le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
then, to me the important thing about Goodness is in the Relationship / Empathy thing
... or, isn't Fidelity the resource for Lawfulness ? ( this may include Samurai code of conduct )Lawful Evil people follow the law though. So, if the law requires tolerance, they will comply.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.