Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8691489" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, now you aren't even advancing an internally coherent standard.&nbsp; If you really believed the first two sentences, you'd never advance the third one.&nbsp; In the first two you claim that you can't identify what good or evil is.&nbsp; And then you can conclude by claiming you can and can judge others by your standard.&nbsp; This is barely worthy of a rebuttal.Why not?&nbsp; I mean I don't think my argument would change one way or the other.&nbsp; Why does this objection actually matter?&nbsp; Let's say we have a world where we can objectively qualify things like hatred, greed, wrath, deceit, and pride as Evil.&nbsp; Does that mean that few people would openly advocate for those things being virtues and the correct guide for living life?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Heck, there is a long history of players advancing arguments that Team Evil in the D&amp;D universe is the correct team to play for, so why wouldn't they also in universe?And I've already addressed that issue.&nbsp; Almost certainly what the Paladin calls good, the gnolls think is wrong and what the Paladin calls evil the gnolls think is good.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Not only does this disagreement not mean that things are subjective or incoherent, it doesn't even produce a difficult observer problem.&nbsp; We can as an observer see the two things each side points at and agree that the two things exist and both sides agree that they exist and can even describe them accurately only disagree over which is preferable and valuable as a life standard.&nbsp; Nothing about the disagreement prevents us from deciding whether we believe morality should have an external source or is a personal choice, or whether mercy and compassion are virtues or vices, or whether telling truth is better than telling lies, or whatever the two disagree over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8691489, member: 4937"] Ok, now you aren't even advancing an internally coherent standard. If you really believed the first two sentences, you'd never advance the third one. In the first two you claim that you can't identify what good or evil is. And then you can conclude by claiming you can and can judge others by your standard. This is barely worthy of a rebuttal. Why not? I mean I don't think my argument would change one way or the other. Why does this objection actually matter? Let's say we have a world where we can objectively qualify things like hatred, greed, wrath, deceit, and pride as Evil. Does that mean that few people would openly advocate for those things being virtues and the correct guide for living life? Of course not. Heck, there is a long history of players advancing arguments that Team Evil in the D&D universe is the correct team to play for, so why wouldn't they also in universe? And I've already addressed that issue. Almost certainly what the Paladin calls good, the gnolls think is wrong and what the Paladin calls evil the gnolls think is good. So what? Not only does this disagreement not mean that things are subjective or incoherent, it doesn't even produce a difficult observer problem. We can as an observer see the two things each side points at and agree that the two things exist and both sides agree that they exist and can even describe them accurately only disagree over which is preferable and valuable as a life standard. Nothing about the disagreement prevents us from deciding whether we believe morality should have an external source or is a personal choice, or whether mercy and compassion are virtues or vices, or whether telling truth is better than telling lies, or whatever the two disagree over. [/QUOTE]

Verification