StarCraft® II

Any Blizzard response on Raynor killin Tal'darim?

Posts: 7,297
20/01/2013 17:28Posted by Telenil
I utterly disagree. Good and evil can be defined, so can any shade of grey between the two, and it does not depend on any reference, nor on your goal, nor on how virtuous the people around you are. Ignorance or circumstances can excuse an action or make it acceptable, but that action won't become "right" just because people don't see the problem.


Really? How?
Are you seriously suggesting good and evil as we, sapient beings, understand it, exists regardless of the nature of sapient life?
I should put this in a more straight-forward way. Does good and evil exist if no-one is there to commit or observe it?
I suppose if you're an absolutist, you could say that even if all humanity was snuffed out tomorrow by a nuclear war, you could say that nuclear wars are wrong - except you couldn't, because you would no longer exist.
It's basically not an answerable question. With that, if there does exist a good or evil that lies outside the scope of our own existance, we cannot perceive or judge it, and therefore it is irrelevant. So you're arguing a very moot point.
Unless you really do have a clear-cut and well-established universal way to define absolute good, absolute evil and every shade between as though ethics was some kind of bijunction, completely independent from the observer. This is a plainly ridiculous suggestion, but I'm more than curious to hear just what kind of mapping from domain to range you have in mind.

Obviously it's not a binary "right" OR "wrong"; you often have to choose the lesser of two evils, which is fine as long as you realise what you are doing. But terror, sadism and mass murder are "wrong" in this world and would be "wrong" in any other, no matter the argument people would use.I suppose this means we are not really debating here, since I don't think anything could change my mind about these specific principles.

Irrelevant until you explain just how "right" can be absolutely defined. For sapient life, "wrong" can be absolutely defined for any and all referential systems. "Right" cannot be. And neither can be absolutely defined for the universe itself because said universe doesn't HAVE inherent laws of right and wrong, that is a trait reserved for sapient life.

20/01/2013 22:09Posted by AlexOdhin
Yep. That's what WoL made them.

No. They were always idiots. Tassadar, Zeratul and Fenix are very clearly exceptions.

20/01/2013 22:09Posted by AlexOdhin
Told you what i like is that characters in WarCraft are good and bad.

No, the characters in TFT are "good and bad", but if we look at WC3 as a complete game with RoC and TFT together, if we prioritise RoC morality, since it came out first, the characters in TFT are just bad.

20/01/2013 22:09Posted by AlexOdhin
Well it's not necessarily like that. Depends on your subjectivity. For instance a family has a baby. That baby does harm (wakes them up at night and needs to be fed, cleaned etc.) and good (puts smiles on it's parents' face, gives them joy, pride and whatever). It's some sort of compensation law.

Yes, that's net gain. But you see if you tried hard you could make a baby that didn't do any good to the parents, or anyone for that matter, bullied everyone in school, grew up to take over the country, turned everyone in the country either into murderers, slaves or dead, then set out to do the same to everyone else on the planet.
It's improbabable to commit absolute evil, but it is hypothetically possible. However commiting absolute good is not, because someone is always a little harmed just by your existance and you have to do good to "compensate" for this.

20/01/2013 22:09Posted by AlexOdhin
Write more of your books/essays and put them on rapidshare.

No. That last one made me waste a whole summer. Not that again!

20/01/2013 22:09Posted by AlexOdhin
I don't get these kind of people. So what? It's not like someone just came in and wrote cookie with no specific relation to the topic and we started baking. What we started writing now has some relation to the topic dude! Morality and whatever...

It's not even my fault this time. Telenil and Mihai were arguing about the nature of morality long before I got here.
Telenil is clearly not much of a scientist so he really things that good and evil exist sans the perpetrator. That's like saying psychology can exist without psyches, or physics can exist without reality, or math can exist without logic.

Anyway,
It's not called "destined". It's called predetermined. Aside from that, you're right. The universe is entirely soullless and without sapient life, it would likely simply stretch from point a, the big bang, to point omega, the heat death of the universe.... and it would do it in exactly the same way, every time, right down to every single molecule.
That's the thing about the universe. It's natural law is "predetermined chaos". It is impossible to truly determine for US where the universe is heading with perfect precision - the system is so complicated that there's no way to make a prediction more accurate than just watching the system commence its "metabolism". But it is implied that if rerolled and done again, the consequences would be done the same.
There's only one field where so far this has come into any kind of question - psychology. Because it is naive to say that choice doesn't exist, and many are still baffled by its nature. Is it predetermined or actually free? Who knows. But regardless, the drive for sapient life to survival, dominance and understanding just may be enough to deviate the universe from the course of the hypothetical situation if there was no sapient life at all.
Essentially, on the level of the human mind, said "determinism" becomes less relevant in the scheme of things than actual choice. It is like the quantum mechanics of the universe - on such a small level, the mindlessness of the universe becomes overlooked...
... and miracles become possible.

@Mihai that's got to be some good cinnamon.
Anyway I wrote about 60 pages on the topic of humanity, about 5 of which are on the topic of eudaimonia, 5 more on the topic of values and then there's other bits and pieces there. There's no way you'll read it even now that it's published but trust me, it basically explains what you're talking about but more thoroughly, less single-pointedly and in my honest opinion less "mystery".
Also didn't you put punishment spheres in all your colonies? You're one to talk about wish fullfilment...
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,229
Haha nice touch with the spheres, that is just a game dude :)))) I would never be a governor, I'm more of front line commander, my best capability in every game is battle tactics. And for a battle tactician, that style of governing suits best.

Posted by AlexOdhinYep. That's what WoL made them.No. They were always idiots. Tassadar, Zeratul and Fenix are very clearly exceptions.


true, remember the protoss civil war? If not for some bright protoss dude, they would have probably went extinct.

// I won't have time this semester, but in summer I would like to at least take a look at your work.
Edited by Mihai on 21/01/2013 07:02 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,224
20/01/2013 23:17Posted by Mihai
there is a wish and in impulse that seeks fulfillment.

I'm saying that human being are only aware of what happens but do not actually do what they want. It's programmed for them to do that and they think they do it by will.
21/01/2013 01:21Posted by Rasofe
Yes, that's net gain.

Yeah even doing bad is doing good for some others.
21/01/2013 01:21Posted by Rasofe
No. That last one made me waste a whole summer. Not that again!

If you call creativity wasting time. That what do you think is not wasting time? Writing on these forums? PLEASE.
21/01/2013 01:21Posted by Rasofe
But regardless, the drive for sapient life to survival, dominance and understanding just may be enough to deviate the universe from the course of the hypothetical situation if there was no sapient life at all.

I don't think there's any power against that. It's like saying humans will become stars or galaxies so they can have enough magnetic power to stop the sun from KABLOOING.
21/01/2013 06:53Posted by Mihai
true, remember the protoss civil war? If not for some bright protoss dude, they would have probably went extinct.

Nah you people get it wrong. It's religious belief. They are fanatics. Remember how the Christian Popes burned the scientists? Or how the Muslims wanted to force their religion into other believers' lands?
Besides there need be a PvP in the campaign. It's quite debatable and not necessarily stupid apart from the fact that Protoss should've been more advanced than the Terran in the MIND field not only as magicians.
Edited by AlexOdhin on 21/01/2013 20:22 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
If you want the truth, putting out 60 pages that fewer people than I can count on two hands have read, as opposed to posting regularly on the forums where I'm almost guranteed to get a response and therefore someone always reads what I write, then yes, posting on these forums is better than sitting at home, researching at libraries and sitting in front of a computer spellchecking my damn work.

Actually, Mihai is talking about the Aeon of Strife, not the in-campaign civil war. Just making that clear. And the sun will not go kablooing, because it's not massive enough. And what does magnetic power have to do with being a galaxy?

Anyway, on the topic of morality, this is basically a two-part discussion.
First of all, this is a concept I started developing when I actually began to study psychology at the IB, after I wrote my treatise. In many ways psychology offered a much needed fundamental basis for other humanitarian knowledge I had before, thus allowing to begin construction of said theory, that being of the Human Perspective Construct Common Sense.

Initially, let us pose a premise that the universe and what we in commonspeak call real life are not the same. In the Universe, there exist a set of physical constants and unchangeable bijunctions (to the best of our scientific knowledge) that guide things like orbital velocities, launch trajectories, gravity, chemistry and even evolution. In real life we have jobs, marriage, hobbies, friends, voting, the news, wars and genocide - things that cannot and are not defined scientifically but exist in reality. For the most part, the intelligence we use to handle the complicated is rationality, while the intelligence we use to process the obvious is common sense. The more relevant aspects of "real life", like morality, ethics and just every day social behavior fall into the obvious - and in any case, perception construction is a very integral part of common sense.

While the universe is guided by the aforementioned "laws", what defines real life is ultimately perception. Every mind affects this "reality" in one way or another, by observing it, processing it, and re-integrating the conclusions back into reality through behavior, vocalisation, or other means. In any psyche-type, the default effect is a positive feedback loop - you perceive an already established reality, you -sensibly- confirm it as reality and therefore normality is achieved.

The human and the Übermensch psychetypes can affect the reality by putting themselves at the fulcrum of their perception, rather than the reality itself, thereby directing the feedback so that it is not simply self-definatory.

Also, mental disorders typically result in a disturbance of said reality, but this is in practical terms almost one of the definitions of a mental disorder - if you deviate from normality, you're not normal and clearly something is "wrong" in your brain (I particularly like Sylvia Plath's "The Bell Jar" for bringing this idea to my attention).

In effect, the prediction that follows from this theory is that any significant change of perception of our world, be it the universe or real life, comes from individuals, or in rare cases, cultural clashes (which more often than not lead to wars anyway). This follows from how group-minds form a stagnation and reaffirmation of the reality where they are rooted rather than changing it, while an individual can have a significantly revolutionary idea to cause a paradigm shift.

Evidence for the theory reaches in phenomena like group-think, conformity, obedience, evidence that support social identity and social learning theories, compliance and much more rooted in history, however that's less reliable so I don't care about that.

In effect, the concept of morality, in the good-evil dimension, is typically defined as doing benefits and doing harms. For humans, an absolute harm can be done to all possible members of a "reality" construction, but an absolute good cannot, because in any human system there will always be eternal conflict and any action done internally will lead to mostly good but harm to some. This is a praxis-statement and follows along the same lines as "a machine can be forced to waste all work into heat, but it cannot be forced to turn all heat into work". A hypothetic situation wouldn't be relevant because such a hypothetical situation wouldn't occur.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,229
21/01/2013 20:11Posted by AlexOdhin
Nah you people get it wrong. It's religious belief. They are fanatics


a.k.a. idiots. Another proof that fundamentalist states are just bad. The PvP mission in the campaign was about Tassadars' insurgence, it has nothing to do with the civil war.

21/01/2013 20:11Posted by AlexOdhin
Remember how the Christian Popes burned the scientists?


I remember from history how the inquisition executed the most brilliant minds of their age, just because the Pope wanted more influence through stupidity and darkness. The people were been kept in supreme ignorance of what is going on around them. This is why the church dislikes technology, it makes people aware... The church and every religion is an army of influence. You can believe in a god if you really want to, but it would have nothing to do with any of the religions.
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
However, there is a more fundamental reason why absolute good deserves rejection, and that is because of the only relevant way it can be defined.
Definition:
There exist an absolute good, so that it means:
1. To do only benefice and no harm. [good]
2. The best possible kind of morality. [absolute]
3. Properties 1 and 2 are true in any and all reference systems. [non-relative]

As I already established, morality is a common-sense phenomenon.
So allow us to also add a premise, that humanity := good. That is that to be of the human psychetype is to be a benefit and not a harm by DEFINITION. Before you quote this passage and start responding like wild dogs, let me explain. The aspect of being human is per definum good - other actions are not necessarily. So obviously a human being can commit harm, but the specific quality of being human -in mind- is good. This is a fundamental premise of any RELEVANT good-evil philosophy. If the negation of this premise is accepted no conclusions henceforth are relevant to humanity, since their logical continuations can always result in the conclusion that humanity == evil and therefore by default void. Unless we take an alternative approach that I will describe later. I've written about 60 pages on what this premise entails holistically.

Let us look at some logical unions we can have between the definition of absolute good and our first premise of human morality.
For shorthand, the definition of absolute good is D and the premise is P.
1:
D /\ ¬P => Irrelevant, since ultimately humanities' foremost concern is to be more human and not "doing benefice" or "not doing harm".

Next if P is true for sake of relevance, is it equivalent to D?
2:
(D == P) /\ P => Tautological. We defined humanity as absolute good (however inaccurate that may be), thereby stating that in any reference system possible humanity is the best form of common sense and therefore made the concept void of meaning (much like if you travel near the speed of light and assume your time is the absolutely correct one, time becomes a meaningless dimension).

3:
¬(D==P) /\ P => Paradox. We say that humanity is not absolute good, but the 2nd trait of absolute good is to be the best form of common sense possible while the third is that the 2nd trait is true for any reference system. However humanity is the best possible common sense for humanity - so either 2 is true and 3 is not, suggesting that there are common sense types better than humanity but outside the referential system of humanity, or 3 is true and 2 is not, which is paradoxical because 2 has to be true for 3 to be true.

Your options are therefore Nonsense, Tautology, or Paradox.
There are then two solutions:
1. Reject the concept of Absolute Good.
2. Assume that humanity is not := good, but rather exists on a plane of blue and orange morality. (an alternative premise)

The second solution is very appealing. It removes the problem of a possible human == evil scenario because if it is in blue and orange, humanity and inhumaniy exist perpendicularly to good and evil and are not connected. In fact, from alien perspectives most likely this is exactly how they will see us, or maybe they'll just be ignorant and think we're crazy. The reason I do not select this solution is because it is specifically relevant to external-referencial systems but not so much to us as human beings. Barring that there are a lot of things that are better understood if premise P is accepted.

So instead rejecting the concept of absolute good is both practically and logically the most feasable option.
Edited by Rasofe on 22/01/2013 06:19 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,229
22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
If you want the truth, putting out 60 pages that fewer people than I can count on two hands have read


I feel that's a 9, am I correct? just off-topic curiosity ;)

22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
In real life we have jobs, marriage, hobbies, friends, voting, the news, wars and genocide - things that cannot and are not defined scientifically but exist in reality


Yes, humans are creators. The act of creation and proactivity resides in every human being. All you have to do is to desire this, and make it happen. Someone said, and I don't remember who: "Each man has/or is his own universe" - this means that each man perceives the world in his own way, I agree with this and as you said it too
22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
what defines real life is ultimately perception


22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
In effect, the prediction that follows from this theory is that any significant change of perception of our world, be it the universe or real life, comes from individuals, or in rare cases, cultural clashes (which more often than not lead to wars anyway)

22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
In effect, the concept of morality, in the good-evil dimension, is typically defined as doing benefits and doing harms. For humans, an absolute harm can be done to all possible members of a "reality" construction, but an absolute good cannot, because in any human system there will always be eternal conflict and any action done internally will lead to mostly good but harm to some.


I see, this made me rethink it. Evil and Good are clearly things that depend on what humans individuals do, and how their actions affect fellow humans. There is no universal good or evil, because those elements are perceived only by humans....

22/01/2013 05:38Posted by Rasofe
A hypothetic situation wouldn't be relevant because such a hypothetical situation wouldn't occur.


It is possible for a human to destroy the planet. In this case he will commit absolute evil, because it would result in the destruction of humankind.

What if there are things that we don't know out there, mysteries... maybe transcendence is possible or ascension to a higher form, or some other things that we humans fantasize about. If we can imagine the absolute evil (our death as a species), then maybe we can imagine an absolute good, an evolution into a higher form...
You want some of my cinnamon ? I also eat a lot of oranges, how about you?
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
22/01/2013 06:22Posted by Mihai
What if there are things that we don't know out there, mysteries... maybe transcendence is possible or ascension to a higher form, or some other things that we humans fantasize about. If we can imagine the absolute evil (our death as a species), then maybe we can imagine an absolute good, an evolution into a higher form...

FU go home transcendentalist, Coop victory forever!!

No seriously, I went over this already. Evolution is not a ladder with incrementations. From the point of view of humanity, the best possible good is humanity, and therefore per consequence NOT some bloody alien godlike planet.
I wish they added an alternative victory type where you use the voice to initiate a project that kills planet rather than makes you part of it. I essentially headcanon that's what happens in the coop victory ending because it's so much more thorough and optimistic than the conquest, economic victory and supreme leader victories.
I eat a lot of apples. Have you noticed how apples are the primary food on Alpha Centauri?
Edited by Rasofe on 22/01/2013 06:34 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,229
The progenitors' victory is in wiping out humans :D
And probably if you do it with Usurpers, they will just consume all resources and move on, to another world.
Edited by Mihai on 22/01/2013 06:37 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
I know that. That's why I always initiate epic military campaigns to whipe them out to the last bug.
Edited by Rasofe on 22/01/2013 06:37 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,021

Are you seriously suggesting good and evil as we, sapient beings, understand it, exists regardless of the nature of sapient life?
I should put this in a more straight-forward way. Does good and evil exist if no-one is there to commit or observe it?
Yes. And in case you wonder, a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it still makes a sound, light won't cease to exist if every human gouges his eyes out, and reality didn't start with the first sentient creature. If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you are an idiot.
Telenil is clearly not much of a scientist
Wrong. I studied physics and I work on lasers and optical systems. Are you a scientist? You implied it in some of your posts, but never actually stated it, and you really don't think like the actual scientists I work with.
Also, claiming discussing justice and morality is moot because they cannot be physically measured is a fallacy: the only thing it means is that it is not science, which is no a no-brainer.
However, there is a more fundamental reason why absolute good deserves rejection, and that is because of the only relevant way it can be defined.
You've completely missed the point. I'm saying that good and evil exist as absolute notions, which has little to do with absolute good in the sense you've tried to define, straw man.
Edited by Telenil on 22/01/2013 17:34 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
22/01/2013 16:46Posted by Telenil
Yes. And in case you wonder, a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it still makes a sound, light won't cease to exist if every human gouges his eyes out, and reality didn't start with the first sentient creature. If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you are an idiot.

No, you didn't answer my question and this was clearly a straw man argument and/or an ad honim. Please try again.

Wrong. I studied physics and I work on lasers and optical systems. Are you a scientist? You implied it in some of your posts, but never actually stated it, and you really don't think like the actual scientists I work with.

You have the academic honesty of a fanatic.
Did you make the major? Which university?
I study physics at ETH Zürich.

22/01/2013 16:46Posted by Telenil
You've completely missed the point. I'm saying that good and evil exist as absolute notions, which has little to do with absolute good in the sense you've tried to define, straw man.

No you. And I mean it. The nonsense you've spouted has little to nothing to do with reality.

22/01/2013 16:46Posted by Telenil
Also, claiming discussing justice and morality is moot because they cannot be physically measured is a fallacy: the only thing it means is that it is not science, which is no a no-brainer.

Never claimed this.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,021
Also, claiming discussing justice and morality is moot because they cannot be physically measured is a fallacy: the only thing it means is that it is not science, which is no a no-brainer.

Never claimed this.
It's basically not an answerable question. With that, if there does exist a good or evil that lies outside the scope of our own existance, we cannot perceive or judge it, and therefore it is irrelevant. So you're arguing a very moot point.


Did you make the major? Which university?
I study physics at ETH Zürich.
I don't see why this is relevant, but since you gave yours, I have a double diploma from the French Institut d'Optique Graduate School and the university of Paris Sud 11. Since I suspect we will break the forum chart is this goes on any longer, this is my final answer to you on these subjects.
Edited by Telenil on 22/01/2013 19:06 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
I suppose if you're an absolutist, you could say that even if all humanity was snuffed out tomorrow by a nuclear war, you could say that nuclear wars are wrong - except you couldn't, because you would no longer exist.It's basically not an answerable question. With that, if there does exist a good or evil that lies outside the scope of our own existance, we cannot perceive or judge it, and therefore it is irrelevant. So you're arguing a very moot point.


That's the WHOLE paragraph that I said. There's nothing here about it being a measurable quantity - there is however a discussion of it being a percievable or conceivable concept.
If it is not perceivable it is for all intents and purposes completely irrelevant or non-existent.

And you haven't answered my question of what definition of good and evil could you possibly suggest that would be both relevant and absolute.

If you don't answer than me an Mihai here win by default. Just saying.
Edited by Rasofe on 22/01/2013 19:20 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 15,669
22/01/2013 19:19Posted by Rasofe
If you don't answer than me an Mihai here win by default. Just saying.

Everyone should know of that rule. I doubt you needed to tell him.
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
Well, Mihai does build punishment spheres but at least he acknowledges that he's a better commander than a colony leader. I would always prioritise Talents because they're the whole point of making a colony in outer space - to breed the best that humanity has to offer.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,229
Yes, talents are good long term, but short term if you have strong hostiles, u need capable men on the field to establish the borders.
Just remembered, that I didn't continue that game with Santiago, but as I have said, I was lucky and scored the big eastern continent with Provost and Morgan (or Lal) anyway it was easy money, I had them dispatched quickly, and I didn't need too many spheres...:D
Basically, the sphere bases almost always produce units...
Reply Quote
Posts: 15,669
Which game/map is this?
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,297
If you're far ahead enough on tech and have most of the projects, which you should get for at least the extra score, you should easily be able to design a very well-balanced military that can take on any and all situations with a fairly small amount of troops, at least compared to the nonsense numbers miriam, drones and hive tend to have.

@Mikal
The best Civ adaptation ever, Alpha Centauri, an effect "sequel" to Sid Meiers Civ 2 designed by Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds.
Edited by Rasofe on 22/01/2013 20:29 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 15,669
I see.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]