With regards to the notion of good vs evil, I remember when I was a younger man wrestling with this apparent dichotomy I took a holiday to Florence Italy with my then gf, and I came across this absolutely amazing eldery Japanese man (he was in his late 80's iirc). I'd seen him the night before we were due to leave walking next to the Arno river, and there was something quite notable about him, although I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
I resisted the urge to go and introduce myself, but as luck would have it he was staying in the same hotel as the pair of us, and as we were sitting in the Hotel bar waiting for our taxi to take us to the airport he walked in, and smiled at us, I went up and introduced myself, and came and joined us. What followed was a ridiculously illuminating conversation, it turned out he was a professor at some University in Japan where he taught religon, particularly Christianity and Zen. He was in Italy visiting a friend of his who was a Benedictine Monk.
I figured this man's insight into what had been bugging me would be worthwhile, so I explained that I didn't accept the traditional view of there being this cosmic opposition between good and evil, as there was something about that didn't work for me, and his answer was brilliant. All he said was that good is completeness or wholeness, and that all evil is, is incomplete good. He was an exceptional man, and had this laugh (and he laughed often) that somehow just lifted the spirits, and made you laugh too.
Actually I'd have Batman as Lawful Good, the reason being that the Lawful element in Lawful Good means that you follow some Code, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the law of the land. If a Lawful Good character finds his or herself in a corrupt society they are not going to follow the law simply because they are lawful.
You know, you might be right about Batman. In the dark knight movies hes willing to give up being batman if enough just and competent people are running the government. He only goes vigilant because the system is corrupt. Batman could very well be a Lawful Good Paladin type in the movies.
With regards to the notion of good vs evil, I remember when I was a younger man wrestling with this apparent dichotomy I took a holiday to Florence Italy with my then gf, and I came across this absolutely amazing eldery Japanese man (he was in his late 80's iirc). I'd seen him the night before we were due to leave walking next to the Arno river, and there was something quite notable about him, although I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
I resisted the urge to go and introduce myself, but as luck would have it he was staying in the same hotel as the pair of us, and as we were sitting in the Hotel bar waiting for our taxi to take us to the airport he walked in, and smiled at us, I went up and introduced myself, and came and joined us. What followed was a ridiculously illuminating conversation, it turned out he was a professor at some University in Japan where he taught religon, particularly Christianity and Zen. He was in Italy visiting a friend of his who was a Benedictine Monk.
I figured this man's insight into what had been bugging me would be worthwhile, so I explained that I didn't accept the traditional view of there being this cosmic opposition between good and evil, as there was something about that didn't work for me, and his answer was brilliant. All he said was that good is completeness or wholeness, and that all evil is, is incomplete good. He was an exceptional man, and had this laugh (and he laughed often) that somehow just lifted the spirits, and made you laugh too.
That man was definitely on to something, and I agree with him. I don't know if any of you have heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (a psychological theory), but it touches on the same subject. A human in balance, whose basic needs are fulfilled, will naturally want to care about others.
On the subject of capitalism. I believe that people promote it for many different reasons. Some out of altruism, some out of egoism. I'm convinced that capitalism can't end well since it is self-destructive. It only rewards things that generate more capital, which in the end causes it to collapse on itself, since human beings need much more than capital to thrive.
Batman is Lawful Netural with good tendencies. He's concerned with punishing those who cause mayhem or harm to others and ensuring they can no longer do so. He doesn't directly concern himself with the actual well-being of others except where they are put directly at risk by the actions of unscrupulous individuals.
You know, you might be right about Batman. In the dark knight movies hes willing to give up being batman if enough just and competent people are running the government. He only goes vigilant because the system is corrupt. Batman could very well be a Lawful Good Paladin type in the movies.
Or you know, he was just being a whiny emo kid, until a sexy lady comes in and throws off his groove. Don't get me started on how disappointing that movie was.
Oooopppps nerd rage showing. I've always thought of Batman as a chaotic good, but really, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good fits into the Christian Bale Batman. In general, Batman works with the police, but he's seen as a vigilanti because he is so violent. Remember, in a large number of Batman comics they want to arrest him quite a bit. But in TDK, he lets the police do their thing.
I wonder what Dexter is. Chaotic Neutral? Lawful Evil?
I wonder what Dexter is. Chaotic Neutral? Lawful Evil?
(TV) Dexter follows his own code, but not the laws of society, until the point he starts to question that code. Insofar as he understands the concept of 'happiness' or at least fulfillment, he values his own and has no qualms about causing death to others to achieve it. As he starts to form emotional connections with others, he is shown to value their safety and happiness more and more, to the point that he even prioritizes it over his own method to gaining fulfillment. I'd say he starts off Lawful or Neutral Evil, moves into a more definite Neutral Evil role. At the end of the currently available material I'd say he's probably straddling the area between Neutral Evil and True Neutral.
From a gamers point of view: The Evil alignments, especially Chaotic Evil, fits me like a glove. I recon it all started when I played Planescape: Torment for the very first time a decade ago. Everything about Baator, Gehenna, Carceri, Pandemonium, Abyss, ect. does sheer mesmerize me. Hell, I'd even go so far as to describe myself as an demonophiliac and be actually proud of it! A shame Fall-from-Grace's romance was scrapped back then, just like the remaining factions. Sigh.. Hopefully PT:EE sees the light of day at some point and gives her the attention she deserves. Anyway, due to that I just *can't*, for the love of Demogorgon, play as an "chicken wing" (my slang for Aasimons) worshipping, Lawful Good alignmented, stick-in-the-arse paladin. The very thought about playing such an character fills my bowels with nausea. Though, I do love to play as an Chaotic Neutral lunatic from time to time as well. (Xaositects, anyone?)
Good and evil in reality: I believe good and evil only exist in fiction. Why? Because there are no moral features in reality. Both "right" and "wrong" are nonexistent in this world. This post was presented to you by your local amoralist from the error theory camp.
Right and wrong is not something made up, just by talking about right and wrong proves the existence. When people say theres no right and wrong, reminds me of satanists that say theres no such thing as God, yet they belive in Satan... Some of us might get it twisted, just like the Cross of St. Peter, nothing evil about it, same thing with the swastika.
Err, you're comparing apples with coconuts here. Or to be more specific, amoralism with immoralism. Satanists can be described as those who actively oppose the christian morality, thus making it an immoral branch of monotheism. While being entertaining in fiction, it's just as barmy as any other religion in real life.
Amoralism (probably better known as moral nihilism) however is a meta-ethic which views that nothing is morally preferable to anything else. For example, amoralists would say that either saving someone's life or killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither morally right nor morally wrong. For what's worth, you could compare it with moral skepticism to get a better picture of it. And that's it; no religions involved here.
""Alignment is a guide to a character’s basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general." So, let's talk about it, not just about the game, but from a philosophical and practical point of view, how do see or understand Good and Bad/Evil? I for myself don't see Evil in nature, just bad behaviour, like the Emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius said:"All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil." I think misunderstanding regarding good and bad/evil fits better. I find Bad to be an error, not an option, if we agree with Aristotle, "EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." So you see, I trow away the idea of Evil in nature, like Satan(or Evil Gods), God can't have an opposite extreme or meaning, as God is everything, not to be misunderstood God is Bad an Evil at the same time. Bad is the other edge of Liberty, as Liberty is risky. I'm ending this here for now, feel free to add anything fruitful.
I think an Aristotelian conception of morality is compatible with D&D in that alignments seem very trait-like. But there is a strong sense that evil has a disembodied independent existence in D&D with the existence of Evil (as well as good, chaotic and lawful) planes of existence as well as spells that detect evil and good. Further, I think they are often described as ‘forces’ akin to gravity(more on this later). Also, elemental planes of existence, ‘forces of nature’ (e.g. Shambling mounds) and such that seem to violate the Aristotelian sensibility. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some splatbook out there with an elemental composed of pure evil(!) In any case, I think we can assume that the D&D alignment system is very ‘folk philosophy’. Nothing wrong with that. It probably wouldn’t be as fun if it was coherent.
As one with Kantian leanings I agree (more or less) that evil is the result of ignorance. As moral agents are (I believe) authors of moral law (in much the same way that we write mathematical equations) then there is a sense in which it is senseless (heh) to say that virtue is somewhere ‘out there’. I will even go so far as to say that I generally favor a sort of Aristotelian metaphysics. For example, I don’t think that ‘physical laws’ like gravity exist independent of the particulars in which they are realized; rather I think that laws are abstractions—necessary due to the nature and limitations of the human mind—invented by us so that we can talk about them in isolation when playing certain language games. This leads us to the point where we will reify them and create whole worlds—like D&D—where the laws work differently though the material objects and environment is (mostly) the same. That’s just what we do.
But at the same time, if our actions are to be praiseworthy or blameworthy bad behavior must be optional. Additionally, this view—that we always aim for some good—I think, is false. Kant presents a dilemma that illustrates the point. Imagine this: a Machiavellian king wants to get rid of some rival but can’t just have him summarily executed because there is still some semblance of law and justice in his kingdom that he is compelled to observe. So, he has a serf or peasant kidnapped and he presents the poor guy with the following two options: 1) falsely accuse the rival so that the king can have him legally executed or 2) refuse and be boiled alive. I hope that it’s obvious—I know that most utilitarians would disagree with me on this point—that the right thing to do would be to refuse to lie and condemn an innocent man to death…but many would probably do it anyway.
Now, on a Kantian account the peasant’s life is just as valuable as the king’s rival but on an Aristotelian account the peasant’s life is probably less valuable so it’s hard to find a justification for this. If the peasant aims to do good we might presume that he is ignorant that this rival is more virtuous than he is—though this seems unlikely given that the hierarchal of God> Monarch > Church > Nobel > Everyone else was well established in those days and we can probably assume that this rival is at least a Nobel—but we can grant this for the sake of argument. We can alter the thought experiment to accommodate this possibility (I always feel a little deific myself when I’m creating a thought experiment!) . Imagine the peasant knows that the king’s rival is a person of virtue. I don’t doubt that this might sway some to refuse but I doubt that it would sway enough to verify* the quote.
Right and wrong is not something made up, just by talking about right and wrong proves the existence. When people say theres no right and wrong, reminds me of satanists that say theres no such thing as God, yet they belive in Satan... Some of us might get it twisted, just like the Cross of St. Peter, nothing evil about it, same thing with the swastika.
@Zafiro I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I just find your posts to be very interesting and worth responding to. It's a complement if anything.
K. One thing at a time.
"Right and wrong is not something made up, just by talking about right and wrong proves the existence..."
I can't reconstruct this sentence into something that doesn't violate non-contradiction.
We can talk about things that are 'made up' (like D&D for instance). The problem is that you are using 'made up' as contrasting with something existent and using as your proof the fact that we can talk about something as proof of its existence. I take it that you mean by 'made up' as ‘something’ mind dependent but something that has 'real existence' is something mind-independent. An interesting aside: mind dependence might not necessarily = subjective existence (see Searle's "Construction of Social Reality" for an interesting example)
In any case, we can talk about nonsensical things (Alice in Wonderland) but that doesn't give them existence (for example, the king talks about 'seeing nothing'.) We can contemplate two mutually exclusive things but that doesn't prove the existence of both. For example, we can contemplate a world where God exists and a world where God doesn't exist. Given that God if existent is necessary existent then one of these worlds is impossible. And yet we can talk about both.
I'm Kripkean about references btw. That means that I believe that the 'meaning' of a proper name for a given speaker is determined by its causal history. Sometimes this history begins in a nonsensical description or a work of fiction. It happens.
"When people say there’s no right and wrong, reminds me of Satanists that say there’s no such thing as God, yet they believe in Satan"
I don't know enough about Satanism** to comment on that but I think you're right that relativists tend to smuggle in their own moral beliefs usually in the form of tolerance and a rejection of hypocrisy.
* Two points: 1) this is an empirical question of course 2) or ‘support’ if you’re like me and cringe at the words ‘verify’ or ‘confirmed’
** A cursory glance at Wikipedia says this: "Satanism is a group of religions composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared features include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures..."
Christ might be considered 'promethean' in a sense, no?
In any case, if they admire the 'character' Satan, one might assume that they look at the bible as (fictitious) literature meant to represent some real life 'themes'. They might think that the rebels get a raw deal. For example, some of them get crucified for their radical beliefs and nonconformity.
EDIT: Heh. Didn't see the context of this second comment.
The TL;DR version of the article is that people don't usually see themself as good or evil, but are more likely to use terms like humane vs. determined or honourable vs. individualistic.
Personally I reckon I'm neutral good, but then I'm a wimpy lefty.
the reason alignment is so strongly identified with polar extremes in D&D is that the storytelling construct we use is a direct descendant of morality tales. all sorts of settings circumvent these conventions, however; forgotten realms just doesn't happen to be one of them, as it was created in days when people didn't really think about this aspect of what gaming attempts to portray.
@Corvino Thank you for that! The only issue I have is that traits are situation specific. For example, 'good' in the Stanford Prison Experiment meant 'trying to avoid torturing the prisoners' rather than 'standing up to the 'bad' guards.' Something like Neutral meant 'Nothing personal; torture only to maintain control'. Evil was generally what we think of it as but it was justified/sanctified by the role and situation.
One thing that psychology should teach us is that we don't know ourselves like we think we do. A funny aside: that we are subject to irrational self-justification is generally dissonant as we like to think of ourselves as rational and competent which can lead to motivated reasoning (unreasonable criticism/ignoring/discounting of dissonant information). Heh, in rejecting it we support it! I just love that.
It also scares me though. Imagine this scenario: moral standards exist but we aren't capable of living up to them. Ought implies can and so we wouldn't be bound by them anymore than we would be required to fly under our own power (as fighters are required in regular D&D if they are to compete with wizards). But then I remember that the hypothesis is only that we 'can' not that we 'often do' or 'that it's easy'. And it's late...
@Grammarsalad, I do appreciate the exercise, as many wise men once said: "question everything!" Now, isn't the machiavellian king aiming for some good as any other men? Only he is being wrong and misunderstands happines, or ignoring the purpose that human beings have in the universe; if he has no legitimate reason to kill that neighbor king, why scheme against him? Yes, I also appreciate the utilitarianism view ethics, on wich I got to by following ethical hedonism. We must act to promote what we anticipate that procures pleasure, satisfaction, well being, happines, utility etc. Clasic utilitarianism is a hedonist doctrine: happines and utility as ultimate purpose. It's rational to act according to our wishes, not according to our aversions; therefor it's rational to act promoting pleasure, happines, utility. And all that can be understood from those first words Aristotel begins his Nicomachean Ethics. Seems safe to say Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself to be best/suitable advice in life.
About good and wrong being "made up", I have to say that was a misstep, a metaphysical(pompous of myself to say so, I know) claim I felt to express, just us some may say the existence of God is proven just by saying it, or proven by liberty.
Even though I play chaotic good characters...I do cause a fair amount of issues. I steal, lie, cheat, kill, threaten, get drunk, and more. I would play an evil character, but I am a Ranger.
Even though I play chaotic good characters...I do cause a fair amount of issues. I steal, lie, cheat, kill, threaten, get drunk, and more. I would play an evil character, but I am a Ranger.
good thing for you that 3e stopped restricting rangers' alignment, then
@DougPiranha, I for one, find TN to be false, or not at all; reminds of "ignorance is bliss" also reminds me of Dante's Divine Comedy
It seams we don't subscribe to the same definition of neutrality - to you it's a lack of choice, to me it is (the best) choice. I'm not passive observer, I actually walk the middle road. It's like calling me agnostic when I'm actually an atheist.
@Zafiro I'm not concerned about the king. I'll grant you that. It's the peasant that I'm concerned with. I think it would be morally wrong for him to lie so that the innocent rival is executed. I take it to be obvious that this would be wrong though I admitted that a most utilitarians would disagree (perhaps except rule utilitarianism). However, I believe that Aristotle would agree with this.
Also, I should clarify: I'm not utilitarian; I'm Kantian. I believe in the universal respect for persons as ends in themselves by virtue of their status as moral agents. As such, they should not be used as tools to some other end even if that end is their own happiness. That said, Kantians and Utilitarians tend to agree on most of the important things even if for different reasons. And also I lied. I'm not Fully Kantian. I disagree with him about the inquiring murderer (that we should not lie to an axe murderer that is looking for a loved one). The world is messy and moral values are going to conflict. They shouldn't and wouldn't in a perfect world ("the best of all possible worlds") but they do in this one. Moral imperatives are universal but some are more imperative than others (just as there are 'larger' and 'smaller' infinities.)
Do I understand that you were referring to the ontological argument for the existence of God? Heh. Been a while.
But I'm glad we're speaking in the same spirit of honest inquiry.
Comments
I resisted the urge to go and introduce myself, but as luck would have it he was staying in the same hotel as the pair of us, and as we were sitting in the Hotel bar waiting for our taxi to take us to the airport he walked in, and smiled at us, I went up and introduced myself, and came and joined us. What followed was a ridiculously illuminating conversation, it turned out he was a professor at some University in Japan where he taught religon, particularly Christianity and Zen. He was in Italy visiting a friend of his who was a Benedictine Monk.
I figured this man's insight into what had been bugging me would be worthwhile, so I explained that I didn't accept the traditional view of there being this cosmic opposition between good and evil, as there was something about that didn't work for me, and his answer was brilliant. All he said was that good is completeness or wholeness, and that all evil is, is incomplete good. He was an exceptional man, and had this laugh (and he laughed often) that somehow just lifted the spirits, and made you laugh too.
On the subject of capitalism. I believe that people promote it for many different reasons. Some out of altruism, some out of egoism. I'm convinced that capitalism can't end well since it is self-destructive. It only rewards things that generate more capital, which in the end causes it to collapse on itself, since human beings need much more than capital to thrive.
Oooopppps nerd rage showing. I've always thought of Batman as a chaotic good, but really, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good fits into the Christian Bale Batman. In general, Batman works with the police, but he's seen as a vigilanti because he is so violent. Remember, in a large number of Batman comics they want to arrest him quite a bit. But in TDK, he lets the police do their thing.
I wonder what Dexter is. Chaotic Neutral? Lawful Evil?
The Evil alignments, especially Chaotic Evil, fits me like a glove. I recon it all started when I played Planescape: Torment for the very first time a decade ago. Everything about Baator, Gehenna, Carceri, Pandemonium, Abyss, ect. does sheer mesmerize me. Hell, I'd even go so far as to describe myself as an demonophiliac and be actually proud of it! A shame Fall-from-Grace's romance was scrapped back then, just like the remaining factions. Sigh.. Hopefully PT:EE sees the light of day at some point and gives her the attention she deserves. Anyway, due to that I just *can't*, for the love of Demogorgon, play as an "chicken wing" (my slang for Aasimons) worshipping, Lawful Good alignmented, stick-in-the-arse paladin. The very thought about playing such an character fills my bowels with nausea. Though, I do love to play as an Chaotic Neutral lunatic from time to time as well. (Xaositects, anyone?)
Good and evil in reality:
I believe good and evil only exist in fiction. Why? Because there are no moral features in reality. Both "right" and "wrong" are nonexistent in this world. This post was presented to you by your local amoralist from the error theory camp.
Some of us might get it twisted, just like the Cross of St. Peter, nothing evil about it, same thing with the swastika.
Satanists can be described as those who actively oppose the christian morality, thus making it an immoral branch of monotheism. While being entertaining in fiction, it's just as barmy as any other religion in real life.
Amoralism (probably better known as moral nihilism) however is a meta-ethic which views that nothing is morally preferable to anything else. For example, amoralists would say that either saving someone's life or killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither morally right nor morally wrong. For what's worth, you could compare it with moral skepticism to get a better picture of it. And that's it; no religions involved here.
As one with Kantian leanings I agree (more or less) that evil is the result of ignorance. As moral agents are (I believe) authors of moral law (in much the same way that we write mathematical equations) then there is a sense in which it is senseless (heh) to say that virtue is somewhere ‘out there’. I will even go so far as to say that I generally favor a sort of Aristotelian metaphysics. For example, I don’t think that ‘physical laws’ like gravity exist independent of the particulars in which they are realized; rather I think that laws are abstractions—necessary due to the nature and limitations of the human mind—invented by us so that we can talk about them in isolation when playing certain language games. This leads us to the point where we will reify them and create whole worlds—like D&D—where the laws work differently though the material objects and environment is (mostly) the same. That’s just what we do.
But at the same time, if our actions are to be praiseworthy or blameworthy bad behavior must be optional. Additionally, this view—that we always aim for some good—I think, is false. Kant presents a dilemma that illustrates the point. Imagine this: a Machiavellian king wants to get rid of some rival but can’t just have him summarily executed because there is still some semblance of law and justice in his kingdom that he is compelled to observe. So, he has a serf or peasant kidnapped and he presents the poor guy with the following two options: 1) falsely accuse the rival so that the king can have him legally executed or 2) refuse and be boiled alive. I hope that it’s obvious—I know that most utilitarians would disagree with me on this point—that the right thing to do would be to refuse to lie and condemn an innocent man to death…but many would probably do it anyway.
Now, on a Kantian account the peasant’s life is just as valuable as the king’s rival but on an Aristotelian account the peasant’s life is probably less valuable so it’s hard to find a justification for this. If the peasant aims to do good we might presume that he is ignorant that this rival is more virtuous than he is—though this seems unlikely given that the hierarchal of God> Monarch > Church > Nobel > Everyone else was well established in those days and we can probably assume that this rival is at least a Nobel—but we can grant this for the sake of argument. We can alter the thought experiment to accommodate this possibility (I always feel a little deific myself when I’m creating a thought experiment!) . Imagine the peasant knows that the king’s rival is a person of virtue. I don’t doubt that this might sway some to refuse but I doubt that it would sway enough to verify* the quote. @Zafiro I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I just find your posts to be very interesting and worth responding to. It's a complement if anything.
K. One thing at a time.
"Right and wrong is not something made up, just by talking about right and wrong proves the existence..."
I can't reconstruct this sentence into something that doesn't violate non-contradiction.
We can talk about things that are 'made up' (like D&D for instance). The problem is that you are using 'made up' as contrasting with something existent and using as your proof the fact that we can talk about something as proof of its existence. I take it that you mean by 'made up' as ‘something’ mind dependent but something that has 'real existence' is something mind-independent. An interesting aside: mind dependence might not necessarily = subjective existence (see Searle's "Construction of Social Reality" for an interesting example)
In any case, we can talk about nonsensical things (Alice in Wonderland) but that doesn't give them existence (for example, the king talks about 'seeing nothing'.) We can contemplate two mutually exclusive things but that doesn't prove the existence of both. For example, we can contemplate a world where God exists and a world where God doesn't exist. Given that God if existent is necessary existent then one of these worlds is impossible. And yet we can talk about both.
I'm Kripkean about references btw. That means that I believe that the 'meaning' of a proper name for a given speaker is determined by its causal history. Sometimes this history begins in a nonsensical description or a work of fiction. It happens.
"When people say there’s no right and wrong, reminds me of Satanists that say there’s no such thing as God, yet they believe in Satan"
I don't know enough about Satanism** to comment on that but I think you're right that relativists tend to smuggle in their own moral beliefs usually in the form of tolerance and a rejection of hypocrisy.
* Two points: 1) this is an empirical question of course 2) or ‘support’ if you’re like me and cringe at the words ‘verify’ or ‘confirmed’
** A cursory glance at Wikipedia says this: "Satanism is a group of religions composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared features include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures..."
Christ might be considered 'promethean' in a sense, no?
In any case, if they admire the 'character' Satan, one might assume that they look at the bible as (fictitious) literature meant to represent some real life 'themes'. They might think that the rebels get a raw deal. For example, some of them get crucified for their radical beliefs and nonconformity.
EDIT: Heh. Didn't see the context of this second comment.
While in a linking mood, here's an article mentioned in @trentoster's twitter about "real world" alignments: http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
The TL;DR version of the article is that people don't usually see themself as good or evil, but are more likely to use terms like humane vs. determined or honourable vs. individualistic.
Personally I reckon I'm neutral good, but then I'm a wimpy lefty.
Thank you for that! The only issue I have is that traits are situation specific. For example, 'good' in the Stanford Prison Experiment meant 'trying to avoid torturing the prisoners' rather than 'standing up to the 'bad' guards.' Something like Neutral meant 'Nothing personal; torture only to maintain control'. Evil was generally what we think of it as but it was justified/sanctified by the role and situation.
One thing that psychology should teach us is that we don't know ourselves like we think we do. A funny aside: that we are subject to irrational self-justification is generally dissonant as we like to think of ourselves as rational and competent which can lead to motivated reasoning (unreasonable criticism/ignoring/discounting of dissonant information). Heh, in rejecting it we support it! I just love that.
It also scares me though. Imagine this scenario: moral standards exist but we aren't capable of living up to them. Ought implies can and so we wouldn't be bound by them anymore than we would be required to fly under our own power (as fighters are required in regular D&D if they are to compete with wizards). But then I remember that the hypothesis is only that we 'can' not that we 'often do' or 'that it's easy'. And it's late...
Now, isn't the machiavellian king aiming for some good as any other men? Only he is being wrong and misunderstands happines, or ignoring the purpose that human beings have in the universe; if he has no legitimate reason to kill that neighbor king, why scheme against him? Yes, I also appreciate the utilitarianism view ethics, on wich I got to by following ethical hedonism. We must act to promote what we anticipate that procures pleasure, satisfaction, well being, happines, utility etc. Clasic utilitarianism is a hedonist doctrine: happines and utility as ultimate purpose. It's rational to act according to our wishes, not according to our aversions; therefor it's rational to act promoting pleasure, happines, utility. And all that can be understood from those first words Aristotel begins his Nicomachean Ethics. Seems safe to say Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself to be best/suitable advice in life.
About good and wrong being "made up", I have to say that was a misstep, a metaphysical(pompous of myself to say so, I know) claim I felt to express, just us some may say the existence of God is proven just by saying it, or proven by liberty.
Also, I should clarify: I'm not utilitarian; I'm Kantian. I believe in the universal respect for persons as ends in themselves by virtue of their status as moral agents. As such, they should not be used as tools to some other end even if that end is their own happiness. That said, Kantians and Utilitarians tend to agree on most of the important things even if for different reasons. And also I lied. I'm not Fully Kantian. I disagree with him about the inquiring murderer (that we should not lie to an axe murderer that is looking for a loved one). The world is messy and moral values are going to conflict. They shouldn't and wouldn't in a perfect world ("the best of all possible worlds") but they do in this one. Moral imperatives are universal but some are more imperative than others (just as there are 'larger' and 'smaller' infinities.)
Do I understand that you were referring to the ontological argument for the existence of God? Heh. Been a while.
But I'm glad we're speaking in the same spirit of honest inquiry.