Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkChevallier" data-source="post: 4721834" data-attributes="member: 55538">Is that what you're suggesting resistor's saying? Because that doesn't follow at all from anything they've said. If instead you are saying "thank god I will never be in a position to have to make this tremendous decision to wipe out someone's entire family", well, somehow I doubt you actually would get around to doing that. More likely, you wouldn't, given that we live in civilised society where professionals take on the tough job of providing justice and protection so that you don't have to commit abhorrent, repellant and disgusting mass-murder so that you can pretend to provide it.In many moral debates that take place in someone's comfy front room (or the electronic equivalent), there are different kinds of people who engage in debate. Some people are sincere and try to engage in the debate, thinking not only "what would I do?" but also "what would be the right thing to do?"Some people stop at the "what would I do?" question, and once they've ascertained that, they rationalise their proposed actions with a moral justification. This is still sincere, if not very reflective or thoughtful.Some people say instead "what would I want to do?" And the whole issue becomes a form of fantasy for them; if I was attacked, I'd totally kill the attacker. If my family was attacked, I'd totally kill their family. If my nation was attacked, I'd nuke them from orbit. This is insincere, in my opinion, because they're not actually debating morality. They're fantasising about revenge. In this personal fantasy, morality is irrelevant and only the weakest of all possible "eye for an eye" moral arguments are deployed.But it's fine: these are armchair morality debates. I've discussed things with people who claim to hold a variety of repugnant views, but I'm not particularly worried about them: someone can claim to hold a view that they would discard in a second if face with the reality of the situation. Like a professed white racist, who if he actually meets a black guy in a social context, may behave well enough due to social mores until he learns that, actually, he quite likes the guy.There is always a danger that you're dealing with an armchair moralist who actually takes the issue seriously. But many people who claim to hold repugnant views actually would never put them into practise if they had to be ones to do it. Some do. But I'm hoping no-one like that is here.Apologies for the digression.</blockquote>

Verification