20/01/2013 17:28Posted by TelenilI 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.
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.
No. They were always idiots. Tassadar, Zeratul and Fenix are very clearly exceptions.
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.
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.
No. That last one made me waste a whole summer. Not that again!
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.
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...