&nbsp; The DM would give the final word on this, there was leeway between different campaigns, but on a a given campaign with a given DM, there was a final word on what was Good; If you didn't adhere to your campaign world definition of Good, then you slipped to neutral or evil.&nbsp; That's absolutist.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mal Malenkirk, post: 4650955, member: 834"] Every single philosopher of amorality, such as Sartre and Nietzche, are included in the greater paradigm of moral relativism. Some people like the edge of claiming they are amoral, but unless they suffer from some form of mental disorder, they are indeed moral relativist. After all, you talk about giving [I]'all factor due consideration'[/I]. Fine. But how do you value each factor? Which factors deserve more consideration? That depends on your own set of values. Your own moral values... That's why two men confronted to the same set of factors won't necessarily take the same decision. It is not because one is lazy, ignorant or stupid. It's because, for example, one man values personal freedom above family and the other weigh these thing inversely. No matter what you claim, you have such values, you have your own way of prioritizing things like freedom, friendship, personal comfort and security. So you are not amoral. --- There were only 9 alignment. It's obvious you could get two LG in conflict. But if they are LG, they will use a Casus Belli and respect the rules of war. In D&D 3.5, Good had a specific meaning. Everytime Good and Evil can be defined for the entire (campaign) world, you are talking of the very definition of moral absolutism. The DM would give the final word on this, there was leeway between different campaigns, but on a a given campaign with a given DM, there was a final word on what was Good; If you didn't adhere to your campaign world definition of Good, then you slipped to neutral or evil. That's absolutist. [/QUOTE]

Verification