Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 4388232" data-attributes="member: 172">No, I don't agree. There is no distinction. &quot;Incorrect per objective moral theory&quot; is pretty much &quot;evil&quot; when you are talking about alignment. If we were talking about correct or incorrect in some other context, I might see your point, but it's not something that anyone means. Certainly not anything I meant when I used the term correct. To be clear, when I said correct or incorrect in my prior post, I was speaking in terms of moral theory.One can believe they &quot;did the right thing&quot; just like they can believe their coffee table is a beholder; in the context of the reality as it exists in D&amp;D, merely having a belief doesn't make it correct.It means that what is &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; is purely a subjective judgment; there are no moral &quot;facts&quot;. One person may take context into account another may not. But ultimately, it's irrelevant in determining what is &quot;right&quot; because there is no objective &quot;right&quot; under relativism.Realism or objectivism (which is pretty much mutually exclusive with relativism) can take into account context. A realist moral theory CAN take into account context and still assert that there is a moral fact about the situation. Only the subset of moral realist theories that might be called absolutist (by definition) have principles that aren't sensitive to context.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 4388232, member: 172"] No, I don't agree. There is no distinction. "Incorrect per objective moral theory" is pretty much "evil" when you are talking about alignment. If we were talking about correct or incorrect in some other context, I might see your point, but it's not something that anyone means. Certainly not anything I meant when I used the term correct. To be clear, when I said correct or incorrect in my prior post, I was speaking in terms of moral theory. One can believe they "did the right thing" just like they can believe their coffee table is a beholder; in the context of the reality as it exists in D&D, merely having a belief doesn't make it correct. It means that what is "good" or "evil" is purely a subjective judgment; there are no moral "facts". One person may take context into account another may not. But ultimately, it's irrelevant in determining what is "right" because there is no objective "right" under relativism. Realism or objectivism (which is pretty much mutually exclusive with relativism) can take into account context. A realist moral theory CAN take into account context and still assert that there is a moral fact about the situation. Only the subset of moral realist theories that might be called absolutist (by definition) have principles that aren't sensitive to context. [/QUOTE]

Verification