Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8291006" data-attributes="member: 6796468">There are Rebels among the populace opposed to the King on the Throne and his loyal ministers. The LE Grand Vizier councils the king to crack down on the people to find the rebel leaders. To savagely curtail their rights, to beat them in the streets for the most minor infractions, to execute petty criminals who have been forced into confessing to be Rebels as a way to cow the people and force the Rebels to surrender to stop the horrific tyranny.The "Good" in this individual's ideology is the continuation of the Kingdom and the Rulership of the Crown. This person considers themself to be a Consequentialist with the Good of the Kingdom to be the most important aspect of their beliefs, trumping the lives and civil liberties of the populace. During times when there isn't a Rebellion going on, this Vizier might uphold the laws he doesn't like about people's personal freedoms because it is the King's Wishes, and chafe under the yoke. But given license, he will use that End to justify any Means.It's the same reason I posted the video of Frollo. He's a "Good Christian Man" who obeys the law to the letter, a Deontologist who accepts the laws exist and should be obeyed, but uses those same laws to do great evil and excuse himself of any wrongdoing, or in the song Hellfire to shift the blame for his actions and intentions upon others. He's an example of a Hypocritical Deontologist, who holds himself to laws when it suits him, and ignores them whenever they impinge on his intentions.Any moral philosophy is predicated on what is considered to have Value. But the idea that every person who ascribes to a given moral philosophy holds the same Values and to the same degrees is a narrow perspective. Some people may hold stronger moral convictions as relates to the positivity of harming those they consider evil than protecting those they consider to be good, for example. And thus be more concerned with harming the outgroup than helping the ingroup. Even if harming the outgroup leads to helping the ingroup or creates more problems and violence against the ingroup.Because that is what holds the greatest value to that individual.Does that make more sense?</blockquote>

Verification