Is Tolerance a Lawful thing ?

[le Redoutable]

then, to me the important thing about Goodness is in the Relationship / Empathy thing

 

[le Redoutable]

Lawful Evil people follow the law though. So, if the law requires tolerance, they will comply.

... or, isn't Fidelity the resource for Lawfulness ? ( this may include Samurai code of conduct )

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

Crushing a butterfly is an evil act, crushing a cockroach is a good act. Destroying beauty is an evil act, destroying ugliness is a good act. Although someone who is attractive is not necessarily good, nor someone ugly necessarily evil, morality is absolutely related to beauty as a concept.

"Law" is the metaphysical concept of Order: Natural Law, Cosmic Order, Divine Order, reason, and harmony. Chaos being the dissolution of all categories, hierarchy, coherency, and meaning.

 

[Gradine]

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Crushing a butterfly is an evil act, crushing a cockroach is a good act. Destroying beauty is an evil act, destroying ugliness is a good act. Although someone who is attractive is not necessarily good, nor someone ugly necessarily evil, morality is absolutely related to beauty as a concept.

"Law" is the metaphysical concept of Order: Natural Law, Cosmic Order, Divine Order, reason, and harmony. Chaos being the dissolution of all categories, hierarchy, coherency, and meaning.

Wow. I fundamentally disagree with you here. Crushing a cockroach is neither good nor evil, or if it is good, it is not because they are ugly but because they are an infestation in your house. If butterflies were in your cupboards, eating your food, (like say, a meal moth) then crushing it would be just as satisfying as a cockroach, in spite of its beauty. If crushing a butterfly is 'evil' it is only because they are innocent, not because they are beautiful.

Beauty and ugliness being involved at all, is IMO, problematic thinking. I am not saying that I don't think that there are people who think this way (obviously, there are). I just think that they are fundamentally WRONG to do so.

 

[Yora]

Lawfulness is all about drawing lines, putting things into boxes, having expectations about proper behavior, and clear standards of what is right and wrong.

I would say it's more the opposite of tolerance.

I would say tolerance would be good if anything. Lawful good characters might be struggling with it because they want to both be kind and accepting, but also have strict expectations that they feel strongly aboout. Chaotic good would be the most tolerant, because they really do not care if anyone or anything breaks out of established categories.

 

[Gradine]

Rather, the different Good alignments would view "tolerance" in different ways and practice it through different methodologies.

Lawful Good would be most likely to see tolerance as an all-or-nothing kind of deal. "I may not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it." They see the means as just as (if not more) important than the ends, mainly because in the LG headspace the ends are impossible to separate from the means. Tolerance is the idea that must be upheld at all costs.

Chaotic Good are the ones tossing Nazis out of bars. Yes they're big on freedom, but in general, they see "freedom" in practical terms rather than theoretical. The presence and legitimacy of bigots infringes on the freedoms of the dispossessed to, you know, live their lives in peace and safety. The folx who grok Popper's Paradox fit here.

If anything, Neutral Good are going to be more concerned with the ends than with the means than the CG folx. They're more sympathetic to the "not agree but defend" argument, but these are the ones who are in the replies patiently trying to explain to where exactly the 1st Amendment begins and ends.

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

Wow. I fundamentally disagree with you here. Crushing a cockroach is neither good nor evil, or if it is good, it is not because they are ugly but because they are an infestation in your house. If butterflies were in your cupboards, eating your food, (like say, a meal moth) then crushing it would be just as satisfying as a cockroach, in spite of its beauty. If crushing a butterfly is 'evil' it is only because they are innocent, not because they are beautiful.

Beauty and ugliness being involved at all, is IMO, problematic thinking. I am not saying that I don't think that there are people who think this way (obviously, there are). I just think that they are fundamentally WRONG to do so.

Roaches are disgusting, butterflies are beautiful. UglyNESS should be destroyed, Beauty should be preserved. That's a large part of what morality IS. If you lack that moral intuition, and instead rely only on quantitative, nominalist thinking, then no further communication is even possible.

"problematic thinking"
Thank you

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Roaches are disgusting, butterflies are beautiful. UglyNESS should be destroyed, Beauty should be preserved. That's a large part of what morality IS. If you lack that moral intuition, and instead rely only on quantitative, nominalist thinking, then no further communication is even possible.

"problematic thinking"
Thank you

I guess I just don't agree (even remotely) that morality has anything at all to do with subjective beauty. You're basically saying that better-looking people (by extension from your insect analogy) have more right to exist than uglier people, which I find anti-moral. That's just a gift of genes and has nothing at all to do with morality, but sure, if you think that somehow makes you better than me, I guess there is no reason to keep talking about it.

EDIT to add: I wouldn't read too much into my use of the phrase "problematic thinking" - I simply mean that I take issue (I personally have a problem) with that way of thinking. Not that I believe in some kind of thought-police. I just don't agree with it. Nothing more.

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

Rather, the different Good alignments would view "tolerance" in different ways and practice it through different methodologies.

Lawful Good would be most likely to see tolerance as an all-or-nothing kind of deal. "I may not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it." They see the means as just as (if not more) important than the ends, mainly because in the LG headspace the ends are impossible to separate from the means. Tolerance is the idea that must be upheld at all costs.

Chaotic Good are the ones tossing Nazis out of bars. Yes they're big on freedom, but in general, they see "freedom" in practical terms rather than theoretical. The presence and legitimacy of bigots infringes on the freedoms of the dispossessed to, you know, live their lives in peace and safety. The folx who grok Popper's Paradox fit here.

If anything, Neutral Good are going to be more concerned with the ends than with the means than the CG folx. They're more sympathetic to the "not agree but defend" argument, but these are the ones who are in the replies patiently trying to explain to where exactly the 1st Amendment begins and ends.

So hardly anyone actually believes in Tolerance. Fascists honestly say they don't, and the Progressive, enlightened "folx" who parade it around like a pagan idol always have a convoluted, Dunning-Kruger justification why they don't need to practice it whenever inconvenient. Ironically the only types who seem to believe in Tolerance at all is the small-government, libertarian/conservative, just-wanna-grill types.