Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BenK" data-source="post: 6417059" data-attributes="member: 49239">Well, there's a coincidence. I'm enrolled to study at an Australian university law school next year.'Good and Evil' don't make sense as equal but conflicting forces, agreed - they're not simply opposed, they're fundamentally asymetrical. My take Table of Alignments-wise is that Good (tm) means commitment to a universal vision, whereas Evil is pure egotism. Here's a question for both planescape and Rawls, though - is the Good united? That is, is my good and your good and everyone else's good the same good? For Rawls in Sigil, he might say of the Demons 'So much the worse for the Irrational,' but if the Demons are actually enjoying their irrationality more than Rawls is enjoying his rationality, aren't they more right in saying 'so much the worse for Rawls?'(As an aside, the Baatezu put me in mind of Plato's Republic. Which of Socrates' interlocutours argues that it is best to be thought just, but to be unjust? I can imagine the devils publicly&nbsp; advocating Rawls' laws but breaking them in any situation they're certain they won't be found out. )I haven't formally come accross the distinction between internal and external motivations as you've desribed them before, but I've thought of them many times. I don't understand what Rawls thinks he's doing with the statement 'so much the worse for the irrational' when he can't give them an internally compelling reason to be rational.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BenK, post: 6417059, member: 49239"] Well, there's a coincidence. I'm enrolled to study at an Australian university law school next year. 'Good and Evil' don't make sense as equal but conflicting forces, agreed - they're not simply opposed, they're fundamentally asymetrical. My take Table of Alignments-wise is that Good (tm) means commitment to a universal vision, whereas Evil is pure egotism. Here's a question for both planescape and Rawls, though - is the Good united? That is, is my good and your good and everyone else's good the same good? For Rawls in Sigil, he might say of the Demons 'So much the worse for the Irrational,' but if the Demons are actually enjoying their irrationality more than Rawls is enjoying his rationality, aren't they more right in saying 'so much the worse for Rawls?' (As an aside, the Baatezu put me in mind of Plato's [I]Republic[/I]. Which of Socrates' interlocutours argues that it is best to be thought just, but to be unjust? I can imagine the devils publicly advocating Rawls' laws but breaking them in any situation they're certain they won't be found out. ) I haven't formally come accross the distinction between internal and external motivations as you've desribed them before, but I've thought of them many times. I don't understand what Rawls thinks he's doing with the statement 'so much the worse for the irrational' when he can't give them an internally compelling reason to [i]be[/i] rational. [/QUOTE]

Verification