The D&D Great Wheel of the Planes and Moral Ethical Relativism

[Felix]

Finally, a little philosophy 101 for those who are using the term "absolutist". You are probably using it wrong.

I wonder who you direct this to; you were rather oblique in your "those who are using" reference.

While we're on the subject, my Philosophy 245 professor noted the difference between "moral realism" and "moral absolutism", but noted that the fundamental principle of a distinct right-and-wrong, an absolute, was better described by the word "absolutism", and that "moral realism" was too vague a descriptor. In his opinion, of course.

*shrug* The major point of contention isn't indefeasibility, but the existence of right and wrong without regard to the actor's perspective; the two best descriptors for that are relativism and absolutism, despite what definitions may be handed out in Philosophy 101 courses.

"Moral Realism" has no meaning for someone who isn't a student of philosophy, whereas "Moral Absolutism" has a meaning that non-students may intuit. It may not be the scientifically proper term, but the meaning is more clear. At least on that subject Dr. Mojadar and I agreed.

I see it as antithetical to their actual role, at best a distraction from the "real work."

Demons and Devils, unlike the celestials, must worry a little more about their "allies" stabbing them in the back. They not only fight the celestial hosts, but also their subordinates, their superiors, and ultimately, themselves. In this regard, I think a Blood War makes perfect sense.

 

[Tarek]

The "Blood War" is between Devils and Demons, not between "Demons and Demons" or "Devils and Devils".

That's what doesn't make sense. Demons fighting each other? Of course! Devils scheming against each other? Definitely!

Demons fighting Devils directly in a massive eternal war? No, because they can't reach each other except on neutral ground (the Astral, the Prime) where other parties (i.e. the various powers of Good) can and do interfere.

Now, the Devils and Demons could fight the Daemons/Demodands, but... they can't reach Hades either, so they need to fight on proximate planes, which means again there's no advantage to anyone for winning a fight, as the combatants just end up back in their home planes, none the worse for wear.

That's why I see it more like Monopoly, or some form of Three-sided Chess, with mortals as the playing pieces and souls as commodities.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Devils in 1st edition are limited to the Astral, the Nine Hells, Acheron, and Gehenna. Demons are limited to the Astral, the Abyss, Pandemonium and Tarterus. Neither of them can reach Hades; the Blood War is impossible under 1st edition "Great Wheel" cosmology, as Demons and Devils in the Astral cannot slay each other permanently. The permanent destruction of the "opposing side" is the entire reason Planescape says drives the Blood War.

I don't know what you've been reading, but here's a quote from the AD&D 1st Edition Monster Manual (4th Edition August 1979):

"Demons are able to move from their own plane into those of Tarterus, Hades, or Pandemonium or roam the astral plane." page 18, 2nd paragraph under Demon

"All devils are able to move about the planes of Hell (although they dare not do so without authorization, save for the dukes). They can move to the plane of Gehenna, Hades and Acheron at will." page 20, 3rd paragraph under Devil

Sometimes it's useful to check the actual books before stating memory as fact.

 

[Psion]

I wonder who you direct this to; you were rather oblique in your "those who are using" reference.

Anyone who uses absolutism as a counterpart of relativism is missing out on a lot of ethical thought. Though it's still not as simple as "realisim vs. relativism" (there's also noncognitivism, etc.), I think it better captures what they were going for.

While we're on the subject, my Philosophy 245 professor noted the difference between "moral realism" and "moral absolutism", but noted that the fundamental principle of a distinct right-and-wrong, an absolute, was better described by the word "absolutism", and that "moral realism" was too vague a descriptor. In his opinion, of course.

*shrug* The major point of contention isn't indefeasibility, but the existence of right and wrong without regard to the actor's perspective; the two best descriptors for that are relativism and absolutism, despite what definitions may be handed out in Philosophy 101 courses.

I'm failing to see the functional difference between your definition and mine. We are really saying the same thing. I say indefeasable, but if a principle is defeasible, why is it so? Because it takes into account the context of the actor, usually.

"Moral Realism" has no meaning for someone who isn't a student of philosophy, whereas "Moral Absolutism" has a meaning that non-students may intuit.

What, are you afraid that I might get some knowledge on someone?

I do find that what most people refer to as absolutism is often fairly close to the textbook definition (to include the idea of absolute principles), but they are really missing out on some of the thoughtful discourse on the topic of ethical philosophy that has occurred over the centuries. If were really going to be debating moral reality, I think the discussion is well served by some exposure to some actual philosophical thought on the topic.

 

[Felix]

I'm failing to see the functional difference between your definition and mine.

No difference, we just define our terms differently.

What, are you afraid that I might get some knowledge on someone?

Of course! Me!

 

[Slapzilla]

So as long as you think you're justified, you are? So if out of an earnest desire to ease suffering I went around to nursing homes and children's hospitals and slew everyone, hey, I'd have no idea that I was doing evil. After all, I think I'm doing the right thing.

Moral relativism strips "Good" and "Evil" of their meaning; they cease being any kind of useful, and become nothing. Moral relativism means the non-existence of "Good" and "Evil". They don't exist because they become anything to anyone. The moral absolutist understands this.

1st paragraph; Moral Relativist says yes, Moral absolutist says heck no!
2nd paragraph; I don't think they are non existant, but they lose their classic definition and thus, their vitality. They still exist subjectively and subjective good and evil may not be absolutist good and evil.

As for fiends banding together to attack the upper planes... certainly in the realm of possibilities but not my point. I think it is 'exalted' (in DnD terms) to give mercy to the enemy. To allow the chance for redemption. A red dragon lives in Celestia because it and the residents believe that it wants to redeem itself. The drive to redeem (or corrupt) is part and parcel of being a Celestial or Fiend. Personally I think stopping the Blood War isn't done on a large scale is because it isn't smart, but on an individual scale it is as necessary as a heartbeat to try.

I think the OP's thrust is about to be lost in a muddle of philosophical concept definitions. I hope not, but if so, it's been nice debating this topic.

 

[Tarek]

Do you know, I had looked it up prior to writing the first post in here where I said that neither demons nor devils could reach Hades?

As written, the 1st edition stuff says that demons and devils can leave the Abyss or the Nine Hells, but can never return without being slain.

 

[Felix]

They still exist subjectively and subjective good and evil may not be absolutist good and evil.

If they only exist subjectively, and ultimately are defined solely by the individual, then for person A, Evil means X; for person B, Evil means Y; for person C, Evil means Z, and so on. Evil has lost its meaning completely, and merely serves as a placeholder for a set of actions the individual has rationalized are "bad" and would refuse to do.

If X, Y, Z, and every other definition used for "Evil" are incompatible, contradictory, irreconcilable, you have a theory of morality that does not extend beyond the individual.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I have no idea what "subjective Good and Evil" means, if Good and Evil is decided by the individual and not the act.

 

[Mardoc Redcloak]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I have no idea what "subjective Good and Evil" means, if Good and Evil is decided by the individual and not the act.

It's important to remember that while "Good and Evil" may be "decided" by the individual, this "decision" (at least for some subjectivists) has more the character of recognition than a conscious act of will.

People who argue that morality is subjective need not suggest that people just wake up and decide one day, on a whim, that X is good and Y is evil. Rather, our natures, our cultural environment, and other factors mold our moral perception of the world in a way that is subjective--that is, it exists only in our particular minds, and not as an objective quality of the action--but not consciously chosen.

For instance, if I were to ask someone "Why do you think callous murder is wrong?", she would likely say something to the effect of "Human life is valuable, and should not be extinguished except in exceptional circumstances, if at all." For the moral objectivist, this reason must be founded in some objective standard--say, reason. For the moral subjectivist, there is no "objective standard", and these sorts of reasons are always ultimately founded in subjective opinions regarding what is "right" arising from our natural sentiments and our cultural background. They do not conform to any standard independent of our subjective opinion, but we do not "make them up" either--we cannot change them on a whim for convenience's sake, because they are built into how we perceive the world.

To bring in the subject raised by the OP here, the D&D universe is not entirely antagonistic to subjective morality, though there is something of a tension there. After all, there is no compelling moral reason for a person to do what a solar thinks is good, or what will get him a positive result on the "detect good" spell--these are not, after all, the reasons upon which we do good in the real world. So a person could conceivably have a view of morality quite distinct from that of "cosmological good" without being "wrong" from an objective standpoint--unless, of course, there is an objective moral foundation for what a solar thinks is good beyond the solar's opinion.

Plato, speaking as Socrates, asks in the Euthypro whether the gods say something is right because it is right, or whether something is right because the gods say it is right, and something of the same problem exists here--is objective moral good determined by cosmological good, or is cosmological good itself founded upon objective moral good?

If cosmological good determines what is said to be objective moral good, it is difficult to see why everyone must care about "objective" moral good, even if there is a higher power who makes a moral judgment between balors and solars... and thus we might be able to say that such "objective moral good" is not objective at all. But this subjectivist/relativist conclusion is no more inevitable in the D&D universe than it is in the real world, nor--crucially--any less.

(For what it's worth, I am not a subjectivist, but a "moral realist" with strong Kantian leanings.)

 

[Felix]

Mardoc, great post. You need to lurk less often!

...we cannot change them on a whim for convenience's sake, because they are built into how we perceive the world.

But this is what I distrust about moral relativism; while the theory may say that your environment defines your morality and morality is not subject to an individual's conscious will, an appeal to relativism could cite conditions in one's environment that could explain how an action that an absolutist would call "Evil", is not "Evil" because of the environment. Would it not relieve the individual of the burden of responsibility if the morality of an act is determined not by the actor and the action, but by the perspective and environment?

Plato, speaking as Socrates, asks in the Euthypro whether the gods say something is right because it is right, or whether something is right because the gods say it is right, and something of the same problem exists here--is objective moral good determined by cosmological good, or is cosmological good itself founded upon objective moral good?

If the great wheel were a compass, able to turn to the cosmological analogs of True North, would that not lend itself to an absolutist view of morality that the OP wants in his game? Yes, you would need introduce two "Norths" (Good and Law), and two "Souths" (Chaos and Evil), but the analogy isn't an unseemly one. Wouldn't the Good of Celestia and its solars be Good because their morality is based on absolutist principles and the objective standard of Good? Does that satisfy the OP?