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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9542374" data-attributes="member: 42856">The consequences of that would be that it's impossible to be a muscular neutral, which is contrary to the premise of the thread, which gave a specific definition and asked how muscular neutrals would fit within these parameters. If you can't oppose Good without being Evil, it runs contrary to the premises of the thought experiment, as nobody can be Muscular Neutral, so there must necessarily be a way to oppose good without being evil. Also, the OP never mentionned good and evil as opposite, just having different sets of values, only one of which is directly contradictory (killing vs respect for life).Yes, he was referring, I think, to the idea that Good forces people to be altruistic (either by being a dictatorship in disguise, a dystopia like Ultima V's Lord Blackthorn perverting the virtues, or just plain magical brainwash so you are obliged to be altruistic instead of having free will), which was something possible in the first post's defintion. Since then, the definition of Good for the purpose of this thread was later clarified such as the absolute victory of Good wouldn't brainwash people into doing anything, I think his conclusion (leading to muscular neutral opposing that) is therefore outside the topic at hand. Maybe he missed the clarification, in page 3.Edit: also, I don't think his solution would fit because if his proposal even based on the original defintion, since in this case, muscular neutral would oppose a brainwashing Good, they wouldn't oppose a victory of Evil over Good (since Evil would certainly force people to do thing (oppression is one of their core values) as much as Good would if Good could, the logical activity for Neutral would be to wipe out both Good and Evil, not ensure their continued existence).</blockquote>

Verification