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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6734452" data-attributes="member: 42582">Whether or not values conflict is a matter of philosophical disagreement.But suppose, for the sake of argument, that values can conflict. That doesn't mean that they're not all good.Here's a standard example: I can stay home and cook dinner for my family (thereby realising certain aesthetic, creative and interpersonal/relational values); or I can go to a seminar and dinner afterwards, not getting home until my kids are in bed asleep (thereby realising certain intellectual and scholarly values). It might not be obvious which choice is better; and it may even be that neither is better or worse than the other, and that the choices are therefore incommensurable.In this sort of case, choosing either is still choosing a valuable thing. Perhaps one choice is better, but either choice is good.The problem with treating law as a value in and of itself is that the domain of the valuable has been divorced from the domain of the good. That makes no sense to me from either the linguistic or the logical point of view. That's why I think Gygax's framework makes sense, but the 3E one doesn't: he recognises that for the LG, law is of only instrumental value, and that those who make the moral error of treating it as a value in and of itself are not good (hence LN), though not fully evil because still acknowledging an external constraint upon their behaviour (they are not simply committed to imposing their yoke upon the world).</blockquote>

Verification