Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 765730" data-attributes="member: 2013">I could intellectualize my responses, but for the sake of making them accessible to the majority of readers, I will endeavor not to..."Can there be an absolute morality... that isn't derived purely from logic?"Yes.In fact, my understanding of the "default" D&D universe - and this is echoed in the Book of Vile Darkness - is that "good" and "evil" and "law" and "chaos" are NOT merely concepts derived from philosophizing.  They are actual metaphysical powers, if you will. Thus, the default assumption in the D&D universe is that good, evil, law, and chaos exist and define things independent of any perception and independent of logic.Now you're twisting things.  I am a religious person.  I believe in logic as a useful tool, but not, as you seem to, to be the ultimate authority in the universe... because logic must proceed forth from a set of assumptions - it is these assumptions - or more correctly, that which gives rise to correct assumptions - that is the ultimate authority in the universe.  Call that which gives rise to correct assumptions God or "nature" or "truth" or what have you - but in any case, as logic is built upon the foundation of assumptions, it is the assumptions that are the ultimate authority, not the logic itself.  I therefore believe that following bare, naked logic can lead people to do things that I believe are evil.  Does that mean I think logic is evil?  No.  It means I think that someone who follows bare, naked logic and is thereby led to evil is merely proceeding forth from a faulty set of assumptions.Herein you admit yourself that you have to start from some assumption.  Again, what is the "source" of that assumption?  Most philosophers will tell you they are in search of the "truth" - i.e., the correct set of starting assumptions (because with that correct set, correct conclusions and interpretations of everything may be derived).  The fact that philosophers can't agree on the correct set of starting assumptions (or we wouldn't be bothering with philosophical argument) tells me that they haven't found the "right set" yet - so their assumptions, including "logic is supreme over religious assumptions" are as suspect as anyone else's.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm not familiar with the story in question, so I can't meaningfully approach this one.Paladins walk the hard line between justice and mercy - more specifically, their ideals of justice and mercy.  The paladin upholds the law - but WHOSE law?  If the laws of the land are unjust, is a paladin required to uphold them?  I would say, "no."  A paladin is beholden to the standard his deity sets for justice (law) and mercy (goodness) in such a case."Justice" might dictate that death is mandated - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  "Mercy" might dictate that death is not mandated - this man does not have full control of is actions or full ability to comprehend good and evil.  It is this fight that every paladin must fight every day... when do I let justice prevail at the expense of mercy and vice versa.In the specific case above, I would tend to say that the above example is NOT the example of an anti-paladin... it could be the example of a paladin (justly) punishing a criminal who is being "let off" by (unjust) laws... i.e., the laws of the land have failed to live up to the standard of law he feels is acceptable.A lot of folks seem to fall into the trap of, "the paladin is just a deputy of the local law enforcement with some extra divine powers."  The paladin is the deputy not of local law enforcement, but of deity - which in his mind ought to trump local law enforcement (unless one of the tenets of his deity is "uphold the laws of the land you are in" or something akin).You defuse your own argument with the phrase "however wrong you know it is, you have a burning need to do [so]."  The character in question is not serving a "higher power" (as a paladin has dedicated himself to), he is merely gratifying his own needs.  That he knows it is wrong (as you expressly opined) and winds up doing it anyway shows selfishness, not honor.  You can't be honorable and just and then do something you know is "wrong" - that isn't honorable and/or just by definition!  This seems like an exceedingly poor argument for someone with such extensive knowledge of logic as you have demonstrated.He might be TEMPTED to do so - all characters are tempted to things not in line with their morality... but if you know something is unjust/dishonorable and SUCCUMB to the temptation, you cannot logically define yourself as just/honorable.Again, it makes no sense to me.Premise 1: I am honorable/just.Premise 2: If one is honorable/just, one does not commit dishonorable/unjust acts.Premise 3: I commit dishonorable/unjust acts.Premise 2 can be changed from the general to the specific case rather simply: If I am honorable/just, I do not commit dishonorable/unjust acts.By Modus Tollens, Premise 3 and Premise 2 lead us to:If I am honorable/just, I do not commit dishonorable/unjust acts.I commit dishonorable/unjust acts.Conclusion:I am not honorable/just.But our conclusion conflicts with Premise 1: I am honorable/just.As any practicioner of logic will tell you, you have conflicting premises and can therefore prove anything... making your premises worthless.To me, your example holds no water because of a logical analysis of it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the prevailing attitude in modern society is akin to:1.) A dangerous creature is harassing the locals - e.g., a mountain lion showing up in someone's back yard - remove the creature to another habitat without violence if possible.2.) A dangerous creature harms the locals - e.g., a mountain lion showing up in someone's back yard and mauling/killing that person's dog/cat/child/spouse - the creature has in fact harmed something and is considered dangerous/life-threatening and is killed in self defense.While I myself think that this is perhaps somewhat inconsistent, as the difference between the two may be only opportunity to kill/maul, it illustrates an important point.The prevailing attitude in Western Society is to judge you based on two things:1.) What you are capable of doing.2.) What you have actually done.We are more lenient if you are capable of doing something and have not actually done it.  Perhaps that's because "in the doing" of an act, you prove to us that you will do it, where as in the first instance, we have only a suspicion that you might - but we cannot be sure.LOL - and I didn't intend to turn this into a logic discussion and yet I have done so as well. You have just put the crux of the problem any paladin would have out there... how do they determine the hierarchy of moral imperatives?  Logic has a nasty tendency to fail here, as you wind up with conflicting premises... which is why the paladin needs absolute morality and a deity to rank them for him instead of logic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  After all, if "the word of deity" ranks them, and your number one logical premise is, "my deity is correct," the problem is solved.  Perhaps not satisfying for modern western thinkers, who like to believe their minds can be the ultimate authority, but for a religious person who has as a premise, "my mind is not capable of handling everything - no human's can," it's a nice security blanket. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  "Easy/cheap way out?"  Perhaps.  But no less valid - after all, how can we empirically prove whose assumptions are faulty? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification