Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7964425" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;well established&quot;. My guess is that, among English- speaing philosophers (as in, people employed in academic philosophy departments) the split would be about 60/40 in favour of morality being objective. Among those who study the matter as their main field of inquiry, I would say that majority increases.This is at least in part because the arguments in favour of morality being objective are fairly easy - eg nearly everyone agreess that if I started taking pleasure in kicking dogs that wouldn't show that it had become OK to kick dogs; it would just show that I've become a cruel person - whereas the technical obstacles that confront a subjective or relativistic account of morality (issues around truth predication, the &quot;Frege-Geach problem&quot; for expressivism, etc) are very challenging.But I don't think the metaphysics of morals is particularly important for RPGing.In the context of RPGing, I think the more important issues is who gets to answer the questions, and on what basis or via what method.For instance, there have been posts in this thread saying that the GM should have inflicted penalties on the pakadin in the OP for not doing the right thing. That sort of approach - whereby the GM is entitled to unilaterally answer these questions - will produce one sort of RPGing experience.Other approaches will produce different sorts of experiences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7964425, member: 42582"] I'm not sure what you mean by "well established". My guess is that, among English- speaing philosophers (as in, people employed in academic philosophy departments) the split would be about 60/40 in favour of morality being objective. Among those who study the matter as their main field of inquiry, I would say that majority increases. This is at least in part because the arguments in favour of morality being objective are fairly easy - eg nearly everyone agreess that if I started taking pleasure in kicking dogs that wouldn't show that it had become OK to kick dogs; it would just show that I've become a cruel person - whereas the technical obstacles that confront a subjective or relativistic account of morality (issues around truth predication, the "Frege-Geach problem" for expressivism, etc) are very challenging. But I don't think the metaphysics of morals is particularly important for RPGing. In the context of RPGing, I think the more important issues is who gets to [I]answer [/I]the questions, and on what basis or via what method. For instance, there have been posts in this thread saying that [I]the GM[/I] should have inflicted penalties on the pakadin in the OP for not doing the right thing. That sort of approach - whereby the GM is entitled to unilaterally answer these questions - will produce one sort of RPGing experience. Other approaches will produce different sorts of experiences. [/QUOTE]

Verification