Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 2159542" data-attributes="member: 2486">I'm still going to advocate the "None" position, but this time I be a little less concise - I managed to get the second post before the discussion had really started.The fundamental problem with discussing the relative intellectual merits of the various different alignments is that the reasoning process in ordinary rational thought is generally the construction of a chain of events from a certain starting position (A) to a final destination (B).  So, a very simple rational response to "I'm hungry" would be "go to the kitchen, get some food out of the fridge, and eat it".  The problem is that even within the *same* alignment, societal goals can be radically different.  I would vehemently reject the notion that alignment, religion and politics conform: one can be either a Christian Socialist or a member of the religious Right and still remain a Christian.  Two divergent "Good" goals would be the maximisation of happiness for all (altruistic utilitarianism) but this could encompass the use of brutal methods for oppression of some section of the population.  "Average happiness" as a qualifier of utilitarianism is similarly subject to problems over methodology: can a good person torture for utilitarian benefits?  At the other end of the spectrum, Evil can either be pure egoism, which would entail the maximisation of long-term (or short-term: another potential conflict!) advantage; or the minimisation of the happiness of others (i.e. reverse utilitarianism) even if your own welfare is hampered.  Lawful characters can be adherents of the traditional status quo (traditionalist lawful), or advocate of rational reform of decayed structures (reformist lawful) or even in favour of the construction of an entirely new system of government (radical lawful).  Chaotic can be a rejection of society per se (anarchy) to the maintenance of some semblance of order with the goal to minimising coercion (libertarianism/minarchism) or any host of other moral/political philosophies.No alignment can be "intellectually" superior because no alignment is reducible to a single set of canon beliefs, goals or objectives.  No alignment is proscriptive in the values derived from it, much less the methods undertaken to fulfil those values.  There is no simple A to B chain of reason.  Alignment is descriptive, and therefore cannot be "intellectual" at all.</blockquote>

Verification