Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Casiella]

Vikarion, I really appreciated your post. However, I would just note that looking at our own faults (through whatever lens, RP or religion or otherwise) need not involve pride. If someone recognizes that their own view will not capture all their flaws but at least tries to recognize the ones they can see, that's a somewhat larger moral self-awareness than much of the world practices.

[Valdezi]

My responses to this thread have been fairly flippant and light-hearted. I guess I should spell out my take on morality.

First and foremost, I'm a skeptic. In this capacity, I subject knowledge to extreme doubt. In my opinion, the greatest evils of our time have been perpretrated by individuals and groups who have been certain, certain about the rightness of their actions. Certainty, for me, is a highly difficult and dangerous epistemological standpoint, and is the jumping-off point for most immoral action.

So, if I doubt all things, how can I have a morality? Firstly, I'm a pluralist - so I consider the possibility that there may be a number of correct answers. Also, I'm a coherentist, so rather than choose a moral absolute and base my standpoint on that, I collect different ideas, ones that cohere with the rest of my worldview. This is how I construct my knowledge.

So those are the basis of how I begin to approach morality.

Then I look at specifics. I would say the moral system which coheres with my worldview is Situation Ethics, which would suggest in any situation, the correct action would be to do the 'most loving' thing. This is consequentially measured. There is obviously more detail than this, but that's a summary.

I'm also a fan of John Rawls' Justice Theory, which I will often bring up in discussion.

This being said, Mammal shares my knowledge of Philosophy and will often bring it up. He selects a moral code based on a similar standpoint that I have and surprise, he generally comes to the same conclusions I would. He would see himself as 'good' despite his understanding of the limitations of that term.

[Bong-cha Jones]

Mammal and I aren't so far apart in real life; Rawls' veil is practically a required fashion accessory

Simon's pretty much me if I were a reincarnating space Zuni given unimaginable wealth and a broad field to exercise agency in.  The big differences are that he's less polite and much less given to introspection than I am, but considering the escapist nature of gaming, that's not surprising.

My one experience with playing a truly, not just psycho for cheap thrills, evil character was pretty unsettling and left my gaming group uncomfortable.  He was just a little too easy to get into character with, and a little too fun.  It's nice to take your demons for a stroll every now and again, but if you're walking with them every day, well, you need to be mindful of the company you keep, you know?  I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that playing good characters is less challenging than playing evil ones.  It shouldn't be, if you're making even a cursory effort to engage him with the world around him.  If you want your character to be a saint, don't use paradise as a setting and you'll find plenty of challenges.

[Valdezi]

^^

Totally agree. Role playing a character who is trying to be moral in an immoral world can be very challenging and fun.

As for polite and impolite characters I have Valdezi who is the direct, witty, name calling side of me. He smack talks pirates in local and makes jokes about their mothers (for the most part). That allows me to play Mammal as the diplomat.

Sometimes I slip, though...

[Elsebeth Rhiannon]

Regarding playing immoral / evil characters... I guess there's a moral ways and an immoral ways to do it.

You can play someone who appears evil with the intent to understand what makes him so, experiment with how he interacts with the world, what the consequences (if any) are, how they might affect him, etc, and enjoy the process.

And you can play someone who appears evil because you want to screw over other players and be a general pain to everyone, and use "but my character is evil" an excuse for you to do so and a cover in case someone starts to suspect you actually are an asshole who enjoys being mean.

And something in between.

[Vlad Cetes]

Vlad's position as a moral character is simple.

Anything that benefits him is "good". Anything else is "bad".
He's quite amoral.

[Aria Jenneth]

The greatest and most pervasive human flaw is pride, and I doubt we possess the inner perspective or the humility to accurately describe our own faults, much less self-analyze those self-shadow-reflections which we create for fun.

Oh, I don't agree at all.

Pride is indeed a widespread fault, and one I possess in abundance. Arrogance comes easily to me. This has been obvious since childhood: I don't need a character to tell me that.

Much of my personality is built on reaction against my own arrogance.

The shadow-reflections we play in games, now, those make subtler points. We can conceive of nothing that is not, in some way, of ourselves. I can talk myself out of a great deal, if I let myself-- I once talked myself out of love (for a month. Thankfully, she waited).

Playing characters in which this tendency runs unchecked allows me to explore the nature and borders of this fault. Probably, there are things that I miss, but what I learn about my own tendencies is frequently of use.

Aria's pride in her abilities is very much mine. The casual cruelty, born of arrogance, with which she sometimes employs them? That, too, is mine, though I had never thought of myself as a person with the capacity to be cruel.

Is it a perfect picture? Of course not. Is it useful? Oh, yes.

If humans were self-correcting in thought or action, we wouldn't need the million moral guidelines that have been created for us or by us through the centuries.

For us, through evolutionary programming; our instinctive morality (and tendency to occasionally breach it) is pretty closely comparable to that of the chimpanzee (the only other species I know of that commits lust murders. "If I can't have you, no one can! EEEE EEEE EEEE!" Whack).

By us, through social programming. Our communities work out systems of rules they think work well and teach those to their children.

Mind you, I plainly do not share your faith, and I also believe that "good" atheists are a dime a dozen (though I'm not an atheist, either). Not morally perfect, but morally the equal of the faithful.

And I am extraordinarily skeptical of the exceptionally ridiculous assumption that we have somehow in the last half-century apprehended a moral clarity that has eluded similar humans for many thousands or years. We may be wise apes, but we are foolish men.

Circumstances influence what is right and what is wrong. That's another belief Aria and I share.

The ancients muddled through as best they could in an ancient time-- and in the process saddled us with a number of social devices that may have been necessary once but are certainly a pain in the rear today (see, e.g., the value of female virginity. To this very day, a sexually experienced man is admired; a woman, derided).

We muddle through as best we can, now, and are probably saddling our descendants with some odious rules in the process. As an example, most people these days are what my futurist housemate calls "deathists"-- people who believe that death is an inherent part of life and that there's something immoral about seeking immortality. The first "uploaded" human, if that ever happens, will have some steep hills to climb.

The rules we write for ourselves as we muddle through are based, as they must be, on our own observations and beliefs about what helps or harms us as a society. And so, we analyze, correctly or not, and hope that we do not misunderstand our situation too badly.

-------

Aria, as a character, is a sort of testing ground for approaches and ideas. Whether she's really "evil" depends on your point of view (as always), but she freely expresses traits that I try to suppress in myself. She's an unapologetic elitist, cheerfully arrogant, casually cruel, and has no qualms at all about being sneaky or underhanded. Her endless front is one of intellectual superiority, although underneath she's something of a coward.

At the same time, she's strongly religious and deeply introspective; she's aware of these faults, and uses this self-awareness to drive her ambition of achieving real wisdom-- which, she'd be the first to admit, she's a long way from reaching.

The thing that pushes her the most towards the "dark" side is the obvious: her conviction that she's no longer human. Even if she's right, in Aria's case this is at least partly an excuse. She conveniently forgets that, even as a human, she was more than a wee bit messed up, and many of the most violent episodes of her life, such as the flash of crimson rage in which she killed her grandfather, have come from emotional places that are far from inhuman.

[Vikarion]

Oh, understand, please, that I'm not saying that there is nothing at all to be gained from examining reflections of ourselves. Certainly, there is something to be said for that. What I meant to express, and in doing so, perhaps went too far, is that we are not wise enough to paint a clear picture of ourselves through this activity.

If I may be blunt, I think the experience of interacting with other human beings is a much more reliable indicator of our faults then any other occupation from which we might derive measurement of such. Whatever moral code one subscribes to, it is difficult to have an objective self-examination, largely because one of our general faults is an inability to objectively perceive ourselves (perhaps not always a fault, at that). It is no accident that those who would harm others usually perceive themselves and separate and above them, and that those who compose vicious and destructive ideologies tend to have contempt for those upon whom they visit their visions of ideal societies. The pride which causes us to take offense at the criticism of another is a prologue to the pride that allows us to see ourselves as set apart and above from the common sea of humanity, and as such qualified to decide their fates.

As to instinctual morality, I find this notion intriguing largely because I seem to have little of it. My morals are, I must confess, completely inculcated from instruction - my innate urge is a strictly amoral willingness to accomplish whatever I desire regardless as to the effects on others (unless they might retaliate, of course). Until recently, I assumed that this was the case for everyone, but the rather vociferous protestations of those to whom I explained this perspective create some doubt. Still, the ease with which men and women on the whole slaughter others without any other evidence of abnormality leads one to expect that, if we are descended from apes, we give the family a bad name. Social programming, as insidious as the name sounds, is largely Bob telling his kid not to pound Big Bert's kid so that Big Bert doesn't decide to remove both Bob and progeny from the gene pool. Fear, often in various forms of mutually assured destruction, is the primary civilizing force of man, and the fear of retaliation, removed from man, invariably produces by its lack monsters from within him.

As such, I find the notion of a "good" anyone rather suspect. To me, a "good" atheist is merely a person smart enough to understand that the police usually get their man, but too dumb, indifferent, or lazy to find loopholes in the law. This is not necessarily a slur at all - many an industrious and well-meaning person has managed to do more damage to other humans in a few weeks than the average person manages in a lifetime. Fear diligent evil.

[Aria Jenneth]

Oh, understand, please, that I'm not saying that there is nothing at all to be gained from examining reflections of ourselves.

Thank you for the clarification.

Certainly, there is something to be said for that. What I meant to express, and in doing so, perhaps went too far, is that we are not wise enough to paint a clear picture of ourselves through this activity.

Certainly not every little corner. But broad strokes, or even a few complex nuances, that wouldn't otherwise surface? Certainly.

If I may be blunt, I think the experience of interacting with other human beings is a much more reliable indicator of our faults then any other occupation from which we might derive measurement of such.

Ah, but the experience of interacting with other human beings has lasting ramifications. That, and you don't learn your own outer boundaries that way-- the parts it becomes painful even to contemplate.

Mind you, yes, some of us don't seem to have those. But that's an important insight in and of itself, yes? If you can't trust your instincts at all, reasoning and learned codes are what you have to go on.

The pride which causes us to take offense at the criticism of another is a prologue to the pride that allows us to see ourselves as set apart and above from the common sea of humanity, and as such qualified to decide their fates.

But it is possible-- necessary, in some areas, such as the arts-- to learn to accept and even invite criticism. Self-analysis and self-critique are aspects of gaining understanding.

You say we should not lightly cast aside the wisdom of the past. I agree, but I also believe that our ancestors were no wiser than ourselves, and they clearly understood a great deal about themselves.

Just not everything.

Likewise, we can learn a great deal about our own nature. Just not everything.

As to instinctual morality, I find this notion intriguing largely because I seem to have little of it.

Ah. Let me explain a little of my own experience of this, and you can consider whether this is something you recognize.

These days, it's rare that I have "nightmares." I'm at home with my own imagination; very little in my dreams scares me. The exception is when a dream scenario has me doing harm to my friends or family. When that happens (once or twice a year), I wake up gasping and covered in sweat, literally sick at the very concept of such an action.

I can imagine stabbing my wife to death with a rusty ice pick. Doing so induces a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach-- not like nausea; it's more like falling. Similarly, I have a hard time turning away from people in genuine need; doing so is a wrench, twisting against my own instincts. Physically, it feels a bit like pulling a magnet off a refrigerator (if the magnet's about two inches above my belly button), and I usually feel faintly unwell for a few minutes after.

As such, I find the notion of a "good" anyone rather suspect.

Most people do seem to be, to one degree or another. I'm more worry about those who, by nature, training, or cleverly intellectualizing around their instinctive morals, circumvent that compass.

Fear diligent evil.

Actually, the kind of evil I fear most is decentralized evil. Diligent evil is apt to get itself caught; decentralized evil is the kind of vicious bastardy that cannot be traced back to any one person, and it's much, much harder to stop.

Unethical corporate decisions nobody takes responsibility for but everybody goes along with because they all want to be "team players." That's decentralized evil, and it's currently rampant. I somewhat doubt Nike's board of directors gets together and discusses how best to ensure that their shoes are constructed in sweatshops. Probably, they just discuss how to keep prices low....

[Saede Riordan]

\
The thing that pushes her the most towards the "dark" side is the obvious: her conviction that she's no longer human. Even if she's right, in Aria's case this is at least partly an excuse. She conveniently forgets that, even as a human, she was more than a wee bit messed up, and many of the most violent episodes of her life, such as the flash of crimson rage in which she killed her grandfather, have come from emotional places that are far from inhuman.

This is something Nikita does as well, she claims she's not human anymore, she stopped being human long ago, or even she completely forfeited the right to be human, she sees herself as a monster, a weapon, a Goddess of Death. Because if she admitted to being human, then the actions would be her fault, instead of just being her nature, something she think's she's accepted this, but on some unconscious level, really hasn't, and of course all the violent, sadistic, sociopathic tendencies she had before becoming a capsuleer have convienently faded into the background of her mind.

Can she be redeemed from this? It would take a lot of time, energy, and considerable risk to life and limb. She's taken on the attitude that she's a tool, a tool of celestial destruction to be wielded by the cartel at will. She'll serve her purpose to them in the best of her ability, and when they're done with her, if there is any justice in the universe, she'll end up facing a slow painful death. If there's no rightness in the world, then she'll just keep going, butchering and slaughtering her way across space, because "thats how she is, thats how things are, and thats how they'll be till someone figures how to put her down for good." Thats really where she sees herself, as something, almost less then human.
Its an interesting perspective I think.

[Aria Jenneth]

Nikita:

Yeah, that's a pattern that works exceedingly well-- and seems to fit in particularly neatly with the capsuleer's place in the scheme of things.



Something I should amend:

I indicated, earlier, a belief that most people are, to one degree or another, "good." That's not quite accurate; it would be closer to my view to say that people are largely people-- that is, they have brains capable of getting them into all sorts of trouble, but usually have enough moral compass to try not to do anything actively malign.

Usually.

[Valdezi]

I'm not sure to what extent comments about 'human nature' are useful.

Vikarion's comments seem to me to be suggesting the idea of Psychological Egoism - that people are intrinsically selfish and always act in their own self-interest.

Before I go on, a proviso. I am not specifically critiquing Vikarion here. This is more general.

Anyway, what believers in this idea tend to claim is that even seemingly altruistic actions are motivated, at their core, by self-interest. That the giver gets something out of the act of giving that outweighs the loss of whatever they gave.

This is a fairly unfalsifiable claim, for starters, but it is also overly simplistic, and suggests that people do not have complex motivations.

That being said, I don't know that one can make a good argument that starts with 'People/Human nature is like this...." There's not enough good evidence to back these statements up, and always counter-arguments. If you're going to argue about Morality, these kinds of statements don't really contribute much.

[Ciarente]

There is an ongoing and perhaps unresolvable debate among early childhood development specialists as to whether empathy is learned or innate.  Unsurprisingly, those who believe human nature is intrinsically selfish and to act otherwise is either the outcome of enlightened self-interest or social pressure find evidence for the former; those who argue otherwise find evidence for the latter.

Given how thoroughly we socialize children from infancy, I doubt it's possible to settle the question.

[hellgremlin]

There have been cases of feral children, where young kids were found completely deprived of human contact. Some were raised by dogs, some just managed to survive completely wild. As far as I know, none of those kids turned out to be serial killers.

[Vikarion]

There have been cases of feral children, where young kids were found completely deprived of human contact. Some were raised by dogs, some just managed to survive completely wild. As far as I know, none of those kids turned out to be serial killers.

I wouldn't be surprised: empathy is a survival tool. If you don't kill everything/everyone around you, you are less likely to be eradicated as a threat by others. Personally, I think that such things are a combination of both genetics and learning - everyone possesses the potential to be a killer, but it's easier for some than others.