@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.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say my "situational"ethics. I don't blame you however. It took me years to get to a point where I think I "get it" and I still often misunderstand. Philosophy can go from zero to "wtf??" in no time. Also, there is much too much to explain than is possible using this darn phone.
I'm actually a rationalist (as opposed to a sentimentalist). I suspect that you are too. to complicate things further this dichotomy is really a construct of moral psychology (an interdisciplinary program of scientists and philosophers who study morality empirically) rather than philosophy proper. It is a convenient shorthand we use to categorize ethical theories (and theorists) by type.
Moral psychology is primarily a descriptive program as opposed to a prescriptive or normative one. That is, it tries to describe how we act rather than how we should act. There are a number of exceptions (for example sam harris' absurd claim that science can replace ethical philosophy and joshua green and jonathan haidts less absurd (though still absurd) claim that we should abandon rationalist theories because they demand more of us than we have)
Rationalists tend toward deontological ethics while sentimentalists generally favor consequentalism.
Consequentalism is what you might think of as purely "situational" and in at least two ways. First what constitutes "the good" depends on the creatures in question. For us pain might be considered good and pleasure bad but other creatures might have different preferences. Second, the right course of action is considered situational in that it depends on the expected outcome of said action.
Not so in deontological ethics. in fact rationalists are often accused (rightfully imo) of ignoring situational factors.
In fact kant so hated the lie that he says that one must always tell the truth in every situation always. He even said that if an inquiring murderer asked you the whereabouts of your brother so he could kill him then you should still not lie! (i cant remember off hand if he said anything here about withholding the truth. I do recall that he said that one would not be responsible for what the murderer did with the truth however!)
As much as I love kant I think he is wrong here (i can discuss why if you like but this is a very tricky situation for a kantian like myself and demands a very lengthy explanation). To shorten it I'd say that situational factors play a role not in the rightness or wrongness of a given action but in the proper attribution of responsibility. it is still wrong to lie but it must be done. the blame rests, however, on the one who forced the lie: the murderer.
one last thing: the reason philosophers use extreme examples is because they want to explore the "edges"of their concepts. if a given concept is useful then it needs to apply to all relevant cases. philosophers can't just say, "you knoe what I mean." and be done with it. The point of philosophy is that the words we use aren't as clear as we think they are.
And all of this is very relevant to the op though I realize that might not be clear
@rathlord Lobotomy was harsh, sticking an object inside somebody's brain via the nasal cavity and making a pulp of the brain matter did not result in fully functioning productive individuals, but instead created vegetables in most cases
But if it could be done like what the helmet implies, it only suppresses the evilness and does not touch the intellect and hence leaves behind a fully functioning productive member of society then yes, by all means do it.
@Grammarsalad, If I was a danger to society and inherent evil I most likely would not submit myself to this. However all of us have evil thoughts now and then, but we have the ability to suppress them. Those who do not care about others or the greater good either chooses not to suppress those feelings and act upon them with complete disregard to the consequences and possible harm it may cause others or they are inherent evil and actually find pleasure in doing harm to others. Take for instance murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers; these are evil people. Should we grant them the privilege of "free will" or if possible, remove the evilness completely and hence change them for the best?
I live in one of the countries in the world with the highest rate of violent crime. If a choice is given to me that either everybody or nobody in my country has to get this device that will remove evilness I will get it myself without any doubt knowing that I will help make the world a safer place for my kids.
... @Grammarsalad, If I was a danger to society and inherent evil I most likely would not submit myself to this. However all of us have evil thoughts now and then, but we have the ability to suppress them. Those who do not care about others or the greater good either chooses not to suppress those feelings and act upon them with complete disregard to the consequences and possible harm it may cause others or they are inherent evil and actually find pleasure in doing harm to others. Take for instance murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers; these are evil people. Should we grant them the privilege of "free will" or if possible, remove the evilness completely and hence change them for the best?
Ha, that's an interesting answer!
This 'ability to suppress', for Kant, is free will. (Kantian ethics is the closest approximation to a Lawful Good ideology). It is (part of) what makes a person worthy of praise and blame (and so worthy of reward or punishment). It is also what makes a person valuable-in-themselves, what makes it wrong to use them merely as a means to an end. Period. Their character is irrelevant. There are no exceptions. That's the point.
If they are going to change for the best they are going to do it on their own. It would be logically impossible for us to change them for the better in much the same way it would be impossible for us to make circles have four equal sides and still be circles. What it is to change for the better is to choose to do so oneself.
Your best bet might be to say that they deserve it. But, just being 'evil', just having some predisposition, is not enough. One would have to ask, "deserve it for what?" If a person has already done something horrible, like the examples you give, then the proper response (in this line of thought) is punishment, not rehabilitation. This is how you respect their person, as strange as that might sound.
...I live in one of the countries in the world with the highest rate of violent crime. If a choice is given to me that either everybody or nobody in my country has to get this device that will remove evilness I will get it myself without any doubt knowing that I will help make the world a safer place for my kids.
P.S. "Free will" is overrated in any case
That is laudable. That is, to want a better world for your children. I'm not sure that this would be the best way to do it, however. I encourage you to continue exploring though. We need more people in the world that will
*being good doe's not guarantee a person is harmless or helpful,http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Balthazar *For the most part even though Viconia is evil she is not destructive,so i see no reason to change her if she hasn't done anything that warrants this change. *What happens when you put is on a Lawful Evil character?he becomes good but in the process you may turn a law abiding jackass to a liar and a thief.
Well I'll add a fun mostly on topic brain teaser to the mix:
Do you think that some evil characters who had had the Helm of Opposite Alignment placed on them would be able to take it back off? (Playing with assumption, of course, that this could be done)
It seems the natural argument would be "No, they're good now, so they wouldn't take it off." But then that somewhat begs the question, if they were good would they feel that having their free will was not good and so take off the Helm in an attempt at a "good" act?
I know if I was evil but had my morals changed (but not my train of though) I would never take the Helm off willingly knowing what kind of harm I could cause. But it seems like some people might if they felt the evil of having a person's free will taken was worse than the evil they might commit. Thoughts?
By blackguard Charname sometimes uses the helm as protection from holy smite. Then he usually has it taken off so he can wear a helm that offers better protection from other stuff.
He's not a very philosophical kinda guy, but he is very practical...
@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.
No, I am not getting you. I agree that there are degrees of good and evil, but not flavors of it. Killing someone in cold blood is evil. Killing someone in defense of yourself or others is still evil, just less so. In any event, it isn’t what I would ever consider ‘Good’ regardless of the outcome.
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.
I didn’t say he was wrong, but that I disagreed with him. There is a difference.
Free will is not something that can be quantified or qualified. It's an idea.
This is rationalization, justification. Free will is the right to choose. Forcing the helmet on to someone removes their ability to decide for themselves.
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..
I absolutely disagree that the ends justify the means is a “Good” perspective. That’s the same perspective that scientists during World War 2 justified the concentration camps. “Look at all of the needless suffering we can prevent in our own people. That makes the experimenting on these Jews “OK” because significantly more people will be helped by the research outcomes.
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.
In other words, situational ethics again. The outcome justifies the removal of someone’s free will and ability to choose.
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.'"
We got a bit off track. This explanation doesn’t explain how saying:
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?
Please help me explain how THAT isn’t the very definition of a slippery slope.
@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.
No, I am not getting you. I agree that there are degrees of good and evil, but not flavors of it. Killing someone in cold blood is evil. Killing someone in defense of yourself or others is still evil, just less so. In any event, it isn’t what I would ever consider ‘Good’ regardless of the outcome.
You're clearly using real, modern, first-world ethics as your frame of reference rather than that of the scenario. By our frame of reference, of course it's not a good act, and can only be the lesser of two evils in extreme hypothetical circumstances.
But we're talking D&D ethics here, where the more zealous Paladins are happy to kill in cold blood as long as they're facing an "evil creature". Discover a slumbering vampire? Stake, no questions asked. The paragon orders of "good" here have distinct overtones of Judge Dredd.
@Eejit - Absolutely. You (the player) are playing an adventurer. By today's Ethics, most adventurers would make most mass murderers look like Emily Post. Death is a part of that world.
What I was trying to convey is that "In My View", forcing a change in a person's core makeup without their consent or even their choice is considerably more evil than killing them outright.
Is it done? I am sure it is. Is it easier than killing someone? yes, and no (at the very least the paperwork is murder). For any Lawful good that I played, using the helm of opposition would be anathema, even if someone asked for it.
But then I believe that the primary difference between good and evil is the pivotal question of choice. "To me", A Goodly aligned government (even a totalitarian one) might enforce the common good through rules and laws but they would never brainwash the populace to enforce them. Evil on the other hand would see brainwashing as perfectly acceptable means to an end.
The goodies think that if you can't choose to be in their team, you don't deserve to be there. (joke).
Reading threads like this is refreshing. Some of you folks really know your stuff... ^^'
I think many people in this discussion have hit the nail on the head in saying that proper use of the helm is a matter of the lawful vs. chaotic mentalities. Meaning that 'goodness' hasn't got much to do with it. The 3x3 alignment square is great to the extent that it makes this distinction possible.
My perspective on this situation is almost entirely on the chaotic side. It seems to me that moral 'goodness' (or even the concept of morality) can't exist independently of free will. Without straying into the realm of moral relativism, I'd propose that a world in which you're free to do evil is the only one in which you're truly free to do good.
So the helm is a no-no for me and my characters. I guess that means that I'd prefer to confront a villainous, murderous, hateful individual on her own terms rather than make it impossible for such an individual to exist.
... I'd propose that a world in which you're free to do evil is the only one in which you're truly free to do good.
I like this.
You guys should read up on "the problem of evil". This is a very common position among those that accept the existence of evil, but still want to believe in God (as an omnipotent, perfectly good person).
this is very controversial, however. My own position is that this, while possibly true, is inconsistant with the existence of an omnipotent, morally perfect person...this is a very long discussion though...
And @the_spyder I'm interested in your position on the inquiring murderer: are you morally responsible for what he would do if you told him truthfully where his next victim is? Do you agree with kant that you wouldn't be?
Edit: my phone won't let me quite sections and I'm not sure where this was posted but a "rationalist" (deontological) position is not primarily concerned with "ends". Thats consequentalism (hence associated with sentimentalism generally).
Some quotes that capture each at their worst attributed extremes:
Deontological theory: "let justice be done though the heavens fall!"
Consequentalism: "the ends always justify the means"
Edit 2:i should note that neither quote does justice to these theories. They are characaturizations
@the_spyder I think my debate with you has reached the end of its usefulness. You fail to recognize a flaw in your logic while using the very words that *define* that logical flaw (slippery slope). There's no real point in going around about it.
And as for the main gist of our discussion... you seem to be utterly convinced that only your opinion of good is valid which is... questionable, at best. My entire point is that for many people this would be considered a good option, and without a fundamental, written guideline on the good or evil of every possible act in the universe you cannot possibly justify your position of "this is how I feel and so that is how it must be." You've argued yourself into a corner now BOTH philosophically AND logically. If you can't see that then my humble arguments obviously aren't going to be able to show you. It's been a fun conversation, all, but I think it's my time to take my leave.
No, I am not getting you. I agree that there are degrees of good and evil, but not flavors of it. Killing someone in cold blood is evil. Killing someone in defense of yourself or others is still evil, just less so. In any event, it isn’t what I would ever consider ‘Good’ regardless of the outcome.
There is no absolute definition of good and evil. What you have stated is just your opinion. I think that there are certainly times when killing in defense of yourself/others is a good act. Killing someone in cold blood is more difficult to justify, but under the right circumstances (generally hypothetical) it isn't a black and white decision.
One classic moral dilemma involves trains and bystanders. Three scenarios:
1) A train is approaching a fork in the track. You need to press a button to decide where to send it. If you send it left it will kill 2 innocent people. If you send it right it will kill 1 innocent person. If you make no decision then the train will derail, killing all 100 people on board. What do you do?
2) A train is approaching a fork in the track. It is currently set to go left where it will kill 2 innocent people. You can press a button to send it right where it will only kill 1 innocent person. What do you do?
3) A train is approaching. Further down the track there are 2 innocent people who will be killed by the train. Standing next to you is an innocent bystander. If you pushed the innocent bystander in front of the train, then it would stop and save the two people further along the track. What do you do?
There is no right and wrong answer to these scenarios. The typical response to scenario 1 is to send the train to the right. To scenario 3 the typical answer is to do nothing. Scenario 2 tends to split opinion rather more, although the majority tend to do nothing. However from a strictly logical standpoint the three scenarios are almost identical.
I find these types of hypothetical scenario fascinating because of the different answers people give. Particularly if the scenarios are varied to make some of the innocent people criminals. And they really drive home the point that there is no absolute right and wrong.
There is no absolute definition of good and evil. What you have stated is just your opinion. I think that there are certainly times when killing in defense of yourself/others is a good act. Killing someone in cold blood is more difficult to justify, but under the right circumstances (generally hypothetical) it isn't a black and white decision.
Equally this is your opinion. And one I do not subscribe too.
In all three scenarios you are offering up the ends justify the means. If you can kill one person to save ten, doesn't that make it a good act? No. It doesn't. It's better than the alternative, but 'Less bad' and good are not synonymous.
And once you start down the road of the ends justifying the means, it is the very definition of a slippery slope. If it is OK to sacrifice one person to save ten, is it OK to sacrifice ten to save one hundred? How about one hundred to save one thousand?
Let me ask you one?
A man checks into the hospital with injuries that will kill him if he can't get a donor, only none are available. This person is a Nobel laureate and is working on cures or treatments for several crippling ailments. A second patient checks in. This man is an alcoholic and on welfare. He is due to be checked out of the hospital as his ailments are not that severe, but he will eventually die of the liver failure in the next two years. Since he will die shortly anyway, is it morally justifiable to kill him prematurely to save the Nobel laureate?
A man checks into the hospital with injuries that will kill him if he can't get a donor, only none are available. This person is a Nobel laureate and is working on cures or treatments for several crippling ailments. A second patient checks in. This man is an alcoholic and on welfare. He is due to be checked out of the hospital as his ailments are not that severe, but he will eventually die of the liver failure in the next two years. Since he will die shortly anyway, is it morally justifiable to kill him prematurely to save the Nobel laureate?
Also a good question. I won't pretend to have a correct answer to it because there isn't one.
My opinion is that we shouldn't kill the alcoholic. But my reasoning behind this is primarily because we don't really know what will happen in the future. What will the Nobel laureate will achieve? How many lives will he change? Or indeed what the alcoholic might do - perhaps he will turn his life around? I can't justify the premature killing on the basis of what might (or indeed even what probably will) happen in the future.
However if I had some way of knowing with certainty what would actually happen under either choice then it would be a much more difficult decision. Is it right to put the life of one man over the lives and suffering of perhaps millions of people? The classic question of whether the ends can justify the means.
However, one point I do disagree with you is that you believe there is some arbitrary point at which a decision becomes good. You defined my scenarios as all being different degrees of bad. Which implies there must be some set point at which decisions change from good to bad. I believe good and bad are only defined in relation to each other.
How about if I change my scenarios so that instead of choosing to kill one or more people, you are choosing to save the lives of one or more people (e.g. press button A to save one doomed person or press button B to save 2 doomed people). Do all the scenarios now offer good decisions, just with varying degrees of goodness?
"For me", the correct answer to my question is, one life is no more valuable than the other.
And to answer your question, changing the focus of the question doesn't change the underlying fact that you have to sacrifice someone for someone else. There are no 'Good' choices there. There are 'Less bad' choices, but they are all of them bad. This isn't a Glass half empty/half full type scenario.
Alignment is the most braindead stupid and harmful to RP aspect of DnD which has absolutely 0 positives. Karma meters in general are always bad (in terms of quality) for every game they have ever been implemented in. In my PnP games I refuse to include it in the world.
As for using it on an (truly) evil person... it is a pointless gesture of mercy as they should just be executed. You could argue for it being better because you don't kill... but that is a false argument because you did kill them, you just recycled their flesh into creating a completely new and different person. It is an excellent way to avoid vengeful relatives though.
the only way to keep her in a good aligned party while not breaking self imposed role play restrictions would be to equip her with the helm of opposite alignment.
Which is really stupid considering she needs your protection from the other Drow. From an RP perspective an evil person WOULD associate with some goodie twoshoes fools who are protecting them from horrible painful death. As such, I don't see anything wrong with using a mod to fix this (and there are several).
If you mean "like like" then this is creepy... also if you DO romance her you can drive her towards changing from evil to neutral without any magic mind control
"For me", the correct answer to my question is, one life is no more valuable than the other.
And to answer your question, changing the focus of the question doesn't change the underlying fact that you have to sacrifice someone for someone else. There are no 'Good' choices there. There are 'Less bad' choices, but they are all of them bad. This isn't a Glass half empty/half full type scenario.
All in my own personal opinion.
You had me until you said 'my opinion only'. this is a surrender to relativism and you are clearly not a relativist.
I'm going to pop back up and say one more thing before I vanish into the night once again.
"The ends justify the means" is not inherently evil. Evil people use it to justify evil acts, but that doesn't in and of itself make the argument invalid. From a rationalist standpoint the ends of any act must justify the means- that is the very definition of rationalism. And while you may not agree with rationalists, even philosophers who don't agree with their point of view realize that it's a valid way of thinking. So, in closing, using "the ends justify the means" to paint someone as wrong is... well... wrong. Again, all from a logical standpoint. I can point people in the direction of which flaw in logic this plays to if anyone is interested... but I doubt they are.
@rathlord - I am not 100% buying that argument. If you have to justify the means, that would seem to suggest (at least to my poor brain) that the means to achieve a certain end that is being perceived as not good (or at least questionable). Otherwise, why would any justification be necessary?
I am the first to state that there are perfectly valid situations where doing something minorly wrong to achieve something majory right is a valid way of doing something. It doesn't change the fact that something minorly wrong was done. Or to put it another way, 'good' people sometimes do not so good things. Life is messy. Stuff happens.
Where I have a problem is with those same people claiming to have never done wrong because their outcomes were good (or at least well intentioned). Own your mistakes, short comings and poor choices.
To do Evil things is not to BE evil. But when you start justifying the Evil acts BECAUSE of the good outcomes, and then to further claim that the evil acts were not actually Evil BECAUSE of those same outcomes, THAT is the slippery slope I was refering too.
Now if you want to throw Good and Evil out of the equation all together (as a rationalist might), that becomes a completely different argument.
@the_spyder I would argue that a rationalist would view 'good' as being anything with a net gain. For a rationalist, everything must be justified; if it's not, it has no value. That at some point devolves into semantics because said viewpoints are so different, you can't exactly quantify them the same way. But I agree with the gist of your post there. I would still argue that if the net gain was good then I wouldn't call it a poor choice or a mistake. If it was the only way, and the choice was made for 'good' and the end result was 'good' then it was a hard choice, but not necessarily a poor one.
I'm going to pop back up and say one more thing before I vanish into the night once again.
"The ends justify the means" is not inherently evil. Evil people use it to justify evil acts, but that doesn't in and of itself make the argument invalid. From a rationalist standpoint the ends of any act must justify the means- that is the very definition of rationalism. And while you may not agree with rationalists, even philosophers who don't agree with their point of view realize that it's a valid way of thinking. So, in closing, using "the ends justify the means" to paint someone as wrong is... well... wrong. Again, all from a logical standpoint. I can point people in the direction of which flaw in logic this plays to if anyone is interested... but I doubt they are.
I'm not sure how this got turned around but this is not really a "rationalism" as it is defined in the literature.
Rationalism is not just one thing. In many ways it's defined by a contrast (e.g. vs sentimentalism or empiricism). Rationalists (vs. sentimentalists) generally prefer deontological theories as opposed to consequentialist theories. A consequentialist is more likely to agree with the statement 'an end must justify the means' while a 'deontologist' is almost certainly to deny that this is always true and even assert that it is not true in a very important sense.
Deontological theory is often concerned with a duty to 'keep ones house'. An individual has obligations and prohibitions that they absolutely Must honor (like take care of their children and not murdering others). That often means that an end, any end, can't justify a broken obligation. It's hard to generalize all deontological theories but this can be thought of as more or less a defining feature (though don't think that it isn't concerned about ends at all--it is.) A right act is its own justification (and not any goods that come of that action).
"For me", the correct answer to my question is, one life is no more valuable than the other.
And to answer your question, changing the focus of the question doesn't change the underlying fact that you have to sacrifice someone for someone else. There are no 'Good' choices there. There are 'Less bad' choices, but they are all of them bad. This isn't a Glass half empty/half full type scenario.
All in my own personal opinion.
I'm curious as to what criteria you are using to define whether a choice is good or bad. My first scenarios all revolved around killing people and you stated these were all bad choices in your opinion. I then suggested revised scenarios where instead of killing people you would save their lives. And yet you still decided these were all bad scenarios - I don't understand the logic behind this.
What if I offer some further scenarios:
1) A good man (lots of charity work, etc) is dying in front of you. You can save his life or let him die.
2) Two good men are dying in front of you. You can save both their lives or let them both die.
3) To your right a good man is dying. To your left 2 good men are dying. You can decide to save the man to your right or the 2 men to your left, or do nothing.
By my thinking, saving the lives under both scenarios 1 and 2 would be 'good' choices. And by my logic saving either 1 or 2 lives under scenario 3 must also both be good choices, given that the decisions by themselves were good choices. But it seems you don't agree with me here in that you think all of the choices under option 3 are bad?
Whether using the Helm of Opposite Alignment is morally right or wrong, depends on the circumstances.
Using the Helm of opposite alignment is certainly consistent with playing a Lawful Good character.
If the alternative is 'either kill Viconia for her evil deeds or give her the Helm of Opposite Alignment', then the Helm of Opposite Alignment is preferable. You could spare her life and take her into your group to see if she is redeemable, and if she turns out not to be redeemable (coincidentally at reputation 18) and other ways of preventing her from doing evil are not feasible, then it might be sad to give her the Helm of Opposite Alignment, but by doing so you would prevent her from doing further evil.
Although that prevents her from exercising her free will, you are not required to let murderers exercise their free will. The parents of murder victims will certainly tell you, that if they had the choice between letting the murderer murder according to his free will and kill their child, and magically but against the murderer's will changing his mind into that of a saint and thus saving the life of their child, then they would choose the latter, and that anybody would have the moral obligation to choose so, too, if he could.
@the_spyder I would argue that a rationalist would view 'good' as being anything with a net gain. For a rationalist, everything must be justified; if it's not, it has no value. That at some point devolves into semantics because said viewpoints are so different, you can't exactly quantify them the same way. But I agree with the gist of your post there. I would still argue that if the net gain was good then I wouldn't call it a poor choice or a mistake. If it was the only way, and the choice was made for 'good' and the end result was 'good' then it was a hard choice, but not necessarily a poor one.
You are using "justified" to mean something completely different than intended. In your context, justified means necessary, useful or relevant. In "The end justifies the means" the term justified by definition means that the means are negative, excessive or otherwise questionable. That is why you have to have a positive net outcome to justify the input. These are completely different contexts and not synonymous.
@the_spyder I would argue that a rationalist would view 'good' as being anything with a net gain. For a rationalist, everything must be justified; if it's not, it has no value. That at some point devolves into semantics because said viewpoints are so different, you can't exactly quantify them the same way. But I agree with the gist of your post there. I would still argue that if the net gain was good then I wouldn't call it a poor choice or a mistake. If it was the only way, and the choice was made for 'good' and the end result was 'good' then it was a hard choice, but not necessarily a poor one.
You are using "justified" to mean something completely different than intended. In your context, justified means necessary, useful or relevant. In "The end justifies the means" the term justified by definition means that the means are negative, excessive or otherwise questionable. That is why you have to have a positive net outcome to justify the input. These are completely different contexts and not synonymous.
On their own, yes. But what he's trying to get across is the philosophy that the ethics of actions shouldn't only be judged in isolation but together with their results.
@the_spyder I would argue that a rationalist would view 'good' as being anything with a net gain. For a rationalist, everything must be justified; if it's not, it has no value. That at some point devolves into semantics because said viewpoints are so different, you can't exactly quantify them the same way. But I agree with the gist of your post there. I would still argue that if the net gain was good then I wouldn't call it a poor choice or a mistake. If it was the only way, and the choice was made for 'good' and the end result was 'good' then it was a hard choice, but not necessarily a poor one.
You are using "justified" to mean something completely different than intended. In your context, justified means necessary, useful or relevant. In "The end justifies the means" the term justified by definition means that the means are negative, excessive or otherwise questionable. That is why you have to have a positive net outcome to justify the input. These are completely different contexts and not synonymous.
On their own, yes. But what he's trying to get across is the philosophy that the ethics of actions shouldn't only be judged in isolation but together with their results.
I don't disagree with you on this. However, calling 'means' or actions good which would otherwise be deemed evil simply because of the result is neither logical nor valid.
Good means plus good result = very good action
Questionable means plus good result = questionable to good results
and by the way, that is the exact opposite of what they were saying earlier in the thread.
@the_spyder I would argue that a rationalist would view 'good' as being anything with a net gain. For a rationalist, everything must be justified; if it's not, it has no value. That at some point devolves into semantics because said viewpoints are so different, you can't exactly quantify them the same way. But I agree with the gist of your post there. I would still argue that if the net gain was good then I wouldn't call it a poor choice or a mistake. If it was the only way, and the choice was made for 'good' and the end result was 'good' then it was a hard choice, but not necessarily a poor one.
You are using "justified" to mean something completely different than intended. In your context, justified means necessary, useful or relevant. In "The end justifies the means" the term justified by definition means that the means are negative, excessive or otherwise questionable. That is why you have to have a positive net outcome to justify the input. These are completely different contexts and not synonymous.
On their own, yes. But what he's trying to get across is the philosophy that the ethics of actions shouldn't only be judged in isolation but together with their results.
I don't disagree with you on this. However, calling 'means' or actions good which would otherwise be deemed evil simply because of the result is neither logical nor valid.
Good means plus good result = very good action
Questionable means plus good result = questionable to good results
and by the way, that is the exact opposite of what they were saying earlier in the thread.
There is a different way to understand it. In saying "the ends must justify the means" one can mean that the very point of doing something is to achieve a good result-this is what makes makes the action "right" in a consequentialist framework.
Two answers present themself (and two different "logics") to the question: why keep a promise you made to a dying man after they've died that will cause you a terrible hardship and benefit noone?
Consequentialist: there is no reason to keep such a promise because no further good can come of it. the fact that one will suffer a hardship (a bad outcome) is a reason not to do it (there are exceptions including rule utilitarianism but this is a consequentialist answer)
By deontological theory: because you made a promise. stop.
Comments
I'm actually a rationalist (as opposed to a sentimentalist). I suspect that you are too. to complicate things further this dichotomy is really a construct of moral psychology (an interdisciplinary program of scientists and philosophers who study morality empirically) rather than philosophy proper. It is a convenient shorthand we use to categorize ethical theories (and theorists) by type.
Moral psychology is primarily a descriptive program as opposed to a prescriptive or normative one. That is, it tries to describe how we act rather than how we should act. There are a number of exceptions (for example sam harris' absurd claim that science can replace ethical philosophy and joshua green and jonathan haidts less absurd (though still absurd) claim that we should abandon rationalist theories because they demand more of us than we have)
Rationalists tend toward deontological ethics while sentimentalists generally favor consequentalism.
Consequentalism is what you might think of as purely "situational" and in at least two ways. First what constitutes "the good" depends on the creatures in question. For us pain might be considered good and pleasure bad but other creatures might have different preferences. Second, the right course of action is considered situational in that it depends on the expected outcome of said action.
Not so in deontological ethics. in fact rationalists are often accused (rightfully imo) of ignoring situational factors.
In fact kant so hated the lie that he says that one must always tell the truth in every situation always. He even said that if an inquiring murderer asked you the whereabouts of your brother so he could kill him then you should still not lie! (i cant remember off hand if he said anything here about withholding the truth. I do recall that he said that one would not be responsible for what the murderer did with the truth however!)
As much as I love kant I think he is wrong here (i can discuss why if you like but this is a very tricky situation for a kantian like myself and demands a very lengthy explanation). To shorten it I'd say that situational factors play a role not in the rightness or wrongness of a given action but in the proper attribution of responsibility. it is still wrong to lie but it must be done. the blame rests, however, on the one who forced the lie: the murderer.
one last thing: the reason philosophers use extreme examples is because they want to explore the "edges"of their concepts. if a given concept is useful then it needs to apply to all relevant cases. philosophers can't just say, "you knoe what I mean." and be done with it. The point of philosophy is that the words we use aren't as clear as we think they are.
And all of this is very relevant to the op though I realize that might not be clear
But if it could be done like what the helmet implies, it only suppresses the evilness and does not touch the intellect and hence leaves behind a fully functioning productive member of society then yes, by all means do it.
@Grammarsalad, If I was a danger to society and inherent evil I most likely would not submit myself to this. However all of us have evil thoughts now and then, but we have the ability to suppress them. Those who do not care about others or the greater good either chooses not to suppress those feelings and act upon them with complete disregard to the consequences and possible harm it may cause others or they are inherent evil and actually find pleasure in doing harm to others. Take for instance murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers; these are evil people. Should we grant them the privilege of "free will" or if possible, remove the evilness completely and hence change them for the best?
I live in one of the countries in the world with the highest rate of violent crime. If a choice is given to me that either everybody or nobody in my country has to get this device that will remove evilness I will get it myself without any doubt knowing that I will help make the world a safer place for my kids.
P.S. "Free will" is overrated in any case
This 'ability to suppress', for Kant, is free will. (Kantian ethics is the closest approximation to a Lawful Good ideology). It is (part of) what makes a person worthy of praise and blame (and so worthy of reward or punishment). It is also what makes a person valuable-in-themselves, what makes it wrong to use them merely as a means to an end. Period. Their character is irrelevant. There are no exceptions. That's the point.
If they are going to change for the best they are going to do it on their own. It would be logically impossible for us to change them for the better in much the same way it would be impossible for us to make circles have four equal sides and still be circles. What it is to change for the better is to choose to do so oneself.
Your best bet might be to say that they deserve it. But, just being 'evil', just having some predisposition, is not enough. One would have to ask, "deserve it for what?" If a person has already done something horrible, like the examples you give, then the proper response (in this line of thought) is punishment, not rehabilitation. This is how you respect their person, as strange as that might sound. That is laudable. That is, to want a better world for your children. I'm not sure that this would be the best way to do it, however. I encourage you to continue exploring though. We need more people in the world that will
*being good doe's not guarantee a person is harmless or helpful,http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Balthazar
*For the most part even though Viconia is evil she is not destructive,so i see no reason to change her if she hasn't done anything that warrants this change.
*What happens when you put is on a Lawful Evil character?he becomes good but in the process you may turn a law abiding jackass to a liar and a thief.
Do you think that some evil characters who had had the Helm of Opposite Alignment placed on them would be able to take it back off? (Playing with assumption, of course, that this could be done)
It seems the natural argument would be "No, they're good now, so they wouldn't take it off." But then that somewhat begs the question, if they were good would they feel that having their free will was not good and so take off the Helm in an attempt at a "good" act?
I know if I was evil but had my morals changed (but not my train of though) I would never take the Helm off willingly knowing what kind of harm I could cause. But it seems like some people might if they felt the evil of having a person's free will taken was worse than the evil they might commit. Thoughts?
He's not a very philosophical kinda guy, but he is very practical...
But we're talking D&D ethics here, where the more zealous Paladins are happy to kill in cold blood as long as they're facing an "evil creature". Discover a slumbering vampire? Stake, no questions asked. The paragon orders of "good" here have distinct overtones of Judge Dredd.
What I was trying to convey is that "In My View", forcing a change in a person's core makeup without their consent or even their choice is considerably more evil than killing them outright.
Is it done? I am sure it is. Is it easier than killing someone? yes, and no (at the very least the paperwork is murder). For any Lawful good that I played, using the helm of opposition would be anathema, even if someone asked for it.
But then I believe that the primary difference between good and evil is the pivotal question of choice. "To me", A Goodly aligned government (even a totalitarian one) might enforce the common good through rules and laws but they would never brainwash the populace to enforce them. Evil on the other hand would see brainwashing as perfectly acceptable means to an end.
The goodies think that if you can't choose to be in their team, you don't deserve to be there. (joke).
I think many people in this discussion have hit the nail on the head in saying that proper use of the helm is a matter of the lawful vs. chaotic mentalities. Meaning that 'goodness' hasn't got much to do with it. The 3x3 alignment square is great to the extent that it makes this distinction possible.
My perspective on this situation is almost entirely on the chaotic side. It seems to me that moral 'goodness' (or even the concept of morality) can't exist independently of free will. Without straying into the realm of moral relativism, I'd propose that a world in which you're free to do evil is the only one in which you're truly free to do good.
So the helm is a no-no for me and my characters. I guess that means that I'd prefer to confront a villainous, murderous, hateful individual on her own terms rather than make it impossible for such an individual to exist.
this is very controversial, however. My own position is that this, while possibly true, is inconsistant with the existence of an omnipotent, morally perfect person...this is a very long discussion though...
And @the_spyder I'm interested in your position on the inquiring murderer: are you morally responsible for what he would do if you told him truthfully where his next victim is? Do you agree with kant that you wouldn't be?
Edit: my phone won't let me quite sections and I'm not sure where this was posted but a "rationalist" (deontological) position is not primarily concerned with "ends". Thats consequentalism (hence associated with sentimentalism generally).
Some quotes that capture each at their worst attributed extremes:
Deontological theory: "let justice be done though the heavens fall!"
Consequentalism: "the ends always justify the means"
Edit 2:i should note that neither quote does justice to these theories. They are characaturizations
Edit 3: minor corrections
And as for the main gist of our discussion... you seem to be utterly convinced that only your opinion of good is valid which is... questionable, at best. My entire point is that for many people this would be considered a good option, and without a fundamental, written guideline on the good or evil of every possible act in the universe you cannot possibly justify your position of "this is how I feel and so that is how it must be." You've argued yourself into a corner now BOTH philosophically AND logically. If you can't see that then my humble arguments obviously aren't going to be able to show you. It's been a fun conversation, all, but I think it's my time to take my leave.
One classic moral dilemma involves trains and bystanders. Three scenarios:
1) A train is approaching a fork in the track. You need to press a button to decide where to send it. If you send it left it will kill 2 innocent people. If you send it right it will kill 1 innocent person. If you make no decision then the train will derail, killing all 100 people on board. What do you do?
2) A train is approaching a fork in the track. It is currently set to go left where it will kill 2 innocent people. You can press a button to send it right where it will only kill 1 innocent person. What do you do?
3) A train is approaching. Further down the track there are 2 innocent people who will be killed by the train. Standing next to you is an innocent bystander. If you pushed the innocent bystander in front of the train, then it would stop and save the two people further along the track. What do you do?
There is no right and wrong answer to these scenarios. The typical response to scenario 1 is to send the train to the right. To scenario 3 the typical answer is to do nothing. Scenario 2 tends to split opinion rather more, although the majority tend to do nothing. However from a strictly logical standpoint the three scenarios are almost identical.
I find these types of hypothetical scenario fascinating because of the different answers people give. Particularly if the scenarios are varied to make some of the innocent people criminals. And they really drive home the point that there is no absolute right and wrong.
In all three scenarios you are offering up the ends justify the means. If you can kill one person to save ten, doesn't that make it a good act? No. It doesn't. It's better than the alternative, but 'Less bad' and good are not synonymous.
And once you start down the road of the ends justifying the means, it is the very definition of a slippery slope. If it is OK to sacrifice one person to save ten, is it OK to sacrifice ten to save one hundred? How about one hundred to save one thousand?
Let me ask you one?
A man checks into the hospital with injuries that will kill him if he can't get a donor, only none are available. This person is a Nobel laureate and is working on cures or treatments for several crippling ailments. A second patient checks in. This man is an alcoholic and on welfare. He is due to be checked out of the hospital as his ailments are not that severe, but he will eventually die of the liver failure in the next two years. Since he will die shortly anyway, is it morally justifiable to kill him prematurely to save the Nobel laureate?
My opinion is that we shouldn't kill the alcoholic. But my reasoning behind this is primarily because we don't really know what will happen in the future. What will the Nobel laureate will achieve? How many lives will he change? Or indeed what the alcoholic might do - perhaps he will turn his life around? I can't justify the premature killing on the basis of what might (or indeed even what probably will) happen in the future.
However if I had some way of knowing with certainty what would actually happen under either choice then it would be a much more difficult decision. Is it right to put the life of one man over the lives and suffering of perhaps millions of people? The classic question of whether the ends can justify the means.
However, one point I do disagree with you is that you believe there is some arbitrary point at which a decision becomes good. You defined my scenarios as all being different degrees of bad. Which implies there must be some set point at which decisions change from good to bad. I believe good and bad are only defined in relation to each other.
How about if I change my scenarios so that instead of choosing to kill one or more people, you are choosing to save the lives of one or more people (e.g. press button A to save one doomed person or press button B to save 2 doomed people). Do all the scenarios now offer good decisions, just with varying degrees of goodness?
And to answer your question, changing the focus of the question doesn't change the underlying fact that you have to sacrifice someone for someone else. There are no 'Good' choices there. There are 'Less bad' choices, but they are all of them bad. This isn't a Glass half empty/half full type scenario.
All in my own personal opinion.
As for using it on an (truly) evil person... it is a pointless gesture of mercy as they should just be executed. You could argue for it being better because you don't kill... but that is a false argument because you did kill them, you just recycled their flesh into creating a completely new and different person. It is an excellent way to avoid vengeful relatives though. Which is really stupid considering she needs your protection from the other Drow. From an RP perspective an evil person WOULD associate with some goodie twoshoes fools who are protecting them from horrible painful death.
As such, I don't see anything wrong with using a mod to fix this (and there are several). If you mean "like like" then this is creepy... also if you DO romance her you can drive her towards changing from evil to neutral without any magic mind control
"The ends justify the means" is not inherently evil. Evil people use it to justify evil acts, but that doesn't in and of itself make the argument invalid. From a rationalist standpoint the ends of any act must justify the means- that is the very definition of rationalism. And while you may not agree with rationalists, even philosophers who don't agree with their point of view realize that it's a valid way of thinking. So, in closing, using "the ends justify the means" to paint someone as wrong is... well... wrong. Again, all from a logical standpoint. I can point people in the direction of which flaw in logic this plays to if anyone is interested... but I doubt they are.
I am the first to state that there are perfectly valid situations where doing something minorly wrong to achieve something majory right is a valid way of doing something. It doesn't change the fact that something minorly wrong was done. Or to put it another way, 'good' people sometimes do not so good things. Life is messy. Stuff happens.
Where I have a problem is with those same people claiming to have never done wrong because their outcomes were good (or at least well intentioned). Own your mistakes, short comings and poor choices.
To do Evil things is not to BE evil. But when you start justifying the Evil acts BECAUSE of the good outcomes, and then to further claim that the evil acts were not actually Evil BECAUSE of those same outcomes, THAT is the slippery slope I was refering too.
Now if you want to throw Good and Evil out of the equation all together (as a rationalist might), that becomes a completely different argument.
Rationalism is not just one thing. In many ways it's defined by a contrast (e.g. vs sentimentalism or empiricism). Rationalists (vs. sentimentalists) generally prefer deontological theories as opposed to consequentialist theories. A consequentialist is more likely to agree with the statement 'an end must justify the means' while a 'deontologist' is almost certainly to deny that this is always true and even assert that it is not true in a very important sense.
Deontological theory is often concerned with a duty to 'keep ones house'. An individual has obligations and prohibitions that they absolutely Must honor (like take care of their children and not murdering others). That often means that an end, any end, can't justify a broken obligation. It's hard to generalize all deontological theories but this can be thought of as more or less a defining feature (though don't think that it isn't concerned about ends at all--it is.) A right act is its own justification (and not any goods that come of that action).
What if I offer some further scenarios:
1) A good man (lots of charity work, etc) is dying in front of you. You can save his life or let him die.
2) Two good men are dying in front of you. You can save both their lives or let them both die.
3) To your right a good man is dying. To your left 2 good men are dying. You can decide to save the man to your right or the 2 men to your left, or do nothing.
By my thinking, saving the lives under both scenarios 1 and 2 would be 'good' choices. And by my logic saving either 1 or 2 lives under scenario 3 must also both be good choices, given that the decisions by themselves were good choices. But it seems you don't agree with me here in that you think all of the choices under option 3 are bad?
Using the Helm of opposite alignment is certainly consistent with playing a Lawful Good character.
If the alternative is 'either kill Viconia for her evil deeds or give her the Helm of Opposite Alignment', then the Helm of Opposite Alignment is preferable. You could spare her life and take her into your group to see if she is redeemable, and if she turns out not to be redeemable (coincidentally at reputation 18) and other ways of preventing her from doing evil are not feasible, then it might be sad to give her the Helm of Opposite Alignment, but by doing so you would prevent her from doing further evil.
Although that prevents her from exercising her free will, you are not required to let murderers exercise their free will. The parents of murder victims will certainly tell you, that if they had the choice between letting the murderer murder according to his free will and kill their child, and magically but against the murderer's will changing his mind into that of a saint and thus saving the life of their child, then they would choose the latter, and that anybody would have the moral obligation to choose so, too, if he could.
Edit: spelling
Good means plus good result = very good action
Questionable means plus good result = questionable to good results
and by the way, that is the exact opposite of what they were saying earlier in the thread.
Two answers present themself (and two different "logics") to the question: why keep a promise you made to a dying man after they've died that will cause you a terrible hardship and benefit noone?
Consequentialist: there is no reason to keep such a promise because no further good can come of it. the fact that one will suffer a hardship (a bad outcome) is a reason not to do it (there are exceptions including rule utilitarianism but this is a consequentialist answer)
By deontological theory: because you made a promise. stop.