Grey Morality is superior

[Anonymous No.22998813]

There's this tradcath larp recently that objective morality is the le based but if you look into it, you'll notice the liberal reddit types /pol/acks oppose are moral objectivists themselves. The idea that you must be fully committed to the 'common good' which changes every century. Before it was nation and people, now it's polyracialism and sexual liberation. Let's say there was a war, and amidst this war, soldiers were killing people. The Moral objectivist would see a soldier with a gun shooting an unarmed man, and called the former evil. But what if I told you the "unarmed" man prior to the war owned a newspaper that he used to defame innocent people, promote foreign interests, and sow unrest against a lawful government? The moral objectivist cannot see these finer details. They work on a binary code where there is no complexity. That's why they see an invading nation and think based on that merit alone the defenders are innocent as if violence is the only way to cause harm - a fundamental flaw in moral objectivity. Failing to protect what you love because your morality limits you from doing it, is an evil in of itself. As said, the moral high road is pretty, but you'll have a hard time marching your army down it.

Moral objectivism is what got us where we are. When you think not with pragmatism and calculation like the Grey Moralist, but with emotions and morality like the Moral Objectivist, you misunderstand the fundamentals of the world and dig yourself - and others - into a grave.

[Anonymous No.22998826]

>>22998813
You think that moral objectivists have toddler tier morals like “don’t shoot anyone” instead of “don’t shoot an innocent person” or something more specific than that.

[Anonymous No.22998833]

>>22998813
It's funny that redditors praise Martin as being le based grey moralist but then you see his work and it's pretty clear who's meant to be the bad guys and the good guys. Example: Jon Snow = 100% good. Ramsay Bolton = 100% evil.

[Anonymous No.22998846]

>>22998813
Incoherent fascist rambling.

Just buzzwords and poorly written English. Please try harder.

[Anonymous No.22998851]

>>22998813
>But what if I told you
You're still appealing to an idea of good you presume we share. You changed the situation so what's usually considered good supposedly no longer serves that good. This is still an appeal to goodness as if goodness is a thing.
But you also gave a retarded example, shooting the guy is counterproductive and "evil" even if the victim used to do evil. A system working from this as a precedent doesn't work.
The act is evil, the person isn't, the term "evil person" should be shorthand for "person who consistently does evil acts".

[Anonymous No.22998859]

>>22998813
i don't imagine kings cared much for their nobles doing stuff like that either. treason laws have always been a thing and in the old days you were going against a man chosen by God so that was a faster way to the grave.

[Anonymous No.22998939]

>>22998813
>But what if I told you the "unarmed" man prior to the war owned a newspaper that he used to defame innocent people, promote foreign interests, and sow unrest
Then he's be exercising his right to free speech. The newspaper is his property and he can write whatever he wants in it regardless if the government likes it or not
>against a lawful government?
The specifics here matter but what sort of lawful government kills people for words on a paper?
>The moral objectivist cannot see these finer details. They work on a binary code where there is no complexity. That's why they see an invading nation and think based on that merit alone the defenders are innocent
Complete strawman. A moral objectivist might say an invading nation is in the right if they're invading because of a previous attack by the defending nation.
>as if violence is the only way to cause harm - a fundamental flaw in moral objectivity.
How is it a flaw exactly? I can't think of a way to cause harm that isn't violence and you've provided no examples. But besides that moral objectivists don't all believe that so it can't be something fundamentally wrong with moral objectivity.
>Moral objectivism is what got us where we are. When you think not with pragmatism and calculation like the Grey Moralist, but with emotions and morality like the Moral Objectivist, you misunderstand the fundamentals of the world and dig yourself - and others - into a grave.
How is moral objectivity based on emotion exactly? The entire idea is that morals can be found through logical deduction.

[Anonymous No.22999300]

>>22998813
grey morality is a non-committal cop out.
a indicator of muddled will

[Anonymous No.22999303]

>>22998846
>fascist
is a buzzword.
say goyish next time

[Anonymous No.23000088]

GRRM writes grey characters not grey morality, I'm tired of this midwit retarded fucking meme
There are definetly good deeds and evil deeds in his works, the nuance comes from the internal conflict of the character
Jaime pushing Bran is absolutely and unambiguously evil, at no point does Martin ever imply that attempting to kill a child is a grey deed.
What is grey is the internal conflict that leads Jaime to commit such a heinous act, that makes us think "would I have really done things differently in his place?"

[Anonymous No.23000100]

>>22998813
The concepts of “right” and “wrong” should indeed exist but not for anything other than oppressive reasons.

[Anonymous No.23000105]

>>22998813
Every black morality perceives itself as grey

[Anonymous No.23000167]

Failing to protect what you love because your morality limits you from doing it, is an evil in of itself.

[Anonymous No.23000175]

>>23000167
What is simultaneously worth living and protecting

[Anonymous No.23000179]

>>23000175
loving*

[Anonymous No.23000265]

test

[Anonymous No.23000302]

>>22998813
I would argue the polar opposite, that a Grey moral framework and not enough srs commitment to principles is exactly what got us here.
You think the world runs on objective morality? U srs?
You think when major corpos and heads of state sit down to game out the next war for resources and decide that xyz number of innocent casualties is necessary and acceptable bc we need lithium; you think that's the result of a binary, objective morality?
The entire world is endless compromising on Good and Evil anon. Wtf ru talking about.

[Anonymous No.23000319]

Martin just writes really compelling assholes, such as Clegane Jr., Jorah, Tyrion, Tywin, etc. None of them are morally ambiguous, they're all pretty awful people but they sure make for an entertaining read.

[Anonymous No.23001248]

>>22998833
He could still degrade Jon yet, but at this point it’s up to Sanderson, AI, and fanfic authors (all things he hates) to finish his legacy.

[Anonymous No.23001252]

>>23001248
Sanderson won’t be involved. Stop repeating that.

[Anonymous No.23002595]

Objective morality is a cope, if I think the only thing that matters is saving lion's lives while not giving a shit about human beings that is every bit as "good" as, whatever these people think is objectively good, worshipping God or being nice to other human beings.

[Anonymous No.23002606]

>>23001252
Sanderson is inevitable