Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 783767" data-attributes="member: 2013">While this treads on the &quot;no religion discussions&quot; rule, I'll throw it out merely as a hypothetical example:Suppose that children who die before the age of, say, 8 automatically go to heaven... and as a loving father, I want to ensure that my children make it to heaven... so at age 7, I murder each of my children to allow them automatic entry to heaven.&nbsp; Love motivates me to do &quot;what is best&quot; for my children, and &quot;what is best&quot; for them, in all earnestness, is to guarantee them entry into heaven, right?In the above example, the action of killing children is motivated by love and a legitimate desire to see them get &quot;the best.&quot;&nbsp; Does that make it a good act?&nbsp; Or is the premeditated killing my own helpless and innocent children an evil act?Obviously, love cannot make an act good.&nbsp; Motivation does not excuse evil actions... &quot;the road to hell is paved with good intentions&quot; and all that.Is love itself good?&nbsp; Maybe.&nbsp; It depends on the object of affection.&nbsp; If the object of the affection is another sentient being, it is a good thing, as true love promotes placing others above self (which I happen to think is &quot;good&quot;).&nbsp; If the object of affection is a principle or other abstract concept (or a deity), I think it depends on the nature of the thing and the reason for the love - if the love of something is based on it being the means to an end, I think you have to look at the end intended.&nbsp; A paladin might love power, for example - because he is focused only on using that power to bring greater goodness and health and joy to the populace at large (not just paying lip service, but actually using the power he gains to do so to the best of his ability).&nbsp; In this case, the love of power is not the end, but the means to an end - and the end is motivated by a love of others.&nbsp; The &quot;evil necromancer/demonologist&quot; also loves power - but his end is perhaps to impose his own will on others.&nbsp; Both love power, but the paladin loves the people more than the power, while the necromancer loves the power more than the people.This is getting WAY too complex, so I'll sum it up as succintly as I can... love is good when it is for the right reason.&nbsp; Knowing whether or not it is is like describing salt - you can't relly describe it fully without reverting to &quot;salty&quot; (which doesn't help - it tastes like it tastes? Of course it does!) but once you have experienced it, you know what it is.&nbsp; Having experienced it with my wife and at the birth of each of my kids, I know what it is, but I don't know that language has the words nor mind the conceptualization to fully and effectively convey it with no opportunity for misunderstanding and no lack of descriptive force. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />So, love is a fine motivator, but does not justify actions as &quot;good&quot; and love itself is not always good - it depends on what is loved and why.&nbsp; At least as we commonly use the term &quot;love&quot; - again, &quot;love of money, love of power, love of self, etc.&quot; are neutral to evil.If one subscribes to the theory that &quot;evil love&quot; is not really love at all but a manifestation of selfishness, thus narrowly defining love to &quot;love of other sentients and of virtuous principles et al&quot; then I could consider love as &quot;absolute good.&quot;&nbsp; I happen to think this is a good way of describing it, but semantically, I have to give in to practicality.&nbsp; I'll call the kind of love mentioned above &quot;charitable love.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Charitable love&quot; is always good.To further that thought, &quot;evil&quot; people can be motivated by &quot;charitable love.&quot;&nbsp; So it is possible for an evil person to do good (and vice versa) - it's the patterns of behavior that lead to &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; labels.*chuckles*&nbsp; Reminds of the My Fair Lady crackback...&quot;The difference between you [and the Colonel] is that he treats everyone like a queen - and you treat everyone like a flower girl.&quot;&quot;*snort* The question is NOT, 'how does the Colonel treat you [vs how I treat you].'&nbsp; The question is, 'Have you ever seen me treat anyone else better [than I treat you]?'&quot;This actually does a good job describing my perception of &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; characters - &quot;good&quot; characters interact with almost everyone with the goal of lifting, helping, and improving them.&nbsp; By and large, they care about others - not just &quot;a few others I like&quot; but &quot;all others.&nbsp; OTOH, &quot;Evil&quot; characters care only about themselves and possibly &quot;a few others I like&quot; but on the whole, their interactions with others are not motivated by the desire to lift others - they flat out don't care about them.&nbsp; Neutral characters?&nbsp; Well, they don't go out of their way to be nice, but don't go out of their way to be mean, either.&nbsp; They don't intrinsically value others more than self, but then, they don't value self to the exclusion of others, either (include &quot;close friends&quot; in definition of self).Good -&gt; By and large, values others more than self (does not mean &quot;does not value self.&quot;)Neutral -&gt; By and large, values self more than others, but DOES also value others - hence a big gain for others for a small price for self may be acceptable to a neutral character.Evil -&gt; Values self, does not value others.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 783767, member: 2013"] While this treads on the "no religion discussions" rule, I'll throw it out merely as a hypothetical example: Suppose that children who die before the age of, say, 8 automatically go to heaven... and as a loving father, I want to ensure that my children make it to heaven... so at age 7, I murder each of my children to allow them automatic entry to heaven. Love motivates me to do "what is best" for my children, and "what is best" for them, in all earnestness, is to guarantee them entry into heaven, right? In the above example, the action of killing children is motivated by love and a legitimate desire to see them get "the best." Does that make it a good act? Or is the premeditated killing my own helpless and innocent children an evil act? Obviously, love cannot make an act good. Motivation does not excuse evil actions... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that. Is love itself good? Maybe. It depends on the object of affection. If the object of the affection is another sentient being, it is a good thing, as true love promotes placing others above self (which I happen to think is "good"). If the object of affection is a principle or other abstract concept (or a deity), I think it depends on the nature of the thing and the reason for the love - if the love of something is based on it being the means to an end, I think you have to look at the end intended. A paladin might love power, for example - because he is focused only on using that power to bring greater goodness and health and joy to the populace at large (not just paying lip service, but actually using the power he gains to do so to the best of his ability). In this case, the love of power is not the end, but the means to an end - and the end is motivated by a love of others. The "evil necromancer/demonologist" also loves power - but his end is perhaps to impose his own will on others. Both love power, but the paladin loves the people more than the power, while the necromancer loves the power more than the people. This is getting WAY too complex, so I'll sum it up as succintly as I can... love is good when it is for the right reason. Knowing whether or not it is is like describing salt - you can't relly describe it fully without reverting to "salty" (which doesn't help - it tastes like it tastes? Of course it does!) but once you have experienced it, you know what it is. Having experienced it with my wife and at the birth of each of my kids, I know what it is, but I don't know that language has the words nor mind the conceptualization to fully and effectively convey it with no opportunity for misunderstanding and no lack of descriptive force. :( So, love is a fine motivator, but does not justify actions as "good" and love itself is not always good - it depends on what is loved and why. At least as we commonly use the term "love" - again, "love of money, love of power, love of self, etc." are neutral to evil. If one subscribes to the theory that "evil love" is not really love at all but a manifestation of selfishness, thus narrowly defining love to "love of other sentients and of virtuous principles et al" then I could consider love as "absolute good." I happen to think this is a good way of describing it, but semantically, I have to give in to practicality. I'll call the kind of love mentioned above "charitable love." "Charitable love" is always good. To further that thought, "evil" people can be motivated by "charitable love." So it is possible for an evil person to do good (and vice versa) - it's the patterns of behavior that lead to "good" and "evil" labels. *chuckles* Reminds of the My Fair Lady crackback... "The difference between you [and the Colonel] is that he treats everyone like a queen - and you treat everyone like a flower girl." "*snort* The question is NOT, 'how does the Colonel treat you [vs how I treat you].' The question is, 'Have you ever seen me treat anyone else better [than I treat you]?'" This actually does a good job describing my perception of "good" and "evil" characters - "good" characters interact with almost everyone with the goal of lifting, helping, and improving them. By and large, they care about others - not just "a few others I like" but "all others. OTOH, "Evil" characters care only about themselves and possibly "a few others I like" but on the whole, their interactions with others are not motivated by the desire to lift others - they flat out don't care about them. Neutral characters? Well, they don't go out of their way to be nice, but don't go out of their way to be mean, either. They don't intrinsically value others more than self, but then, they don't value self to the exclusion of others, either (include "close friends" in definition of self). Good -> By and large, values others more than self (does not mean "does not value self.") Neutral -> By and large, values self more than others, but DOES also value others - hence a big gain for others for a small price for self may be acceptable to a neutral character. Evil -> Values self, does not value others. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification