Morality in PnP

[Pop]

I'm sorry, how was my situation anti-consequentalist? Was there a negative consequence in the scenario I came up with that I wasn't aware of?

"We can never tell the future" is an anti-consequentialist argument precisely because it precludes any consideration of consequences. You can never be assured of the consequences of any action, thus you shouldn't seriously consider consequences when making moral judgements. Classic Kantian position. It's a pretty weak one, too.

 

You'll notice I listed more than one reason.

Yeah, I addressed that one too.

 

However, if you're going to commit an action and you want to know the morality of it, I'd say it's rather important to remember that your grasp of the situation is never perfect.

When considering moral matters, perfection is too much to ask. Sound reason and consistency are acceptable alternatives.

 

Nevertheless, you haven't supported your conclusion. Even if we say that lying is always wrong, that doesn't mean that telling the truth is always right. There are situations where telling the truth is also wrong. That leaves us with choosing between two wrong options or trying to find an alternative option.

Yet there are cases in which there is no viable alternative option, or the alternative option isn't much of an option at all (saying nothing to the chainsaw-wielding maniac, for example) The problem isn't that we don't have a viable option, the problem is that the best option (lying, in this case) is denied us because that option is prima facae wrong. If telling the truth is sometimes the wrong thing to do, then surely lying can be right thing to do sometimes as well. Universal rules like "lying is wrong" require universal application, without exceptions due to context or consequences. They're universal. And I'm not willing to accept that Darque shouldn't lie to save Maria's life. Thus I must call into question the entire concept of lying being wrong prima facae, and by extension that killing DR is wrong prima facae.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Pop

[Maria Caliban]

Pop:

" "We can never tell the future" is an anti-consequentialist argument precisely because it precludes any consideration of consequences. "

 

Not at all. It's as consiquentalist as you can get. I'm not saying you shouldn't act because you don't know the future. I'm saying that you shouldn't act as though you are certain of the future.

 

For instance, if I can create a container for toxic waste that won't wear down for a million years and blocks all radiation, I shouldn't proceed as though I'm certain that any toxic waste I put in it will never enter the surrounding area. It could be opened on accident, an earthquake might split it open, or I might just be wrong about how long the material I've created will last. I have to consider the consequences if the situation is that which I think it is and the consequences if the situation is not what I think it is.

 

" You can never be assured of the consequences of any action, thus you shouldn't seriously consider consequences when making moral judgements. Classic Kantian position. It's a pretty weak one, too."

 

I find that when people feel the need to tell me something I've said is "weak" they're not actually interested in what I have to say but in judging my statements. Why should I care if what I say is "weak"? Am I going to be arm wrestling with it? Do I win a prize if what I say is "strong"?

 

That said, you haven't actually shown that what I've said is incorrect. You've agreed with me what no one can know the future. Are you suggesting that in that situation, I ought to kill Dark Raven? If so, why?

 

" When considering moral matters, perfection is too much to ask. Sound reason and consistency are acceptable alternatives."

 

Perfection is too much to ask. When faced with a masked man with a bloody chainsaw, sound reason and consistency might even be too much to ask.

 

" The problem isn't that we don't have a viable option, the problem is that the best option (lying, in this case) is denied us because that option is prima facae wrong."

 

I disagree. I don't consider lying to be the best option, if a said bloody man appears, my best option is to run away before ever entering into a conversation with him. If I do start talking and he asks me, lying may be morally wrong but telling the truth is also morally wrong. I then need to ask myself which is more wrong. In this case, I would lie because the consequences of my telling he truth seem far more compelling. If I'm wrong about the situation, I can undo the consequences of my lie. I can't undo the consequences of Dark Raven being chopped to bloody bits.

[Dark_Raven]

It baffled me when Kheldorn attacked Viconia as they had spent months together in game, fighting hordes evil hordes side by side. Yeah, she said a few nasty things but in *my* game, she never actually does anything evil. Kheldorn comes off as being a bit psychotic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kheldorn was a psychotic zealot. In Torm's name I smite thee evil drow!

[Maria Caliban]

Ahh, there's my favorite crippled, beheaded, murdering, raping, and pillaging lady!

 

I saw someone made a sword for you at the vault?

Edited November 26, 2006 by Maria Caliban

[Dark_Raven]

I was made an uber scythe.

[Pop]

Not at all. It's as consiquentalist as you can get. I'm not saying you shouldn't act because you don't know the future. I'm saying that you shouldn't act as though you are certain of the future.

But that's incongruous with the universal rules we've thus far established (murder and lying being wrong) If we consider consequences, then we run into all kinds of instances in which what is wrong yields favorable consequences, such as lying to the killer. Universal law can only work when consequences aren't considered. So we either have to amend the premise that lying is 100% wrong all of the time, or ignore the fact that lying is our best option in some contexts. Otherwise we have a contradiction.

 

I find that when people feel the need to tell me something I've said is "weak" they're not actually interested in what I have to say but in judging my statements.

What's the difference between what you're saying and your statements (statements being things that you say)? The notion that some things are always right or wrong is innately weak, in that the arguments supporting it have big, nasty cracks in them. One can easily formulate situations in which someone should do something that they shouldn't do in some different situation, and many of them are more reasonable and allow less leeway than the psycho killer situation. A position is weak without reason.

 

That said, you haven't actually shown that what I've said is incorrect. You've agreed with me what no one can know the future. Are you suggesting that in that situation, I ought to kill Dark Raven? If so, why?

I wouldn't say you shouldn't kill her. It's subject to context. The decision is hers first. If she feels she should live with chronic back problems or without the use of some or all limbs, I can't tell her she can't. Nor could I tell her she had to live if she didn't want to. If her nasty fall results in her becoming Terri Schiavo, without some precautionary living will, alive in only the strictest sense, incapable of voicing her judgement, permanently, then the decision to end her life would ultimately be an arbitrary one, but if she would be in some measure of pain, kill her by all means.

 

I disagree. I don't consider lying to be the best option, if a said bloody man appears, my best option is to run away before ever entering into a conversation with him. If I do start talking and he asks me, lying may be morally wrong but telling the truth is also morally wrong. I then need to ask myself which is more wrong. In this case, I would lie because the consequences of my telling he truth seem far more compelling. If I'm wrong about the situation, I can undo the consequences of my lie. I can't undo the consequences of Dark Raven being chopped to bloody bits.

Wouldn't it be better to just disregard the notion of lying being wrong in this case? It wouldn't result in any negative consequences. What's wrong with it?

 

If the Texas Chainsaw Massacre example doesn't work for you, consider a realistic one: Maria is a jew in late 30's Germany, and Darque is hiding Maria in her attic, scheduled to be shipped to safe England the next day. The nazis come to Darque's door and ask her if she knows where Maria is hiding. If Darque refuses to answer, she will be arrested and killed alongside Maria. If she tells the truth, Maria will be murdered. Darque is a convincing liar, and Maria will likely be spared the gas chamber if she denies knowledge of Maria's wherabouts.

 

How could we possibly condemn Darque in any way for lying in this situation? Isn't it reasonable to demand she lie? It would be the right thing to do.

[Tigranes]

I think Pop, your later examples devolve from the original premise to a somewhat different and more simple one - you' being trapped in the whole "Is the Greater Good worth the Lesser Evil" loop. In which case, of cousre, you are currently advocating, the Greater Good is more important. Then it comes down to how you measure the 'worth' of a deed.

 

Linking back to the whole NWN2 orc caves thing, though - the "Paladin" may argue that it is a "lesser evil" to kill those who are defenceless, but a "greater evil" to irresponsibly let them be, when you know that should they 'get better', they will attack you or innocent civilians once again. If I understand you correctly, you will consider these *likely* consequences, and by probability not willing to take the chance, do "Good" by killing these Orcs. In fact, it can easily be argued that many who declaim such a decision as being hasty or inappropriate are simply afraid of taking such a step, when inaction can be just as bad as any action.

 

It's difficult to argue against this position, of course, and equally difficult to persuade others of it. But I take issue with your argument that:

 

Wouldn't it be better to just disregard the notion of lying being wrong in this case? It wouldn't result in any negative consequences. What's wrong with it?

 

I assume that instead of saying Good and Evil are defined by conseequences, you are merely saying that the consequences justify in a limited sense the action, and therefore the action must be morally judged by its intention and consequence. Fair enough, and most D&D games would go with this (remember BG2 Drow city? You saw a surface-walker flee from her slavelords, and if you lied to the slavelords that was considered the Good option.). But I think in this case relativism *does* have its place. In my BG2 example, it is assumed that:

 

1/ slavery is wrong.

2/ the surfacer, by being a Drow slave, by definition becomes absolved of anything she might have done (Maybe she's running after murdering her slave master), and is immediately "Good" and "save-able".

3/ the drow social structure is inherently Evil and must be thwarted in any way possible.

 

Therefore, saving the slave girl has no negative consequences. But I think the relativistic argument must be applied here to argue that to declaim slavery or an entire social structure because of preconceived notions is incredibly stupid and immoral. D&D does a fairly good job of suggesting this with, say, the arrogant Elves and bigotry of humans and whatnot. The condemnation of slavery is dependant on the support of the Western ideal of unconditional and universal Freedom (is that really "Good"?), for example. And when faced with such a choice as that of the girl slave, where detailed cross-examination is impossible, we the RPers, and the creators, will instinctively gear towards the option that follows our epistemological upbringing.

 

Basically, I seem to agree with Pop on the points he's amde, but disagree with the ones he hasn't. In the NWN2 Orc caves, how can one judge, for to not judge would be anohter inaction, irresponsible and immoral? Is the life of an Orc more important than the likely possibility of their future violent actions? Is the life of an Orc more important than the life of a human, even if you belong to neither society?

[Colrom]

Some thoughts:

 

Whenever someone makes an argument about the correctness of an action or strategy based on some evaluation of the merit of likely outcomes they are applying utility theory over the top of some outcome value scheme (good outcomes vs. bad outcomes).

 

Utility theory always has the potential to produce attrocities. A typical example would be justifying killing a healthy person in order to harvest their organs to save the lives of five unhealthy people.

 

In order to avoid such nonsense most moral systems have a list of actions and strategies which are forbidden under almost all circumstances - except for immediate self defense (there is a utility theory consideration again) and then some proportionality is required. But paranoids can kill with impunity under that system too. And harvesting organs may even be rationalized by a really clever person.

 

A few moral systems have a list of actions which are forbidden period. They get accused of being suicidally passive. The Amish might be an example.

 

In the case of the orcs - it is important for some people that they are described as certainly being of no immediate threat and likely being of no long range threat - since this eliminates the typical exceptions which folks take as allowing killing them. All risk is eliminated.

 

So then they find out whether your character thinks killing is generally OK.

 

The issue of law doesn't arrise does it? It is just a good vs evil thing.

 

I think if you kill them you should go evil based on those considerations.

[Sand]

This Thursday the PCs will have a choice. Help an undead monster who was once an innocent young girl kill her father who is a drug smuggler or help the drug smuggler from being drained of his blood by his daughter.

[Wistrik]

I have no trouble making good/lawful points throughout the OC. I view the D&D alignment system as flawed and unable to accurately represent everyone all the time, and in the game it basically boils down to good/evil.

 

Keldorn reacted only to Viconia's words, which made him seem childish to me. It was sad to see a man with so much combat experience fall victim to mere words. Furthermore, he conveniently forgot that my paladin was leading the group, and had shown mercy to Viconia. She in turn was behaving herself out of respect and, I suppose, friendship (tenuous for a drow female); despite what she said, she only did what I commanded. Keldorn could have learned from her. As it was, I edited the game to get rid of that bit of idiocy on his part.

 

As for the orcs, my good-aligned characters always let them die on their own. There was never a question or doubt.

[Jorian Drake]

Here's a situation: Dark Raven has fallen down the stairs and broken her back when Maria and Darque come upon her. Darque says, "DR is in so much pain and it's obvious she's going to die," so Maria lops DR's head off. There are a number of problems here; first off, Darque does not know the future, secondly, and more importantly, Maria did not check with DR to see if DR was fine with having her head chopped off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...Darque is a Seer

 

 

That is based on the assumption that Dark Raven isn't a raping, pillaging, child molesting miscreant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who knows? :D

 

 

 

LOL

:joy:

[kormesios]

I think the problem in with paladins and the orcs is that most people--including the developers--are basing the decision on our real-world moral intuitions. And the fantasy world is superficially similar, so we want to do that, but there are hugely important differences.

 

The blanket claim that paladins should never kill something that has surrendered (or is not an immediate threat) would be fine in our world, There are plenty of options--imprisonment, a local police force, a judiciary system, etc. Once someone is incapacitated, they can be dealt with without killing them. But these options don't exist in the fantasy world, certainly not to be applied to orcs.

 

And since orc behavior is (usually) modeled as a cross between man-eating beasts and sociopathic serial killer behavior--they will kill whenever they want to, and they want to very often--having a "good" person fulfill judge/jury/executioner roles is, IMHO, something similar to what we'd consider a legitimate exercise of force in today's world. Unless you're making a gameworld where there's a non-violent way to render orcs harmless, which is almost never available. (The exception is defeating them and getting them to withdraw, which shows up occasionally.)

 

But personally, whatever I think the good choice would be in a "real" fantasy world, I didn't take the kill them approach in NWN2, and don't do that in almost any game. I play the game for fun, and don't want to do things that make me feel evil, even if it's arguably the right choice.

[Blakmane]

Relativism CAN exist within a DnD like alignment system, if you have a good enough DM. I'd even go so far as to say it is essential.

 

Like this:

An Orc is injured and dying. Player X kills the orc as an act of mercy and relief.

 

Player X is a GOOD player and should recieve good aligment shift

 

or

An orc is injured and dying. Player Z kills the orc because it might divulge information to its fellows if left alive.

 

Player Z is NEUTRAL and should recieve a neutral alignment shift.

 

or

An orc is injured and dying. Player Y kills the orc because they want a trophy to add to their collection.

 

Player Y is EVIL and should recieve an evil alignment shift.

 

Same act, three different reasons, three different alignments. Essentially depending on the 'reasons' you can call almost any act good or evil or lawful or chaotic. Absolute morality in a PnP setting is boring and leaves little room for interesting character expansion. Relative morality is not only more realistic it also gives your PCs more room to develop in their own right and in their own way.

[Zachech]

yeah morality is definitely dependant on WHY you do things, not what you do. if you accept a noble heroic quest to rescue someone, but you do it because you want a reward, fame, etc, and want to ransom whoever you rescue, that would be evil to me.

 

 

in my games i usually run light vs. dark and not good vs. evil. because some "good" acts are dark. the dark side meaning the quick and easy path. such as the jedi fighting the mandolorian war. it was an act of the dark side, but with a noble goal of protecting people.

[jaguars4ever]

yeah morality is definitely dependant on WHY you do things, not what you do.  if you accept a noble heroic quest to rescue someone, but you do it because you want a reward, fame, etc, and want to ransom whoever you rescue, that would be evil to me. 

I'd only say your last example is potentially evil. It's not necessarily evil to expect fame or a reward. Selfish, practical or mercenary-like, yes - but not automatically evil.

[Colrom]

Morality should never depend on why. It only seems to depend on why when the corruption of utility theory is allowed to enter. And utility theory is bankrupt.

 

It is the act of killing that is wrong. Everything else is rationalization - some concotion of the seven deadly sins.

[metadigital]

So, killing evil is evil?

[Colrom]

You cannot kill evil.

 

Evil is the absence of good. Nothing more.

 

It cannot be perfected.

 

Good can be perfected = God.

 

Killing people is wrong.

[Colrom]

Even if you feel that you must kill someone who is attempting to kill you or someone you are responsible for protecting you should not consider the killing a good act and be glad about it. You should be sorry.

 

Sorry for the sermonizing.

 

This is what I believe most times.

[Dark_Raven]

Killing is my business and business is good.

 

Killing is a part of being human and it will always be a part of us. Deep down there's a beast waiting to get out, the "animal" part of us. Depending on your conscience and how developed you are at controlling yourself, you can keep that beast in check. To kill or not to kill.

[kirottu]

You cannot kill evil.

 

Evil is the absence of good. Nothing more.

 

It cannot be perfected.

 

Good can be perfected = God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That doesn

[Dark_Raven]

Killing is human nature whether you just crushed a bug or killed one of your own. :crazy:

[kirottu]

Killing is human nature whether you just crushed a bug or killed one of your own.  :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So I guess you mean that even vegetarians "kill" the plants they eat and so forth.

[213374U]

No.

 

Killing isn

[Tigranes]

Killing is human nature whether you just crushed a bug or killed one of your own. crazy.gif

 

How is that relevant to the question of killing being human nature?

 

That's like saying being crushed by heavy things is human nature, whether by a big rock or by a flying pig launched by a Cambodian intercontinental artillery unit.

 

I'm not sure where you people draw the line between action and nature.