Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6634497" data-attributes="member: 177">As I noted upthread, we may not consider there to be a &quot;moral&quot; conflict.&nbsp; We can consider morals to be on the Good/Evil axis, and therefore orthogonal to Law and Chaos.&nbsp; The question is, then, how we make a non-moral conflict *interesting*.But, hoenstly, we don't have to go there. I refer you to any (probably every) mundane television medical, legal, or police procedural series.&nbsp; Lawyers, police, and doctors in the real world are supposed to hold to strict ethical guidelines on very solid moral grounds.&nbsp; But, those same ethical rules occasionally mean individuals come to harm.&nbsp; And there, in simple, comes the question.&nbsp; It is the question between Kirk and Spock in Star Trek movies - Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one?&nbsp; That, in a nutshell, is the Law/Chaos question - what *is* wellbeing, and when, if ever, can the one be more important than the many?But, I will also note a major issue of assuming the conclusion - you are speaking from the point of view that morality is based upon the &quot;wellbeing&quot; of people in life.&nbsp; Need I mention that for some real-world religions and philosophies, this is *not* the major question?&nbsp;&nbsp; I mean, for humans, real life is a mere century.&nbsp; If you have an afterlife for an eternity, or a scheme of reincarnation to higher states, you may have larger concerns than current wellbeing, or the very idea of &quot;wellbeing&quot; may not be so clear-cut, which then can then become rather more interesting as moral quandaries.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6634497, member: 177"] As I noted upthread, we may not consider there to be a "moral" conflict. We can consider morals to be on the Good/Evil axis, and therefore orthogonal to Law and Chaos. The question is, then, how we make a non-moral conflict *interesting*. But, hoenstly, we don't have to go there. I refer you to any (probably every) mundane television medical, legal, or police procedural series. Lawyers, police, and doctors in the real world are supposed to hold to strict ethical guidelines on very solid moral grounds. But, those same ethical rules occasionally mean individuals come to harm. And there, in simple, comes the question. It is the question between Kirk and Spock in Star Trek movies - Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? That, in a nutshell, is the Law/Chaos question - what *is* wellbeing, and when, if ever, can the one be more important than the many? But, I will also note a major issue of assuming the conclusion - you are speaking from the point of view that morality is based upon the "wellbeing" of people in life. Need I mention that for some real-world religions and philosophies, this is *not* the major question? I mean, for humans, real life is a mere century. If you have an afterlife for an eternity, or a scheme of reincarnation to higher states, you may have larger concerns than current wellbeing, or the very idea of "wellbeing" may not be so clear-cut, which then can then become rather more interesting as moral quandaries. [/QUOTE]

Verification