I just had to make it clear that I'm a huge Viconia fan even though my PC is Lawful Good, but I prefer not to use the Helm of Opposite Alignment, it just isn't natural, it forces change on a person and I don't like forcing changes on an individual's morals even though I may not agree with them.
There's quite a big difference between subjugating someone and forcably altering their underlying core values against their will.
I can absolutely see a Lawful Good totalitarian city/state wherein the laws are absolute and there is zero tolerance for violating them. I can not see a Lawful Good governmental body bringing in every single citizen and brainwashing them against their will until they believed as the rulers do. Lawful evil? Absolutely, but not any derivation of Good.
and claiming something is irrelevant is in itself meaningless. To claim that 'The greater good' isn't a slipperly slope is just not wanting to deal with the consequences. "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, " which is the definition of what was being offered.
If I sacrifice one person's rights to save a lot of people, that's "OK". How many people have to suffer before it becomes not "OK"? Which is the very definition of a slippery slope.
There's quite a big difference between subjugating someone and forcably altering their underlying core values against their will.
I can absolutely see a Lawful Good totalitarian city/state wherein the laws are absolute and there is zero tolerance for violating them. I can not see a Lawful Good governmental body bringing in every single citizen and brainwashing them against their will until they believed as the rulers do. Lawful evil? Absolutely, but not any derivation of Good.
and claiming something is irrelevant is in itself meaningless. To claim that 'The greater good' isn't a slipperly slope is just not wanting to deal with the consequences. "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, " which is the definition of what was being offered.
If I sacrifice one person's rights to save a lot of people, that's "OK". How many people have to suffer before it becomes not "OK"? Which is the very definition of a slippery slope.
Like I said, I'm not saying that it falls into something Lawful Good alignment would do, but it falls under the category of "a massive temptation for a person of Lawful Good alignment that they would likely fall into." Good people fail to live up to their alignments; this in particular strikes as something that would be a big pull for Lawful Good.
And again it doesn't matter a lick the chain of events. The question is not "would this lead to a chain of events that could make something bad happen" it's "is this something bad." Changing the question is a logical fallacy and a false argument in every sense, *even if you're right*.
... And again it doesn't matter a lick the chain of events. The question is not "would this lead to a chain of events that could make something bad happen" it's "is this something bad." Changing the question is a logical fallacy and a false argument in every sense, *even if you're right*.
This depends on whether or not you lean consequentialism or deontology. I have been thinking about the 'chaos/law' axis in terms of 'real' ethical philosophy and I would argue that those of lawful alignment would have to be deontologists while chaos aligned individuals would be consequentialist. (btw I would say that the 'good/evil' axis is about who is deserving of 'the good': Evil: me, myself and I; Neutral: me and my close friends and family; Good: Depends on other axis but would always include strangers like: all feeling and/or rational creatures)
Any consequentialist theory focuses on outcomes. When asked if a given action is right or wrong they will ask what good (or not) came as a consequence (I used that word on purpose:) of said action.
A deontological theory focuses on the intrinsic value of the action itself. The criteria for what makes an action good or bad can vary between different deontological theories but they all agree in their rejection of consequentialism and rejection of action outcome as being importantly relevant to the judgement of whether the action was right or wrong.
A good place where there is much disagreement between the two groups can be seen with a thought experiment about a costly promise to a dying man:
Imagine a father and son find themselves starving on a deserted island. The father has been sick for a while and they both know that he won't last. In his last moments he begs his son to bury him on the other side of the island, which lies a few grueling days away, as it would make a beautiful final resting place. The son makes the promise because he knows it will ease his fathers last moments. However, when his father dies, the son pushes his body off a nearby cliff into the waiting waters to be devoured by sharks.
His justification for this is that the promise he made doesn't matter anymore to his father as he is no longer alive and wouldn't really gain any benefit--as he did in the pleasure his son's promise gave him in his last moments--while the hard trek across the island with his fathers body on his back may kill him as well but in any case will make his own survival less likely.
You may think he did the right or wrong thing but I think it is reasonable to think that this would make a lawful character more squeamish than a chaotic one. Here the "Law" is a Categorical Imperative. Of the two terms the most important is the Categorical part which looks to a Moral Law that makes the same Universal demands of all moral agents everywhere. A promise is a promise is a promise. Brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing. Both would be wrong by a Lawful Good standard as it demands respect for persons by virtue of their person-hood (or whatever makes them intrinsically valuable). This is actually why a paladin would, ironically, slay a bad guy: out of respect for his or her personhood. In doing wrong you are choosing that the right thing is for you to be punished.
Heh, anyway so: killing her: if she deserves it; brainwashing her with the helm: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Just be chaotic good and say you're doing it to make the world a better place ;-)
Like I said, I'm not saying that it falls into something Lawful Good alignment would do, but it falls under the category of "a massive temptation for a person of Lawful Good alignment that they would likely fall into." Good people fail to live up to their alignments; this in particular strikes as something that would be a big pull for Lawful Good.
This is the point at which a truly good person would stand up and refuse to 'Fall'. A Paladin, say. And if they did use the brainwashing in any game that I DM'd, s/he would either fall or would have some serious 'splainin to do Lucy!!!' It is more or less what I was getting at. A good person might see the brainwashing as the easiest solution and therefore a sore temptation, but ultimately if they are good, they would not go this route.
And again it doesn't matter a lick the chain of events. The question is not "would this lead to a chain of events that could make something bad happen" it's "is this something bad." Changing the question is a logical fallacy and a false argument in every sense, *even if you're right*.
So your arguments are that the ends justify the means? Turning Viconia or Saravok to the good against their will becomes a good act by virtue of the fact that they are now good? Independent of how this came about or the consequences? And that it's relative 'goodness' has nothing to do with how that decision impacts later decisions?
It is a good thing to kill all murderers before they kill their victims because it prevents humans from being harmed. Every single human being is a potential murderer by virtue of actions having consequences which can lead to pain or death of another human being. Therefore it is a good thing to kill every single human being to prevent them from harming or killing human beings. And because I am not concerned about consequences of my actions, my intentions are good, to prevent humans from killing each other. And once everyone is dead, I can't kill anyone, so I don't need to kill myself. QED.
Wow, this not worrying about consequences and the ends justifying the means thing really works in my favor. No more waiting in line at the grocery store for me.
A paladin would use the helm in a heart-beat, with no hesitation. They exist to utterly destroy evil, and shifting an evil being to good, who now fully believes that they are good and will act accordingly, is the BEST possible outcome. Not only did they not kill anyone, the forces of righteousness just got a new, potentially powerful champion.
I disagree. Converting someone from Evil to good is the best possible outcome. But doing it against their will is the worst possible way of doing it. Since the 'Victim' didn't willingly convert it is no better than slavery, worse in most respects as it completely removes any kind of choice on the part of the person converted.
Here's the amusing thing; Lawful Good probably would, but Neutral Good likely wouldn't. We assume that to be Lawful Good means to be an absolutely good person, always seeking justice and the right thing. But the truth is, Lawful Good people are those who are good and yet insist on following law. I believe a Lawful Good person would be more likely to change someone's alignment to Good than a Neutral Good person would. A Neutral Good individual would understand the whole "balance in the world" thing and likely not change the person's alignment.
@Quartz The Lawful alignment is more about following pre-established principals or codes and enforcing hierarchies, not necessarily obeying the laws of the land.
Like I said, I'm not saying that it falls into something Lawful Good alignment would do, but it falls under the category of "a massive temptation for a person of Lawful Good alignment that they would likely fall into." Good people fail to live up to their alignments; this in particular strikes as something that would be a big pull for Lawful Good.
This is the point at which a truly good person would stand up and refuse to 'Fall'. A Paladin, say. And if they did use the brainwashing in any game that I DM'd, s/he would either fall or would have some serious 'splainin to do Lucy!!!' It is more or less what I was getting at. A good person might see the brainwashing as the easiest solution and therefore a sore temptation, but ultimately if they are good, they would not go this route.
And again it doesn't matter a lick the chain of events. The question is not "would this lead to a chain of events that could make something bad happen" it's "is this something bad." Changing the question is a logical fallacy and a false argument in every sense, *even if you're right*.
So your arguments are that the ends justify the means? Turning Viconia or Saravok to the good against their will becomes a good act by virtue of the fact that they are now good? Independent of how this came about or the consequences? And that it's relative 'goodness' has nothing to do with how that decision impacts later decisions?
It is a good thing to kill all murderers before they kill their victims because it prevents humans from being harmed. Every single human being is a potential murderer by virtue of actions having consequences which can lead to pain or death of another human being. Therefore it is a good thing to kill every single human being to prevent them from harming or killing human beings. And because I am not concerned about consequences of my actions, my intentions are good, to prevent humans from killing each other. And once everyone is dead, I can't kill anyone, so I don't need to kill myself. QED.
Wow, this not worrying about consequences and the ends justifying the means thing really works in my favor. No more waiting in line at the grocery store for me.
No, see, you've gone and done the exact same thing again. You took my point and pushed it beyond what I meant it as. That's broken logic. And while I agree with the first part of your post, your second once again falls into the same inherent lack of insight.
I'm not saying consequences don't matter; I'm saying that for the question "Is this action right/wrong" you can only consider the action and the rightness/wrongness. If at any point you try to take it out of context, or take the logic used to come to a conclusion and apply it to *any* other circumstance and then use that as part of a counter-argument then that's a red herring and your logic has failed.
From an ethics standpoint I agree entirely with @grammarsalad but from a purely logical standpoint I have to again disagree with @the_spyder
Whether or not logic is the right way to come at this question? That's something else entirely. But from that standpoint, I think it's easy to validate.
Even Lawful Good in D&D is often much more like that of a generally good military person in our world than a Ghandi. Much more willing to make sacrifices and even accept some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good. For such characters the Helm of Opposite Alignment won't necessarily give them any major moral qualms.
You are talking about a very slippery slope there.
Ok, so to go back to the beginning, see above. Eejit stated that good beings might be willing to accept ‘Some degree of collateral damage’.
My response was this is a very slippery slope. In that I meant that once you start accepting ‘some level of collateral damage’ in order to achieve ‘the greater good’, where do you draw the line? Once you start accepting some things as collateral damage, it becomes a lot easier to simply accept another sacrifice and another and another in pursuit of ‘The greater good’. When does ‘some level’ turn to unacceptable levels?
Or to make it worse, if you sacrifice one person’s individual freedom of choice and still not achieved your goal, is it OK to sacrifice two people’s freedoms? What about ten? What about one hundred? And having already made some sacrifices, what happens if you still don’t achieve the goal?
In short, once you allow a single person’s individual ability to choose get subsumed for ‘The greater good’, it no longer is the greater good. I am reminded of a Star Trek:TNG episode called “Measure of a Man”.
Capt. Picard: Now, the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this... creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be; it will reach far beyond this courtroom and this... one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom - expanding them for some... savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him, to servitude and slavery? Your Honor, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life; well, there it sits! - Waiting.
in another section he states
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Once we let so much as a single person’s individual liberties and freedom of choice get dismissed, we damage us all. Claiming that “it’s only this one time. You can’t hold me responsible for other similar decisions” is an excuse. It is a cop-out. If you can do it, others can. What happens when someone decides that your choices and decisions need to be modified against your will?
I'm coming into this late and forgive me if I'm missing something but slippery slopes make for a very slippery topic. Both philosophers and human brings want to "carve nature at her joints" with categories and terms that "mirror"the natural world. unfortunately, many of our terms merely approximate "the world as it is". This is partially because of our ignorance but it is also because the world is a messy place.
Think about the difference between a child and an adult. We know there is a difference. Among these differences is that an adult has the maturity to make (hopefully) responsible decisions while a child does not: things like driving, marriage, etc.
But where so you draw the line? what's the difference between 17 and 18?19 and 18? Not much. in fact, wherever age you choose, it's somewhat arbitrary. But keep adding or keep subtracting and you eventually have a huge difference.
You might think things are different in ethics but, again, the world is a messy place.
sometimes the path is clear as day...torturing people for fun? Wrong.but have you ever seen the movie "the good son". (spoiler alert)
at the end of this movie the mother (i think it's the mother) is holding both her son and an adopted son who just tried to kill them both (he would be called a psychopath if out were proper to diagnose children with psychopathy) over a cliff that drops to sure death. Anyway, these boys are heavy and she can't hold them both; if she does,.they will all go over.
She lets the budding psychopath go and saves her son. Collateral damage? You bet. If she were able, she should have saved both. (the details can change if you don't agree-just say two good sons)
Did she make the wrong choice? Letting them both fall would have certainly been wrong, so compared to that she seems to have made a better choice than that.
We may not want to go so far as to say she did the right thing--i'm not sure I'd say that--but she made best choice possible given the circumstances. we may not want to say collateral damage is acceptable in itself--i think this is what you're saying and I would agree--but sometimes it's the best we can do in this messy, messy world.
@the_spyder Fantastic TNG quote and one of my favorite episodes.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your entire point is still broken logic. You just can't argue like that; it's flawed. It's not a cop-out, it is the very rules of debate. Like I said, from an ethical standpoint I agree with you. From a logical standpoint you're just black and white wrong on that- slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Oh no, I get that it's a mindset thing more than anything. I believe my point still stands, but I guess everyone took my post too literally. Dunno how else to say it.
Oh no, I get that it's a mindset thing more than anything. I believe my point still stands, but I guess everyone took my post too literally. Dunno how else to say it.
Here's the amusing thing; Lawful Good probably would, but Neutral Good likely wouldn't. We assume that to be Lawful Good means to be an absolutely good person, always seeking justice and the right thing. But the truth is, Lawful Good people are those who are good and yet insist on following law. I believe a Lawful Good person would be more likely to change someone's alignment to Good than a Neutral Good person would. A Neutral Good individual would understand the whole "balance in the world" thing and likely not change the person's alignment.
What is "Law"? In this I read a conflict: "...Lawful Good people are those who are good and yet insist on following law..." I.E. a suggestion that there is a conflict between the Lawful and Good components of a LG alignment. Further with this I see a suggestion that NG characters are unfettered by notions of "law" and can focus exclusively on 'the good'.
IIUC then I would say that a NG character would agree (assuming they think about such things and have concepts such as 'Neutral Good' vs. Lawful Good or something similar.)
I would assume, however, that a Lawful Good character would see no conflict between these two aspects of his alignment (again, making assumptions.) Rather, I think they would think of them as synergistic,
So, I ask again: What is "Law"? Perhaps as a first stab we might say that it has something to do with immutable rules of conduct that don't vary by situation? I.E. it it is wrong to x, then it is always wrong to x. Period. The farther you get from such a position then, it would seem, the more flexible such rules of conduct become; they might become more dependent on circumstance and/or outcome, say.
Lets take the rule 'don't brainwash'. My guess would be that most good characters would at least agree that such a rule is acceptable, all else being equal. But which character type do you think would be more flexible about it?
Maybe i'm late for the OP, as the discussion have got afar from the main point of this topic, but isn't the Helm of Opposite Alignment more a tool to roleplay than anything else? The way i see, if somewant to roleplay a change into another NPC, the helm is pretty much a must have item.
One just have to think back a couple of years to all those lawful good judges (well at least they were suppose to be ) sentencing the 'criminally insane' to be lobotomized.
If such an implant can be devised that will prevent any evil and or cruel thoughts and actions, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of us will sanction it's use against perpetrators and possibly juvenile delinquents to bend them into shape and assist with the rehabilitation process.
if taking away parts of what makes somebody evil yet it leaves behind a fully functioning human being that can productively contribute to humanity and the greater good then it will be evil and cruel for us to sentence people to captivity in a cell instead of removing the evilness and setting them free with such a device.
P.S. Off course the above is from my lawful good viewpoint
The helm of opposite alignment if abused by changing every evil persons alignment to good eliminates free will and choice. Evil would try putting the helmet on the strongest good creature they could find, God help us if they manage to put it on a Solars head. The best answer is to take the helmet back to the volcano where it was forged and destroy it.
One just have to think back a couple of years to all those lawful good judges (well at least they were suppose to be ) sentencing the 'criminally insane' to be lobotomized.
If such an implant can be devised that will prevent any evil and or cruel thoughts and actions, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of us will sanction it's use against perpetrators and possibly juvenile delinquents to bend them into shape and assist with the rehabilitation process.
if taking away parts of what makes somebody evil yet it leaves behind a fully functioning human being that can productively contribute to humanity and the greater good then it will be evil and cruel for us to sentence people to captivity in a cell instead of removing the evilness and setting them free with such a device.
P.S. Off course the above is from my lawful good viewpoint
The terrifying part of this post, to me, is that the way it reads to me makes it sound like @georgelappies is saying that lobotomizing people is preferable to incarceration.
Some of you guys on the "use the helmet" side are scaring me with your cold, logical arguments. I hope some of you never get any actual power in real life. Sorry, I don't really mean that to sound so confrontational. I'll keep reading and decide later whether I want to join the debate in a more rational manner. But that's my initial emotional reaction to what the other side seems to be arguing for.
I know some people here hate Tropers, for some reason I don't understand, but I am one, and we have a perfect one for this:
Some of you guys on the "use the helmet" side are scaring me with your cold, logical arguments. I hope some of you never get any actual power in real life. Sorry, I don't really mean that to sound so confrontational. I'll keep reading and decide later whether I want to join the debate in a more rational manner. But that's my initial emotional reaction to what the other side seems to be arguing for.
I know some people here hate Tropers, for some reason I don't understand, but I am one, and we have a perfect one for this:
Ironically, psychopaths use a 'sentimentalist' (as opposed to rationalist) logic when answering 'runaway trolley' type questions (things like, 'would you kill a person to save five?')
Have you heard the quote, attributed to David Hume, that reason is the 'slave to the passions?' That is, it is a tool for achieving whatever you happen to want. Here right action is 'instrumental'. That is, it is 'right' if it achieves your goals (whatever they happen to be!) This is relativism. But it is not necessarily a bad thing. The most popular forms today, Utilitarianism and especially Rule Utilitarianism, are, IMO, decent (though, imo, doomed) efforts.
OTOH, rationalism is something quite different, in Kant's words, 'colder, but truly sublime'. Unlike a sentiment, a mind motivated by rationality can only go in a single direction: it's law is immutable, universal, necessary in all possible worlds. There is generally a comparison with mathematics (noting, for example, that there are no possible worlds where 1+1=2 or squared circles). The moral agent is usually defined by her capacity to go beyond her passions (ie immediate preferences).
While this might assault your emotions, we could as 'why?' To simplify things a bit a sentimentalist assumes that proper moral judgement is of the form (the arrows represent a causal direction):
Emotional Reaction---> Moral Judgement---> Instrumental Rationality (including post hoc rationalization of said emotional reaction)
or even more simply: Affect/Emotion---> Cognition/Rationality
while a rationalist assumes proper moral judgement is of the form:
Recognition of a Moral Violation ---> Moral Judgement ---> Emotional Reaction
Or more simply: Rationality/Cognition--->Affect/Emotion
Here we are at an impasse: Either morality originates in the emotions or as universal moral law (ie something that exists, in some sense, outside of the feeling agent.)
Believe it or not, however, people (heh, I mean philosophers) on both sides generally agree on most things (they often only generally disagree on the "why?" It's extreme examples like this Helm of Alignment question, where the difference shows itself the most and gets the most attention. But don't let that fool you. You may agree with these people more than you (or they) think. Also, talking about something in the abstract is much, much different than really doing something like this (not the least of which because something like this is not even possible--in our world anyway)
One just have to think back a couple of years to all those lawful good judges (well at least they were suppose to be ) sentencing the 'criminally insane' to be lobotomized.
If such an implant can be devised that will prevent any evil and or cruel thoughts and actions, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of us will sanction it's use against perpetrators and possibly juvenile delinquents to bend them into shape and assist with the rehabilitation process.
if taking away parts of what makes somebody evil yet it leaves behind a fully functioning human being that can productively contribute to humanity and the greater good then it will be evil and cruel for us to sentence people to captivity in a cell instead of removing the evilness and setting them free with such a device.
P.S. Off course the above is from my lawful good viewpoint
Would you subject yourself to such a treatment to get rid of your own evil impulses?
EDIT: If you are Lawful Good by my lights then you must believe that if something is good for others, it's also good for you. Moral law is universal, applicable to everyone and everywhere. If it is right to eliminate the evil impulses of others, then it is also right to eliminate your own. And don't say that you don't have any. Lie only if you would will it to be a Universal Law
@GrammarSalad, nice Kant reference in the last sentence of your last post. I think you're fixing us a meal of "philosopher salad" today. That's not a criticism; rather, I'm just trying to be cute and to lighten the mood a bit.
Put another way, I have a decent INT score and training in philosophy, but my WIS score is much higher, and I prefer my wisdom sense and defer to it. And it's telling me it's time to inject some humor into the discussion.
Ignore me, please. I'm a silly old man sitting indoors typing on his computer on a sunny Saturday afternoon in the summer. What do I know?
@GrammarSalad, nice Kant reference in the last sentence of your last post. I think you're fixing us a meal of "philosopher salad" today. That's not a criticism; rather, I'm just trying to be cute and to lighten the mood a bit.
Put another way, I have a decent INT score and training in philosophy, but my WIS score is much higher, and I prefer my wisdom sense and defer to it. And it's telling me it's time to inject some humor into the discussion.
Ignore me, please. I'm a silly old man sitting indoors typing on his computer on a sunny Saturday afternoon in the summer. What do I know?
I live in philosopher salad! It is...difficult...to convey the love of wisdom through the 1's and 0's of this medium. But rest assured: I always have a smile on my face.
They say that you shouldn't talk about politics and religion in polite company. Today one might add morality--or perhaps 'academic morality'--to that list as well. It is sometimes considered bad form to merely disagree, as though there was something bad-in-itself. Psychologists--I'm actually 'officially' trained as a psychologist but I consider myself a philosopher first--call this (by many names but my favorite is) Cognitive Dissonance. It engenders, among other things, dislike of those who challenge ones ideas giving oneself 'permission' to ignore said ideas or reexamine ones one values.
But what is more important than 'what kind of life should I live?' (I've a feeling you'll recognize Plato here!) What Could be more important? The problem today is that we have too little tolerance for Cognitive Dissonance. But that same source of psychological discomfort is an opportunity to grow; it can even happen on a game website. :-)
The best friend you can have is one that will tell you the truth. I am a friend of humanity (it's a mostly one sided relationship!) And how can I ignore you and your glorious humility!
@Grammersalad - I get what you are saying, but you are using extreme circumstances to justify your situational ethics. At the end of the day, yes. We will do extreme things that we might not ever consider in extreme circumstances.
What is being discussed though was what a rational and considered 'Good' person would do given the choice (and presumably the time and presence of mind to consider). In that, the decision to force Viconia to put on the Helm of opposition will very rarely hang in the balance of the character's own life in such a way.
Yes, life is messy. Yes, there are circumstances when we will throw out logic to blind instinct. The helm is probably not one. And given that, any discussion surrounding the decision shouldn't have to deal with situational ethics.
@Grammersalad Right you are on all counts there. I'm obviously coming from the rationalist viewpoint, although in some ways I'm just playing devil's advocate. The action I would take is not necessarily the action I'm arguing for; but if you follow logic (or rationalism) through the argument that's where you end up.
@the_spyder You're missing the fact that there are so very many flavors of good. You're making it out to be much more black and white than it is. I don't think Grammersalad was using situational ethics at all- he wasn't even stating an opinion about the matter, he was posting about what base of reasoning people come from. And to say that he's wrong in that is... well, you just can't say that. People do use both of those viewpoints to construct their worldviews and ethics whether you agree with them or not. And the fact of the matter is, a rationalist (or whatever you want to call it) would almost certainly choose to use the Helm because objectively there's no value in free will if it is just used to hurt people. Free will is not something that can be quantified or qualified. It's an idea. And to a rationalist "good" person all that matters is whether people are physically hurt or helped by an action. Using the helm would save people from hurt therefor it is the rational decision. It may not be the way you consider 'good' or the decision you agree with, but that doesn't mean that some people wouldn't take that path. You need to stop and consider that there's more to life than one simple viewpoint on 'good.' My point is not that all good characters should use the helm; on the contrary, I'm saying that it comes completely down to circumstance and the very mindset of the person at the time of the decision.
As to why your former argument is flawed I can't explain it any more clearly. It would take a book on logic or a bit of give/take on your part. Taking an argument and pushing it beyond the bounds of what it is meant to cover is a red herring. I don't know how to explain it any better, but probably best of we just stop beating that dead horse (-;
Edit: Let me try to clarify one more time. The reason it's a fallacy is that you can't take my argument about the helm (using the helm is plausible for a good character because it could stop people from being hurt) and then apply it to another situation (I would kill everyone in the world to stop people from being hurt). To put it mathmatically I have stated "For 'A' situation with 'B' person they could chose 'C'" and you are inferring that "For 'D' situation with 'B' person they could chose 'C.'"
Comments
I can absolutely see a Lawful Good totalitarian city/state wherein the laws are absolute and there is zero tolerance for violating them. I can not see a Lawful Good governmental body bringing in every single citizen and brainwashing them against their will until they believed as the rulers do. Lawful evil? Absolutely, but not any derivation of Good.
and claiming something is irrelevant is in itself meaningless. To claim that 'The greater good' isn't a slipperly slope is just not wanting to deal with the consequences. "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, " which is the definition of what was being offered.
If I sacrifice one person's rights to save a lot of people, that's "OK". How many people have to suffer before it becomes not "OK"? Which is the very definition of a slippery slope.
And again it doesn't matter a lick the chain of events. The question is not "would this lead to a chain of events that could make something bad happen" it's "is this something bad." Changing the question is a logical fallacy and a false argument in every sense, *even if you're right*.
This depends on whether or not you lean consequentialism or deontology. I have been thinking about the 'chaos/law' axis in terms of 'real' ethical philosophy and I would argue that those of lawful alignment would have to be deontologists while chaos aligned individuals would be consequentialist. (btw I would say that the 'good/evil' axis is about who is deserving of 'the good': Evil: me, myself and I; Neutral: me and my close friends and family; Good: Depends on other axis but would always include strangers like: all feeling and/or rational creatures)
Any consequentialist theory focuses on outcomes. When asked if a given action is right or wrong they will ask what good (or not) came as a consequence (I used that word on purpose:) of said action.
A deontological theory focuses on the intrinsic value of the action itself. The criteria for what makes an action good or bad can vary between different deontological theories but they all agree in their rejection of consequentialism and rejection of action outcome as being importantly relevant to the judgement of whether the action was right or wrong.
A good place where there is much disagreement between the two groups can be seen with a thought experiment about a costly promise to a dying man:
Imagine a father and son find themselves starving on a deserted island. The father has been sick for a while and they both know that he won't last. In his last moments he begs his son to bury him on the other side of the island, which lies a few grueling days away, as it would make a beautiful final resting place. The son makes the promise because he knows it will ease his fathers last moments. However, when his father dies, the son pushes his body off a nearby cliff into the waiting waters to be devoured by sharks.
His justification for this is that the promise he made doesn't matter anymore to his father as he is no longer alive and wouldn't really gain any benefit--as he did in the pleasure his son's promise gave him in his last moments--while the hard trek across the island with his fathers body on his back may kill him as well but in any case will make his own survival less likely.
You may think he did the right or wrong thing but I think it is reasonable to think that this would make a lawful character more squeamish than a chaotic one. Here the "Law" is a Categorical Imperative. Of the two terms the most important is the Categorical part which looks to a Moral Law that makes the same Universal demands of all moral agents everywhere. A promise is a promise is a promise. Brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing. Both would be wrong by a Lawful Good standard as it demands respect for persons by virtue of their person-hood (or whatever makes them intrinsically valuable). This is actually why a paladin would, ironically, slay a bad guy: out of respect for his or her personhood. In doing wrong you are choosing that the right thing is for you to be punished.
Heh, anyway so: killing her: if she deserves it; brainwashing her with the helm: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Just be chaotic good and say you're doing it to make the world a better place ;-)
It is a good thing to kill all murderers before they kill their victims because it prevents humans from being harmed. Every single human being is a potential murderer by virtue of actions having consequences which can lead to pain or death of another human being. Therefore it is a good thing to kill every single human being to prevent them from harming or killing human beings. And because I am not concerned about consequences of my actions, my intentions are good, to prevent humans from killing each other. And once everyone is dead, I can't kill anyone, so I don't need to kill myself. QED.
Wow, this not worrying about consequences and the ends justifying the means thing really works in my favor. No more waiting in line at the grocery store for me.
The Lawful alignment is more about following pre-established principals or codes and enforcing hierarchies, not necessarily obeying the laws of the land.
I'm not saying consequences don't matter; I'm saying that for the question "Is this action right/wrong" you can only consider the action and the rightness/wrongness. If at any point you try to take it out of context, or take the logic used to come to a conclusion and apply it to *any* other circumstance and then use that as part of a counter-argument then that's a red herring and your logic has failed.
From an ethics standpoint I agree entirely with @grammarsalad but from a purely logical standpoint I have to again disagree with @the_spyder
Whether or not logic is the right way to come at this question? That's something else entirely. But from that standpoint, I think it's easy to validate.
My response was this is a very slippery slope. In that I meant that once you start accepting ‘some level of collateral damage’ in order to achieve ‘the greater good’, where do you draw the line? Once you start accepting some things as collateral damage, it becomes a lot easier to simply accept another sacrifice and another and another in pursuit of ‘The greater good’. When does ‘some level’ turn to unacceptable levels?
Or to make it worse, if you sacrifice one person’s individual freedom of choice and still not achieved your goal, is it OK to sacrifice two people’s freedoms? What about ten? What about one hundred? And having already made some sacrifices, what happens if you still don’t achieve the goal?
In short, once you allow a single person’s individual ability to choose get subsumed for ‘The greater good’, it no longer is the greater good. I am reminded of a Star Trek:TNG episode called “Measure of a Man”. in another section he states Once we let so much as a single person’s individual liberties and freedom of choice get dismissed, we damage us all. Claiming that “it’s only this one time. You can’t hold me responsible for other similar decisions” is an excuse. It is a cop-out. If you can do it, others can. What happens when someone decides that your choices and decisions need to be modified against your will?
I'm coming into this late and forgive me if I'm missing something but slippery slopes make for a very slippery topic. Both philosophers and human brings want to "carve nature at her joints" with categories and terms that "mirror"the natural world. unfortunately, many of our terms merely approximate "the world as it is".
This is partially because of our ignorance but it is also because the world is a messy place.
Think about the difference between a child and an adult. We know there is a difference. Among these differences is that an adult has the maturity to
make (hopefully) responsible decisions while a child does not: things like driving, marriage, etc.
But where so you draw the line? what's the difference between 17 and 18?19 and 18? Not much. in fact, wherever age you choose, it's somewhat arbitrary. But keep adding or keep subtracting and you eventually have a huge difference.
You might think things are different in ethics but, again, the world is a messy place.
sometimes the path is clear as day...torturing people for fun? Wrong.but have you ever seen the movie "the good son". (spoiler alert)
at the end of this movie the mother (i think it's the mother) is holding both her son and an adopted son who just tried to kill them both (he would be called a psychopath if out were proper to diagnose children with psychopathy) over a cliff that drops to sure death. Anyway, these boys are heavy and she can't hold them both; if she does,.they will all go over.
She lets the budding psychopath go and saves her son. Collateral damage? You bet. If she were able, she should have saved both. (the details can change if you don't agree-just say two good sons)
Did she make the wrong choice? Letting them both fall would have certainly been wrong, so compared to that she seems to have made a better choice than that.
We may not want to go so far as to say she did the right thing--i'm not sure I'd say that--but she made best choice possible given the circumstances. we may not want to say collateral damage is acceptable in itself--i think this is what you're saying and I would agree--but sometimes it's the best we can do in this messy, messy world.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your entire point is still broken logic. You just can't argue like that; it's flawed. It's not a cop-out, it is the very rules of debate. Like I said, from an ethical standpoint I agree with you. From a logical standpoint you're just black and white wrong on that- slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Oh no, I get that it's a mindset thing more than anything. I believe my point still stands, but I guess everyone took my post too literally. Dunno how else to say it.
IIUC then I would say that a NG character would agree (assuming they think about such things and have concepts such as 'Neutral Good' vs. Lawful Good or something similar.)
I would assume, however, that a Lawful Good character would see no conflict between these two aspects of his alignment (again, making assumptions.) Rather, I think they would think of them as synergistic,
So, I ask again: What is "Law"? Perhaps as a first stab we might say that it has something to do with immutable rules of conduct that don't vary by situation? I.E. it it is wrong to x, then it is always wrong to x. Period. The farther you get from such a position then, it would seem, the more flexible such rules of conduct become; they might become more dependent on circumstance and/or outcome, say.
Lets take the rule 'don't brainwash'. My guess would be that most good characters would at least agree that such a rule is acceptable, all else being equal. But which character type do you think would be more flexible about it?
If such an implant can be devised that will prevent any evil and or cruel thoughts and actions, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of us will sanction it's use against perpetrators and possibly juvenile delinquents to bend them into shape and assist with the rehabilitation process.
if taking away parts of what makes somebody evil yet it leaves behind a fully functioning human being that can productively contribute to humanity and the greater good then it will be evil and cruel for us to sentence people to captivity in a cell instead of removing the evilness and setting them free with such a device.
P.S. Off course the above is from my lawful good viewpoint
Evil would try putting the helmet on the strongest good creature they could find, God help us if they manage to put it on a Solars head.
The best answer is to take the helmet back to the volcano where it was forged and destroy it.
I know some people here hate Tropers, for some reason I don't understand, but I am one, and we have a perfect one for this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEvilsOfFreeWill
Have you heard the quote, attributed to David Hume, that reason is the 'slave to the passions?' That is, it is a tool for achieving whatever you happen to want. Here right action is 'instrumental'. That is, it is 'right' if it achieves your goals (whatever they happen to be!) This is relativism. But it is not necessarily a bad thing. The most popular forms today, Utilitarianism and especially Rule Utilitarianism, are, IMO, decent (though, imo, doomed) efforts.
OTOH, rationalism is something quite different, in Kant's words, 'colder, but truly sublime'. Unlike a sentiment, a mind motivated by rationality can only go in a single direction: it's law is immutable, universal, necessary in all possible worlds. There is generally a comparison with mathematics (noting, for example, that there are no possible worlds where 1+1=2 or squared circles). The moral agent is usually defined by her capacity to go beyond her passions (ie immediate preferences).
While this might assault your emotions, we could as 'why?' To simplify things a bit a sentimentalist assumes that proper moral judgement is of the form (the arrows represent a causal direction):
Emotional Reaction---> Moral Judgement---> Instrumental Rationality (including post hoc rationalization of said emotional reaction)
or even more simply: Affect/Emotion---> Cognition/Rationality
while a rationalist assumes proper moral judgement is of the form:
Recognition of a Moral Violation ---> Moral Judgement
---> Emotional Reaction
Or more simply: Rationality/Cognition--->Affect/Emotion
Here we are at an impasse: Either morality originates in the emotions or as universal moral law (ie something that exists, in some sense, outside of the feeling agent.)
Believe it or not, however, people (heh, I mean philosophers) on both sides generally agree on most things (they often only generally disagree on the "why?" It's extreme examples like this Helm of Alignment question, where the difference shows itself the most and gets the most attention. But don't let that fool you. You may agree with these people more than you (or they) think. Also, talking about something in the abstract is much, much different than really doing something like this (not the least of which because something like this is not even possible--in our world anyway)
EDIT: If you are Lawful Good by my lights then you must believe that if something is good for others, it's also good for you. Moral law is universal, applicable to everyone and everywhere. If it is right to eliminate the evil impulses of others, then it is also right to eliminate your own. And don't say that you don't have any. Lie only if you would will it to be a Universal Law
Put another way, I have a decent INT score and training in philosophy, but my WIS score is much higher, and I prefer my wisdom sense and defer to it. And it's telling me it's time to inject some humor into the discussion.
Ignore me, please. I'm a silly old man sitting indoors typing on his computer on a sunny Saturday afternoon in the summer. What do I know?
They say that you shouldn't talk about politics and religion in polite company. Today one might add morality--or perhaps 'academic morality'--to that list as well. It is sometimes considered bad form to merely disagree, as though there was something bad-in-itself. Psychologists--I'm actually 'officially' trained as a psychologist but I consider myself a philosopher first--call this (by many names but my favorite is) Cognitive Dissonance. It engenders, among other things, dislike of those who challenge ones ideas giving oneself 'permission' to ignore said ideas or reexamine ones one values.
But what is more important than 'what kind of life should I live?' (I've a feeling you'll recognize Plato here!) What Could be more important? The problem today is that we have too little tolerance for Cognitive Dissonance. But that same source of psychological discomfort is an opportunity to grow; it can even happen on a game website. :-)
The best friend you can have is one that will tell you the truth. I am a friend of humanity (it's a mostly one sided relationship!) And how can I ignore you and your glorious humility!
What is being discussed though was what a rational and considered 'Good' person would do given the choice (and presumably the time and presence of mind to consider). In that, the decision to force Viconia to put on the Helm of opposition will very rarely hang in the balance of the character's own life in such a way.
Yes, life is messy. Yes, there are circumstances when we will throw out logic to blind instinct. The helm is probably not one. And given that, any discussion surrounding the decision shouldn't have to deal with situational ethics.
@the_spyder You're missing the fact that there are so very many flavors of good. You're making it out to be much more black and white than it is. I don't think Grammersalad was using situational ethics at all- he wasn't even stating an opinion about the matter, he was posting about what base of reasoning people come from. And to say that he's wrong in that is... well, you just can't say that. People do use both of those viewpoints to construct their worldviews and ethics whether you agree with them or not. And the fact of the matter is, a rationalist (or whatever you want to call it) would almost certainly choose to use the Helm because objectively there's no value in free will if it is just used to hurt people. Free will is not something that can be quantified or qualified. It's an idea. And to a rationalist "good" person all that matters is whether people are physically hurt or helped by an action. Using the helm would save people from hurt therefor it is the rational decision. It may not be the way you consider 'good' or the decision you agree with, but that doesn't mean that some people wouldn't take that path. You need to stop and consider that there's more to life than one simple viewpoint on 'good.' My point is not that all good characters should use the helm; on the contrary, I'm saying that it comes completely down to circumstance and the very mindset of the person at the time of the decision.
As to why your former argument is flawed I can't explain it any more clearly. It would take a book on logic or a bit of give/take on your part. Taking an argument and pushing it beyond the bounds of what it is meant to cover is a red herring. I don't know how to explain it any better, but probably best of we just stop beating that dead horse (-;
Edit: Let me try to clarify one more time. The reason it's a fallacy is that you can't take my argument about the helm (using the helm is plausible for a good character because it could stop people from being hurt) and then apply it to another situation (I would kill everyone in the world to stop people from being hurt). To put it mathmatically I have stated "For 'A' situation with 'B' person they could chose 'C'" and you are inferring that "For 'D' situation with 'B' person they could chose 'C.'"