Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:22:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
983 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> > > From an evolutionary point of view, babies are born selfish.. and it is • up
> > > to us to teach them the meaning of wrong and right, and later (hopefully • much
> > > later) the concepts of good and evil.
> > >
> > > In AD&D terms, I submit that babies are born chaotic-neutral ;) (1)
> >
> > I'd say chaotic-good. You need to reevaluate the definition of good.
> > Above you said they are born selfish - thats ~very~ life-affirming (see • the
> > title of the original post to this thread). We decided life affirming was
> > good. If you aren't respecting that, no need to continue along these • lines.
> > We'll just move back, if your still interested.
>
> That might be helpful - I don't understand how a new-born baby with no • concept
> of good and evil, and be called either. In AD&D terminology their alignment • is
> neutral.
Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely
not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did you
prove it exists? Regarding good and evil... Why must you have a concept of
it to achieve one or the other?
> > > Following on, to flourish in society, we have to change the chaotic to
> > > neutral or lawful, but the moral alignment can be anywhere in
> > > evil-neutral-good.
> >
> > Evil is not life affirming. Neither is lawful, if the laws are wrong.
> > To flourish anywhere today, man must be at least neutral (which means what
> > exactly, Richard?) or lawful on the first, and can be any of the 3 on the
> > latter.
>
> Isn't that what I said? :) Anyway - take neutral alignment to mean innately
> self-centered, capable of cooperation if necessary but won't necessarily do • so
> if the benefits aren't good enough. In an AD&D world, a neutral character • or
> NPC won't attack you unless you attack first or if it is starving.
There is no neutral. I have showed you why.
> > On the latter, if he is good he is taken advantage of, neutral (a
> > fabrication of evil) and evil are those taking the advantage. I'd like to
> > eliminate the chances of evil being successful, for some odd reason.
>
> That's a valiant cause, but I disagree that good lets itself get taken
> advantage of. And neutral is equally a fabrication of good - it's a middle
> ground.
Do you believe yourself to be good? Do you pay taxes? I rest my case.
> > Thats what you mean by neutral - a disguised chaotic? Or veiled evil,
> > depending on which scale. Correct?
>
> Nope - neutral is neutral - neither good or evil!
The obvious answer. Prove it.
>
> Evil goes out of its way to cause suffering, and as such isn't terribly
useful.
I pose this. Evil is suffering.
> > > It's easy to confuse law-conforming with innate goodness, as it's usually
> > > only in severe situations where the differences lie. (2)
> >
> > I don't confuse the two. I don't find it easy to confuse the two.
> > Weird, huh?
>
> Yes, especially as you can't tell by just looking.
I know that people have innate goodness. I don't know whether they
conform to laws (most try to conceal it). Not much room for confusion.
> > > Just a thought!
> >
> > Yeah, it wasn't an idea.
>
> Any reason for that comment my friend?
You don't seem to have any? You have nothing original?
> > > (2) Which is probably why D&D only had the 3 prong rating, whereas AD&D
> > > allowed 9, including rogues - those who were innately good but didn't • always
> > > follow the rules. (Chaotic-Good)
> >
> > Thats a baby. Not knowing the rules and not following the rules... • same
> > thing. The baby isn't even capable of not acting in a life affirming way.
> > Thus not capable of being evil, or not good. It knows nothing of rights,
> > but uses its right to free speech. It doesn't realize it has no right to • be
> > fed, but does everything in its power to get food. It knows nothing of • the
> > rights of others, but also is incapable of violating their rights.
>
> Fuzzy agreement, but on the scales that I've introduced that is exactly why • a
> new-born baby is neutral.
>
>
> > It is only good, only life affirming, when it is born.
>
> This is a technicality that I have a problem with - how can it be good when • it
> has no concept of good or evil?
It IS good. It doesn't need to know it. It has not decided to be good,
it was born that way. It was born with instincts, which are wholly life
affirming, thus good. At that point, thats all it knows - its instincts.
It only later learns evil. If it is not surrounded by evil, it would have a
better chance of not becoming evil. Unfortunately, it surrounds
pervasively. Do you still have the problem?
> > 1 - There is no neutral. No middle ground. Either life affirming or not.
> > One or the other. Pick one, and know which you have picked.
>
> So you can be completely for this 'life-affirming' idea, or completely and
> utterly against it... but if you're undecided (me) then I'm already
> life-affirming?
You are already not life affirming, duh. Actually, I can't tell. I
don't know you. I'll say this. Its possible to be good and not know it.
Its also possible to believe you are good and not be. I am equating good to
life affirming, the opposite of evil.
> example to try and explain how someone who followed laws was not • neccessarily
> 'good'.
Well, no kidding. When did you discover that? Didn't I tell you that?
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
