Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9531127" data-attributes="member: 6790260">If you can come up with an example where "CG as a force" could do this when the individuals who make up CG (y'know, CG being all about the individual beliefs and actions thing) would not, I'm all ears. Until then, your "I'm not so sure" does not make a particularly meaningful rebuttal.I think both continue to exist because people are overly enamored with the things they do well, to the point that they refuse to recognize the things they do extremely poorly. Consequentialism has the serious problem that if you can just make an argument, any argument, that on a sufficiently long time scale or a sufficiently large population, anything goes. That's....kind of a fatal flaw. Deontology quite rightly points out that if we can find even one moral duty, we've made enormous progress. The problem is that several quite straightforward applications of the alleged duty (the categorical imperative) lead to the very logical contradictions that deontology was supposed to avert in the first place. E.g., telling any lie = advocating that all people always tell lies all the time, but now we cannot lie to Gestapo agents hunting the Jews hiding in one's basement. Much as getting bogged down in analyses of time horizons, relative privation, and justifying short-term harm for long-term benefit causes consequentialism to fall short of its explicit aim of simplifying ethical reasoning by removing the thorny question of whether actions themselves are right or wrong, and instead looking at effects. Turns out, effects are at least as complicated as actions!Personally, I'm a virtue ethics guy, and I see both of the above as useful tools for helping us determine where the correct balance point is on a case-by-case basis.Okay? That...doesn't seem to be making much of a point then. Yes, by definition, moral-ethical behavior is a relation an entity has with another entity (including the self, since it is possible, at least in principle, to do immoral things to yourself.) Where are you going with this, counselor?Oh, I don't agree with that at all. I think the most interesting setting with cosmological factions avoids having anything labelled "Good."</blockquote>

Verification