Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4707480" data-attributes="member: 4937">Indeed.&nbsp; It is a debate which is at the heart of the Watchman story.Yes, it has a 'vibe' but lets base our judgement on reason and not on feelings.&nbsp; Let's dig a bit below the surface.&nbsp; I know words like 'duty' and 'code' have a lawful feel to them, but really they are nuetral until we answer such questions as, &quot;Duty to whom?&nbsp; Or to what?&quot; and &quot;What sort of code?&quot;&nbsp; There is big difference in believing you have a duty to yourself, or a duty to some higher authority.&nbsp; Some would argue that duty to yourself is no kind of duty at all.&nbsp; Others would argue that duty to self is the highest duty of all: &quot;To your own self be true...&quot;&nbsp; Clearly these people have very different conceptions.We can say the same thing of deontological ethics.&nbsp; All ethical codes impose some responcibility upon someone that holds them, or we couldn't say that they do anything at all.&nbsp; We could say of someone holding certain consequential ethics, that they have a duty to their fellow man.&nbsp; So by saying that someone has a duty, we haven't said alot at all really.I think Rorschach clearly holds deontological ethics, but that isn't sufficient to say whether he is lawful or chaotic any more than we could say he was lawful merely because he held consequentialist ethics (he could be an egoist).&nbsp; What we really need to look at is what his deontological ethics require of him. In Rorschach's case, I think it is fairly clear he doesn't derive his ethical code from any higher authority.&nbsp; He's not trying to be a good Catholic, trying to uphold the Mafia code of honor, or striving to obey the Laws of the Land.&nbsp; He is doing what he feels is right.Let me quote from what I think is an excellent paragraph in the Wiki article that deals directly with the topic under discussion: - emphasis mineIsn't this precisely the moral conflict that develops at the end of Watchman?Doesn't Rorschach answer, &quot;In order to respect that rights of the billions, we must respect the rights of the millions.&quot;&nbsp; In other words, in order to respect the rights of the many, we must respect the rights of the few or the one.&nbsp; In order to respect the lives of the many, we must respect the rights of the fwe or the one.&nbsp; But quite clearly, if we are respecting the needs of the individual over the needs of the group, we are holding to chaotic philosophy as it was defined way back in the 1st edition Player's Handbook.&nbsp; Chaotics believe that individualism and freedom, trump the weal or percieved weal of the community.&nbsp; Were as the lawful believer believes that the individual must be sacrificed along the way for the greater good, the chaotic believes that the greater good is made up of alot of smaller goods or its not good at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4707480, member: 4937"] Indeed. It is a debate which is at the heart of the Watchman story. Yes, it has a 'vibe' but lets base our judgement on reason and not on feelings. Let's dig a bit below the surface. I know words like 'duty' and 'code' have a lawful feel to them, but really they are nuetral until we answer such questions as, "Duty to whom? Or to what?" and "What sort of code?" There is big difference in believing you have a duty to yourself, or a duty to some higher authority. Some would argue that duty to yourself is no kind of duty at all. Others would argue that duty to self is the highest duty of all: "To your own self be true..." Clearly these people have very different conceptions. We can say the same thing of deontological ethics. All ethical codes impose some responcibility upon someone that holds them, or we couldn't say that they do anything at all. We could say of someone holding certain consequential ethics, that they have a duty to their fellow man. So by saying that someone has a duty, we haven't said alot at all really. I think Rorschach clearly holds deontological ethics, but that isn't sufficient to say whether he is lawful or chaotic any more than we could say he was lawful merely because he held consequentialist ethics (he could be an egoist). What we really need to look at is what his deontological ethics require of him. In Rorschach's case, I think it is fairly clear he doesn't derive his ethical code from any higher authority. He's not trying to be a good Catholic, trying to uphold the Mafia code of honor, or striving to obey the Laws of the Land. He is doing what he feels is right. Let me quote from what I think is an excellent paragraph in the Wiki article that deals directly with the topic under discussion: [i][i] - emphasis mine Isn't this precisely the moral conflict that develops at the end of Watchman? Doesn't Rorschach answer, "In order to respect that rights of the billions, we must respect the rights of the millions." In other words, in order to respect the rights of the many, we must respect the rights of the few or the one. In order to respect the lives of the many, we must respect the rights of the fwe or the one. But quite clearly, if we are respecting the needs of the individual over the needs of the group, we are holding to chaotic philosophy as it was defined way back in the 1st edition Player's Handbook. Chaotics believe that individualism and freedom, trump the weal or percieved weal of the community. Were as the lawful believer believes that the individual must be sacrificed along the way for the greater good, the chaotic believes that the greater good is made up of alot of smaller goods or its not good at all.[/i][/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification