[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.19512445 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How do you best go about meticulously destroying and disproving everything and anything a so-called 'Good aligned' (moralfag I call them) character believes and does? I understand these characters are objectively shallow and infantile and thus intellectually and philosophically obliterating them should be a simple task, but what is the best way to do so without seeming pretentious?
Pic very related.

Is it possible? Doesn't seem like it.

>> No.19512496


>> No.19512512

just rip most of it from A Song of Ice and Fire

You sound like a cunt though

>> No.19512522

I remember 8th grade

>> No.19512528

Poor child. Who has hurt you so?

>> No.19512536


Take a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and shove it up your ass.

>> No.19512537

Have some brownies, OP.

Tell us why you feel this way, don't you have any friends?

>> No.19512541

I'm sorry, OP, you seem to have misaimed your post. The KOTOR 2 circlejerk is one thread up.

>> No.19512545

Typical KOTOR 2 faggot.

>> No.19512547


Okay guys, let's not get carried away. OP is obviously hurt and angry, I don't think this will help them.

They obviously have something they need to get off their chest so let's hear it.

>> No.19512600

Too deep for you?

>> No.19512613

You should read the Great Gatsby, OP.

Or One Flew over The Cuckoo's Nest, To Kill a Mockingbird.

>> No.19512616


>> No.19512636

True. We should hear more from OP so that we may learn from them.

The urge to destroy good is a common one. How many "Will this make a paladin fall?" and "How do I make a paladin fall?" or "HURR! DURR! PALADINS!" threads have we seen without getting to the root of the problem?

>> No.19512645

Most people who are "good", enjoy doing nice things for people because it gives them a self of fulfillment by doing so. In this way they come to empathize with others, and generally want people to be happy and grow into self-actualized people.

Jaded people either choose not to see nice things happening, or believe that when someone does something nice, it is for selfish motives. I don't think they believe self-actualization is a real thing that happens, or perhaps they think they've attained or gone past it. I dunno, I'm just speculating here.

You cannot prove or disprove a belief - that's why it's a belief. It's an irrational opinion that cannot be proven (or disproven) by definition.
So you would have to show that person how their 'good' actions that they perceive as being beneficial to others (thus gaining their feeling of fulfillment) actually harms them.

OP's picture is the only real example I can think of of someone actually pulling this off successfully.

But why bother in the first place?

>> No.19512647

Saying "George Lucas' moral absolutism is dumb" is not deep. Next you'll be telling us you're philosophically advanced because you disagree with D&D's moral absolutism.

>> No.19512654


There's no deeper reason to it, take it from me, on /v/ the ONLY reason KOTOR 2 faggots run this shit into the ground is because they honestly believe it's deep and intellectually stimulating to complain about morality.

>> No.19512667

Actually, they think its deep because they were stimulated intellectually by having the morality carpet pulled out from under them by the Kreia character.

It's pretty sad actually.

>> No.19512692

Stop dressing up common psychological issues as legitimate philosophy. "You cannot prove or disprove a belief "? Really? Fucking obnoxious.


>> No.19512702

>OP's picture is the only real example I can think of of someone actually pulling this off successfully.

Not even then, she was actually just as blinded by her own insecurities and ambition as anybody else.

KOTOR 2 is basically one giant insult to Star Wars and its fans delivered stealthily because Lucasarts foolishly contracted a guy who fucking hates the series to do the writing.

>> No.19512704

but she was his self-admitted mouthpiece into why he hated Star Wars

>> No.19512721

Really? The urge to make paladins fall is just adolescent rage and naivete?


>> No.19512764

Its what the bad guy does. If you want to do it IRL, you are a bad guy. There is no profound philosophy or deeper meaning here. Something has enraged you for some reason and you feel that entitles you to destroy it. That does not make you cool, or individualistic, it makes you a common villain. Go rebel against your dad in some other way. Cutting will get back at him for not letting you borrow the car.

>> No.19512773

so you want to be pretentious toward a person but want to be able to weasel your way out of any accusations of in fact being pretentious?
and of course a lawful good character would be easy to rip apart; no human being actually knows how to be lawful good, we rely on tropes, cliches and our own personal (and flawed) opinions on how one would realistically act.
rather than trying to feel smug for disproving santa claus, why don't you play with players who only make cn chars so they can copy/paste their real personalities and whims on an invention rather than attempt to be creative. i think in the end, we would all be happier that way.

>> No.19512776

Yeah, but that doesn't make it any less of a troll. A well-executed troll, don't get me wrong, but a troll all the same.

>> No.19512777

>unable to disprove a belief

Tooth Fairy. Santa Claus.

>> No.19512781


>give bum a credit
>he gets mugged literally right afterwards
>lol look what you did moralfag
>so deep

>> No.19512787

Not that kind of belief.

>> No.19512796


>not that kind of belief

Ungrounded belief is ungrounded belief.

There is no difference between historical religions, new age esoterics and supesitions.

>> No.19512799

Say what you fucking mean. Words have meaning. Use the ones that accurately describe your shit. This reminds me of Dworkin talking about how "INCEST IS AWESOME WE SHOULD ALL BE INCESTUOUS" and getting butthurt that people thought she meant "lets all fuck our mothers."

>> No.19512800

There is however a difference between a religious/superstitious/etc. belief and having an opinion on something.

>> No.19512807

>retards try to understand philosophy


Every fucking time. Some randomfag tripping high on Dunning-Kruger effect after reading a single philosophy book or article on wikipedia thinks he is the greatest philosopher to ever live.

>> No.19512808

I'm not the guy who posted that, actually, just someone who gets what he was trying to say rather than autistically harping on the words used. Get off 4chan and go mumble something to the cashier at McDonalds.

>> No.19512819

You're still not saying what you mean. Now you're not even saying anything, you're obliquely referring to something else, which is great for a coward who is terrified if they say what they mean people will point out its wrong.

Since you're so fucking smart, tell us all what the retard was too retarded to say for himself, instead of claiming you understand its divine mysteries, but are holding them to your chest, as an excuse to mock others.

>> No.19512830


>autistically harping on the words used.

EVERY fucking word has a defined meaning, ESPECIALLY in philosophy. You cant just throw concepts and words around and then backpedal when then didnt mean what you think it means. Everything in philosophy MUST follow rigid logic and employ axioms somewhere down the line, or its not philosophy just some retards thowing words around they have read on wikipedia.

>> No.19512831

Is it possible for me to have enjoyed KOTOR2 and Kreia's character due to its alternate view of Star War's morality system while at the same time being a complete sane individual who understands that people can be good and why they can be good?

>> No.19512837

Yes, so long as you understand the game was insulting those people.

>> No.19512839


You want philosophy? Define "good".

>> No.19512840

>Since you're so *mumble mumble* tell us *mumble mumble mumble* chest *mumble*

Get a load of this aspie faggot, seriously. Is it really so hard to grasp that he was referring to personal opinions and not superstitions, and that people tend to clamp down on that sort of shit and not want to let it go?

>> No.19512846

I did, and I'm currently arguing with a "hurrdurr everyone is evil" faggot on the KotOR II thread.
Probably the same guy as OP actually.

>> No.19512847

Speak up, I couldn't hear your mumbling.

>> No.19512855


>he was referring to personal opinions


Dont start talking about philosophy if you dont understand shit.

>> No.19512857

I doubt the game was that deep and that cynical in its message. Perhaps the character of Kreia was but she wasn't omnipotent. She was flawed just like so many other character despite her beliefs and ultimately, she died for it.

>> No.19512861

See your credibility? Doooown the drain it goes.

Say it without resorting to ad hominems or don't say anything at all. Kay? Kay.

>> No.19512866

>but she wasn't omnipotent

She was though.
She was Chris Avellone's self insert to bitch about Star Wars.
No different than somebody making an 'original' 40K character who complains about how silly all this fighting is.

>> No.19512868


>talks about philosophy "objectively"

>proven wrong

>waaaaah opinions!!

>> No.19512876


Dan Abnett

>> No.19512877

Hello there.

>> No.19512878

Of course. Kreia was a critic of Lucas' simplistic moral absolutism. Let's not be black and white about liking or disliking the game. The issue is that some people (see: Lucas, children) are so cartoonishly simplistic they see Star Wars as legitimate philosophy, either via embrace (absolutism) or rejection (nihilism).

You full-on mad bro.

>> No.19512883

Abnett and a few other writers create characters that you could maybe call good guys or heroic but none of them really exist to point out why 40K is shit setting.

>> No.19512887

In my personal opinion, goodness is the desire to change the lives of those around you for the better. It's the pack instinct, the group phenomenon. Helping another person in the tribe makes the tribe stronger. A group where everyone works together harmoniously and where everyone assists the needy is the epitome of good. This has changed with the coming of civilisation but not that much. You can easily think of the entire world and its inhabitants as a tribe in this context and there is nothing wrong with trying to help each other when the other is in need in an attempt to make the world a better place.

>> No.19512888


>are so cartoonishly simplistic they see Star Wars as legitimate philosophy

Because its a space opera, not a detailed philosophical work.

>embrace (absolutism) or rejection (nihilism).

Do you even know what those words mean?

>> No.19512904

Even D&D disagrees with D&D's moral absolutism. That's why Detect Evil etc. were removed in 4e, along with most other cosmic personifications of Good and Evil.

>> No.19512905


>personal opinion

Set the axiom by original "research", just asspulled opinion or you base it on something?

So, "good" by your definition is tribalism. A tribe genociding a neighboring tribe, raping their women and taking the children as slaves is good? Its better for the tribe and helps out every member.

"A group where everyone works together harmoniously"

Someone disagreeing with the group is automatically evil?

>> No.19512908

What do you mean by "good"? Do you mean the traditional fantasy "smite the evildoers" philosophy, or an actual reasoned ethos in the style of Kant or Singer? Cause if you try to "destroy and disprove" say preference utilitarianism in the context of a role playing game that would just be pure comedy.

>> No.19512910



Western society is evil!!!

>> No.19512913

Moralfags - officially told

>> No.19512916

Samefag - officially detected.

>> No.19512918

>Because its a space opera, not a detailed philosophical work.
Some people take it seriously. That is who I was talking about. I am free to criticize the morality system of Star Wars because it is too unrealistic for use in a campaign setting, but that isn't what I was doing. I was criticizing people so intellectually undeveloped they see Star Wars morality as believable, as well as those who are similarly undeveloped who see all morality as unbelievable and criticize Star Wars from that posture.

>> No.19512923


I`m a moralfag bro, I was just asking for a definition of "good"

Its the second most overused word after "evil" in philosophical context.

>> No.19512928

reactance - defined

>> No.19512929


>Having morals or being subject to morality in any way, shape or form.

>Following some non-written rules you were taught as a kid, following society's will intead of yours

>Being a slave, "hurr i habe 2 feels bad if i do dis i was tol its wrongz"

>Implying Altruism isn't the cancer of the century

>in before durr hurr hurr edgy

Get a load of this plebeian.

>> No.19512934

> too unrealistic for use in a campaign setting,

>> No.19512945

>>19512645 here,


You're right, words mean things. Here's what the word 'belief' means:
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

In this case I was referring to a combination of 2 and 4.

But hey, that wasn't even my motherfucking point. You actually decided to ignore everything else in my post and just pick on that one little semantic argument like some kind of aspie. And you were still wrong.

My ACTUAL point was that convincing someone to do a complete 180 on their own morality is possible (but unfeasible), and a way to maybe-possibly do it for real based on an example I happen to know of in KOTOR2.

I wasn't trying to pull some philosophical 101 bullshit. I don't give enough of a fuck to do that.

>> No.19512946


Ayn Rand, what are you doing on /tg/ you are dead!

>> No.19512947

Kreia was seriously one of the best "villains" ever. I love how it turns out the other villains, the main villains up until a certain point, in and of themselves pretty deep and nuanced characters, are really only struts or supports for the true villain's motives. Avellone can fucking write. The whole concept of the Force weakening its adherents and the Light/Dark dichotomy being arbitrary was great too. What a shitty setting otherwise.

Arcanum had great writing in this regard too.

As for the thread topic, the is-ought problem. No one has bridged it yet. If the onus of proof is on a claimant to support a moral or ethical viewpoint, then simply ask them to explain why one should adhere to their code or guidelines.

There's some nice meta-ethical philosophy floating around and personally I have hope for virtue ethics, neo-Aristotelian or otherwise, particularly in light of Nietzsche's master morality. But it's all very formative, so you can basically say "prove it fgt lol" and paralyze any discourse.

>> No.19512956

Stopped listening right there.
I love how you pubescent retards think you're SOOOO SUPERIOR for your "lol I can do whatever I want because society is a construct" shit. You are all pic related, have fun murdering whores just to get a boner all while a crippled dwarf could slap your shit.
Oh look, this post again: >>19512851

>> No.19512958

I'd seriously like for someone to do an analysis of the Star Wars Jedi/Sith from a Nietzchean perspective. I mean, to Nietche they would both seem seriously unhealthy - the Jedi are basically ascetics who deny feelings that they know they have, just because they know the absolute opposite is bad; and the Sith are all ambition with no control.

>> No.19512970

If someone disagrees with the group, they are relatively "bad", not relatively "evil". Don't mix them up. Also, read Nietzche.

>> No.19512972


The EU had an entire storyarc where they struggled to decipher the moral nature of the Force. As the other poster said, its a space opera, period. It was not written to have an accurate moral system, or if it was, it was written by an idiot. If you want to insist that even a broken morality system like D&D is "playable," go ahead, but its not realistic and not useful for adding any moral element to the story.

>> No.19512974


>semantic argument like some kind of aspie.

Words have a defined meaning. You cant go "but I meant X" when you said Y.

This is the biggest reason I hate discussing philosophy, people invent their own meanings for established words and concepts and they absolutely reject to even consider to being wrong, because its so connected to their opinions and their opinion is so close to their personality in philo 101 they take it as a personal insult when you ask them to clarify what do they mean when they say X.

If you cant admit being wrong, you arent discussing or arguing, you are shouting.

>> No.19512976

So we start a thread with a butthurt Anon asking how to screw with the pally, and we end up debating Starwars philosophical absolutism and insisting everyone else is autistic. I love you fa/tg/uys. No sarcasm.

>> No.19512981

>As for the thread topic, the is-ought problem. No one has bridged it yet. If the onus of proof is on a claimant to support a moral or ethical viewpoint, then simply ask them to explain why one should adhere to their code or guidelines.

>There's some nice meta-ethical philosophy floating around and personally I have hope for virtue ethics, neo-Aristotelian or otherwise, particularly in light of Nietzsche's master morality. But it's all very formative, so you can basically say "prove it fgt lol" and paralyze any discourse.

Could you repeat this without any of the pretentious pseudo-intellectualism? I assume you're >>19512929 ?

>> No.19512982

Well OP, if you have the time to read it, the Sword of Truth is an ideal source of quotes and arguements.

Smug, logically inconsistent arguements, but arguments nonetheless.

>> No.19512988

Naw, this is just the faggot from the other KotOR thread trying to pull more people in after only one guy stuck around to argue with him there. Hell, he even posted the exact same thing in both threads.

>> No.19512990

It's a personal opinion based in zero philosophy. It's just how I feel.

I already express that in this world, the definition of the tribe has changed to encompass villages, towns, cities, counties, countries, religions and at this point, the entire world. If anyone commits a crime against another member of the tribe then yes, punishment is necessary because they are harming a valuable contributor and these individuals need to be protected for the good of the tribe.

It's simple and childish but I'll say it now. If there's a chance in your life that you will help others whether it's by actively doing so or even just paying your taxes, I will try to help you when you need help. I will try to offer you a hand when you're in a hole. I will try to offer you health and companionship when you have none and I will try to do everything in my power to make your life comfortable, enjoyable and peaceful so that in turn, you may help someone else at some point in your life. Even if you're not aware that you're doing it.

>> No.19512997


The SW EU was written by dozens of people with contradicting opinions. Philosophy was not even on their mind when writing it. They are just fucking sci-fi writers.


>sociecty is a construct!!

>implying they didnt already interiorize the norms

I`m majoring in sociology and you couldnt believe the amount of faggots I see who think they are some kind of pixie free spirit freethinkers despite just learning they arent and the constructs are so integral parts of their life they dont even notice it. I guess cognitive dissonance goes a long way.

>> No.19512998

All KOTOR 2 fags basically act like this.

>> No.19513000

But that's not even what happened.

He said X, you said X that X doesn't mean Y. He came back and said, "Yeah, I didn't even mean Y. Here's what X actually means and how I intended to use it."

Are you retarded or just a troll?

>> No.19513004

Baddies more cartoonish than any sith lord in the painfully cartoonish space opera called star wars. You get more subtlety at a Fred Phelps protest. Let's go down the list of books and their antagonists shall we?

1. Hitler
2. Satan
3. Ghenghis Khan
4. Ghenghis Khan
5 Ghenghis Khan
6. Stalin

And then I totally lost patience with the fucking thing.

>> No.19513010


Both sides might benefit more by proving why they are right instead of trying to name call and prove each other wrong.

>> No.19513017


>this point, the entire world.

Dur hur. Thats not how social groups form and behave.

>> No.19513018

So tell us why amorality is the master race path and all the moralfags are subhuman 'plebeians' as you call them.

>> No.19513019

All sides might benefit more by talking about traditional games.

>> No.19513024


I was actually agreeing with there bro.

>> No.19513030

They'll be bleedin',

while you're bleedin',

make you sorry for what you done.

>> No.19513033


There is no such thing as amorality, unless you are sociopathic. And no, I dont mean "mean guy" sociopathy but pathological sociopathy.

EVERYONE has norms they obey, even if they dont realize it.

>> No.19513036

>Both sides

There is no 'both sides, there's the OP, who is most likely you, and the rest of us calling him, ie: you, a huge faggot for spewing this ill-defined, poorly reasoned out hamfisted garbage about why a bloo bloo morals are a lie!

>> No.19513040

>jusut sci-fi writers
Often deeply philosophical. Specifically I was referring to that arc where they were teaching force powers that were considered "dark" at the Academy. Some jedi were arguing the dark side was not an alien entity that could possess you, but was within you, and could be controlled. Then there were the "gray jedi," both the classification as well as the jedi who helped prop up the galactic empire. These are all examples of writers trying to make a believable world out of the derp they were handed by Lucas. Same with Kreia.

>> No.19513041


Violently discussing philosophy and calling eachothers barbarians and sodomites its a traditional game since ancient greece, bro.

>> No.19513053

I've always seen "good" closer to MIll's utilitarianism. Closer to whats in some sects of Christianity and the current direction the Mormon church seems to be heading. Where "good" is defined as the action or actions that will bring about the most happiness taking all factors into account, with some stipulations.

This, this is rather close to what I'm talking about above

Yes some people do take it seriously. But you know what? I don't see that as entirely bad. Sure it's unreasonable, but at least people can believe that something is good rather than the nihilistic view I see as being more previlant.

Oh and really? Star Wars moral system is unusable for a campaign? You think that a moral system that worked fine for some of the greatest, most globally unifying movies ever made, is unusable for your small fantasy setting? I don't think you understand how ropleplaying or fantasy works.

>> No.19513058


And then, the other writer went and depicted the Sith as Hitler burning orphanges while mashing cheetos into sourcebooks.

>> No.19513066

Well, I'm not seeing enough people dying for their views, so you guys are clearly playing wrong.

>> No.19513069

>Star Wars
> too unrealistic for use in a campaign setting

>D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, 40K, are completely realistic and acceptable for a campaign setting

>> No.19513079

>D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, 40K, are completely realistic and acceptable for a campaign setting
>for a campaign setting
Yes, that's why that clarification was there.

>> No.19513082

Perhaps, perhaps not. Nonetheless, individuals go to places on the other side of the world to offer charity and assistance to people they'll never meet. Even the idea of universal human rights look as the entirety of humanity as one group, one tribe.

I'm not bothering with the philosophy of this. I'm simply saying that in the eyes of some people, everyone's a part of the same group and it's their responsibility to help those who can contribute to the group. So, they help whoever they can whenever they can, probably making a few mistakes along the way. No one's perfect after all and this world will never be. We can try to get it as close as we can though.

>> No.19513094

>Star Wars moral system is unusable for a campaign?
Yes exactly. I've played the games and the morality systems are laughable.

>You think that a moral system that worked fine for some of the greatest, most globally unifying movies ever made
Fallacious appeal to popularity. Dream logic and moral absolutism are highly popular, and entirely nonfunctional.

>I don't think you understand how ropleplaying or fantasy works.
Murderhobo sims don't need a functional morality system. Storytelling does.

>> No.19513097


Yeah, well I`m a sociologist and philosophy will be always based on social interaction and normative approach for me, not some solipsist thought experiments trying to define morality based on logic alone, because you cant rationally define "good". Its like trying to square the circle, people will always be irrational and hold different norms whats approporiate for their social group and what isnt.

For example you could be the most virtuous roman senator building orphanges and talking about spreading Pax Romana while having mistreated slaves, and contemporary society would regard you as the paragon of virtue and good.

>> No.19513106

I'd say you're right.

>> No.19513113


Different cultures, different people, different ethics. Humanity as a whole has done everything you can imagine. And felt fine with it as well. Cannibalism, rape, murder, genocide. All these things and more, things you and your simplistic child like black and white view of the world decree as unethical and immoral, have been, and currently, and will continue to be viewed as perfectly fine by various cultures, groups, and individuals.

Humanity is a kaleidoscope of gray, and refuses to be classified by your binary rule set.

>> No.19513119

And now OP is trolling a thread about running a Kamen Rider inspired campaign with Legend.

>> No.19513122


happens all the time on /v/, Kamen Rider is like the KOTOR2 fag's personal anti-christ

>> No.19513131


Its a little known fact that Kamen Rider is written by a reincarnated Rousseau.

>> No.19513133

I already pointed out D&D's morality system was broken. I'm not familiar enough with the other systems you mentioned to condemn their morality system's use for storytelling. However my impression from the threads is they can't be taken seriously. Rogue Trader in particular I find obnoxious wish fulfillment for kids mad at their parents: "Y'know how today sucks? And there are all these rich billionaires flying around, doing whatever they want, and ruining the world for everyone else? Let's play pretend like we're one of them! Yay!"

>> No.19513138

Well maybe we can drive him out like this:
Tsuppashire Sora wo tobe
Burakku Satan wo taosu made
Mamoru zo Heiwa wo Nippon no
Katto moeru ze Seigi no kokoro
Miyo! Hissatsu Den-Shokku!
Otoko no inochi wo kakete yuku
Sono na wa Sono na wa
Kamen Raidaa Sutorongaa!

Tsuppashire Nami kette
Burakku Satan no aru tokoro
Watasu ka Chikyuu wo aku no te ni
Katto moeru ze Seigi no kokoro
Miyo! Kouatsu Den-Panchi!
Otoko no inochi wo kakete yuku
Sono na wa Sono na wa
Kamen Raidaa Sutorongaa!

>> No.19513143

>should be easy
>asking the internet how to
I hope you someday realize what a huge faggot you are.

>> No.19513149

If they want to try and be a part of the greater world then they will need to rise past that. We'll never be perfect. Cannibalism, rape, murder, genocide. They'll continue to exist but we can try to eradicate them from our society and stop those who would try to force them on us, for the greater good of everyone who wants to live in our society.

>> No.19513151


>implying you dont like you are a rich hedonistic fag sometimes

>implying you arent a rich hedonistic fag compared to several billion people

>implying roleplaying games are not for wish fulfillment to a degree

>> No.19513152

>Rogue Trader in particular I find obnoxious wish fulfillment for kids mad at their parents

Do you literally hate everything?
RT is nothing more than high adventurer in the grimdark 40K setting, why do you find this so offensive?
Are you the OP?

>> No.19513156

Actually doing the research reveals those cultures you're talking about all believe everything you listed to be wrong. A common theme is that desperation pushes an individual or a group to violate their code, but "society's rules" and "ethics" are two different things.

>> No.19513173


>If they want to try and be a part of the greater world then they will need to rise past that

And who are you to define whats a "greater world"? For many, the greater world would be GroƟdeuchland, world communism or a muslim world.

"We'll never be perfect. Cannibalism, rape, murder, genocide. They'll continue to exist but we can try to eradicate them from our society"

And who are you to shit on the norms of billion people and tell them how they should live? Where is self-determination?

"stop those who would try to force them on us, for the greater good of everyone who wants to live in our society."

Says the one who wants to force his onw pipe dreams of society onto others.

>> No.19513178

I haven't read the core book. It just looked interesting, so I read the threads. And oh my god. I thought you people could not shock me with your depravity. I was wrong.

I am not a "rich hedonistic fag." And I don't have it in me to wish to be a murderhobo. False equivalency.

>> No.19513193

For someone rallying so passionately against 'moralfags' you sure remind me of some easily offended Christian grandma.

'Ohhh the depraaaaaaaavity! Youuuu sicken meeeeeh!"

>> No.19513195


>stop those who would try to force them on us, for the greater good of everyone who wants to live in our society.

Having a computer? Meals three times a day? Having access to clean drinking water?

I`m sorry but you are a rich hedonistic fag to nearly three billion people.

>> No.19513203


Depravity depends on context too.

>> No.19513211

There are basically two ways to interpret this statement- you're either arguing for the relativist view that right and wrong is real but dependent on "culture", or for the nihilist view that morality itself is meaningless. The former case is a considered a joke among philosophers (as it can be so easily demonstrated that it collapses into nihilism) and the latter is utterly uninteresting. Human beings have an evolved instinct to act morally. If you don't have that instinct, you are mentally ill. You can argue about whether ethics has some sort of objective reality, but if you want to say "everyone should just do what they want!" 99% of people will just roll their eyes and ignore you. People don't work that way.

>> No.19513218

I'm sorry but I'm not the world leader, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I'm simply someone saying what I believe. If you consider it childish, so be it. It would change the fact that I'll try to help those who I can help, make the lives of those around me happier, try to avoid harming others when I can and that I'll try to be what I consider to be 'good' throughout my life.

>> No.19513225

>And who are you to shit on the norms of billion people and tell them how they should live? Where is self-determination?
Let's talk about Syria.

1. Indiscriminate murder is not anybody's "norm."
2. Telling murderers to stop killing people is axiomatically justified.
3. I am not interested in the self-determinism of murderers, but of their victims.

The really shocking thing about 21st century philosophy is that it is completely rhetoric-based. Hence it is utterly useless. The subtleties of argument will never match the subtleties of nature. Originally philosophy was considered to be both, but no more. Hence this nonsensical moral relativism that gets posted that is totally inapplicable to any scenario. Its a morality more broken than the derp in D&D and Star Wars.

>> No.19513231


>Human beings have an evolved instinct to act morally

Yeah, and that morality is always relative to the group. Not even to the whole society, but just to that group.

People dont like moral relativity the same reason they dont like atheism. The creeping uncertainity, the burden of knowledge, the feeling that you must take the reins yourself.

Its much easier to get your norms wholesale from God(s) and society and not think about it. To merge in and be the part of the herd. To not dwell on things above you, because in the end they wont really affect your life.

I dont mean this derogatively.

>> No.19513236

I have not used the term "moralfags." I have mocked people for moral absolutism of the type seen in D&D and Star Wars. Since I am not using a trip, why do you assume I'm OP?

>> No.19513241


So, your definition of "good" basically rejects free will and people should think and act like you do for the "greater good of society?

>> No.19513245

You clearly agree with the OP's sentiments, why bother deny it?

>> No.19513251

"Basic needs met" is not "rich," and no, I don't have even that. Stop projecting, bourgeois scum. I do not had it as good as you. The !Kung hunter-gatherers have it better, but then their 20-hour workweek and lack of violent crime and cancer means they have it better than most.

>> No.19513264

I want /v/ to leave

>> No.19513278

I used the word "depravity" in the sense that something within the person was inherently wrong, and that is the source of the awful things they did. In a game where you can do anything, they chose to do horrible things. In the absence of anyone to arrest and prosecute them, they ran amok. It was Not So Very Different from the daily headlines in the business and politics sections of the news.

>> No.19513282

Just goes back to >>19513193
You sound like a fundamentalist Christian mom. Yet you pass judgement on others for having moral values?

>> No.19513284

>Yeah, and that morality is always relative to the group.
False. Cite your source or do an experiment. Shut the fuck up with this endless argument and fucking test it or stop calling it knowledge, call it what it is: Faith.

>> No.19513291


>basic needs

You dont know SHIT about basic needs, western suburban boy.

I use to do mountaineering and survivalist tours for years, and you`d be surprised how much of your city life is superfluous shit. After spending six months of a siberian tour common, everyday shit like microwave, hot water, and cell phones were like luxuries sent from heaven.

And yes, just because you have no context, nothing to compare your sheltered, suburban life exept the well-known rich people of western society it doesnt mean you are not a hedonist.

>The !Kung hunter-gatherers have it better, but then their 20-hour workweek and lack of violent crime and cancer means they have it better than most.


Yeah, dying in dysentery in your twenties, child mortality, lack of vaccination, lack of birth control, not knowing where your next meal will come from and tribal agression sure sounds welcoming. The twenty hour work week is a bold faced lie.

I have been in africa too, dont even try to sell me that "noble savage" bullshit.

>> No.19513292

You have no idea who you're talking to and are just trolling. Perhaps in that gray undefined space between being incredibly stupid and genuinely trolling with intent, but its irrelevant, you're irrelevant, everything you have to say is irrelevant.

>> No.19513294

>Yeah, and that morality is always relative to the group.

And what is a group, exactly? Is it a country? That doesn't seem right, because morals vary widely within a country. Is it a state or province? Still, enormous variation. Maybe a city. But even within a city there are many different subgroups who have different values and don't often interact.

So maybe it's a smaller organization, like a church. But even though churches may try to dictate moral law, there is always room for disagreement. One family may feel minor sins are acceptable. But within a family there can be division. The mother and son may believe one thing, and the father and daughter another.

And of course children and parents never agree on everything, so you have to make that one last distinction. Everyone, under a relativist view, is ultimately justified in doing whatever the hell they want.

At no point in this process can you make a non-arbitrary or even non-absurd line between group and subgroup, all the way from species to individual. Arguing for relativism while denying nihilism is self-contradictory. It's not a rational belief.

>> No.19513297

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>> No.19513301

I don't have to justify my desire to be a good person to you, and your attempts to shove Rand-esque pseudo-philosophical garbage down my throat will simply not work.

Us moralfags are stubborn people.

Also I called Kreia out on being nothing but a cynical old hag when she tried to stop me from being a good guy.

>> No.19513302


The burden of proof is on YOU. Prove me how morality is transcendant and objective through all societies.

>inb4 "but god said it"

>> No.19513303

You seem upset. Where are the meticulous and infallible arguments and retorts the anti-moralist master race is so reputed for?

>> No.19513306

Its indicative of the source of your problem that you call my recent college-level study of the !Kung a "lie" based on something as obviously fallacious as anecdotal evidence. You disagree because you want to disagree, not because you have real evidence. Your whole philosophy is the rejection of real knowledge so you get a license to believe whatever you want to believe. Hence you deny any real knowledge outright. Even trained, experienced police only have a 60% chance of knowing whether someone is lying to their face; parents, 40%. And you imagine, in your delusion, that you can tell me I'm lying about the !Kung? Nigger I had a test on that shit last week.

>> No.19513312

Sure. I hope you don't think there's a problem with helping, entertaining and protecting others around you who live in the same society with the same values?

>> No.19513313

This is not a court of lol. You do not get to play tennis with the burden of proof. You made a claim, you provide evidence. I'm waiting.

>> No.19513318

Here's a retort: You are a faggot who is calling me anti-moralist. Another faggot in the same thread at the same time is calling me a moralfag. You two should go fuck each other. Maybe in the process of literally eating shit you'll fathom just how tenuous the human grasp on knowledge is.

>> No.19513324



You know that morality is just codified societal norms, right? And norms encompass everything from "thou shalt not kill" to "dont ask for sourcebooks with cheetos dust on your hand because it might upset someone"

>Everyone, under a relativist view, is ultimately justified in doing whatever the hell they want.

Lol no, the fuck are you talking? Every single code of law is techically relatvist. It doesnt mean you dont get your ass jailed for breaking them.

>> No.19513327

Temper temper. I thought anti-moralists never stooped to such lowly emotions and retained their intellectual 'eyes-half-closed' breathy voiced composed bearing while effortlessly dispensing the moralist scum's ill-constructed and laughably shallow beliefs.
Has the master race fallen?

>> No.19513329


What tennis? You claimed morals are universal. I`m sure that would be an extremely simple thing to prove... oh wait.

>> No.19513333

Woah sum serus faggotry goin on in heur

>> No.19513335

This strikes me as a false black/white dichotomy. Determinism vs free will and authoritarianism vs libertarianism are not helpful rhetorical games except to expose the black/white dichotomy as a fallacy. This thread looks like Wrestlemania, where the source of every wrestler's grudge against the other is a false black/white dichotomy.

In short, ditch the rhetoric and get practical. Murder should be illegal everywhere, period. A global law of that type does not provoke debate about "free will" or "authoritarianism."

>> No.19513338

You said
>>Yeah, and that morality is always relative to the group.

Evidence please.

>> No.19513347

Read what I am writing faggot. You are calling me one thing while simultaneously some other faggot is calling me the opposite. I have taken neither stance. You're both faggots. Fuck yourselves.

>> No.19513351

If you've never played The Witcher (1, I don't know about 2), then this. Basically, beat the character down with the harshness of reality. Make it more rewarding to be the callous, jaded, scum of the universe than it is to be an example of how we should all hope to act.

Perfect example: you run the players into a town being chased by whatever CR bad guys you want. A couple of innocent civilians are running after you, but the cowardly town guard closes the gate without giving them a chance to get in.

If your players decide to leave them out, allow them to hear their death screams and the sounds of snapping bones and ripping flesh. If your players open the gates back up, the monsters attack the town killing the people that didn't make it and some of the ones who did.

Basically, put them in lose-lose situations where there is no 'right' move, but the moves that punish you less are the ones that a total cockbite would make.

And for the record, I'm a white-knight-IRL-paladin that hated every minute of The Witcher that wasn't showing full frontal nudity.

>> No.19513353


Of couse I`m doing it on purpose. Showing how slippery the slope of morality is by sliding down with a WHEEEEEEEEEE.

>Murder should be illegal everywhere, period.

What kind of murder? Premediated murder? Depends on intent? What about war criminals? What if the criminal in questions deems life sentence harsher? How manslaughter comes into the picture? What about murder under emotional duress? How about pre-emptive murder? How about war?

>> No.19513359

You've taken the stance of being mad as fuck.
You waltzed in here thinking you were hot shit by being lol so neutral morals for squares, and now you're booty-busted nobody put up with your shit.

>> No.19513361

>Every single code of law is techically relatvist. It doesnt mean you dont get your ass jailed for breaking them.
But laws can be immoral or unjust, and everyone knows that. If Congress passed a law mandating that all parents kill their children, no one would consider that the right thing to do.

>Lol no, the fuck are you talking?
I fucking explained it clearly. If you're justified in only following the rules of your "group", the rules you have to follow are dependent on how you define your group. Even if you stupidly force a distinction between a group of two and a group of one, you can still do whatever you want if you're able to convince that one other person.

>> No.19513363


Mind you, those 'lose lose' situations don't tend to work so well when players have real choice, not video game choice. Players are good at third options.

>> No.19513366


Prove your own claim first.

Moral objectivism is about universal truth. Do you have troubles showing me the universal truth?

>> No.19513368

>Not realizing this is a KOTOR2fag trolling
>Not reading the thread

>> No.19513369

Half of that can be answered by repeating "murder is illegal" and the other half is as it usually is up to the discretion of the judge at sentencing.

>> No.19513372

If an obvious troll post sparks a genuine philosophical discussion, has anyone truly been trolled?

>> No.19513375

You are a bad troll. Not just philosophically illiterate, and morally depraved, but bad at the one thing in your life you have left, constructing believably fallacious arguments to annoy people.

>> No.19513377

Yes. The person who posted the troll post.

>> No.19513381

>What if the criminal in questions deems life sentence harsher?

Since when does the CRIMINAL get to decide what happens to him?

>> No.19513382

No. I critiqued your argument. I have made none to critique, though you have attempted pathetically to put words in my mouth. You made a claim; cite a source.

>> No.19513384

> morally depraved

Get a load of this guy

>> No.19513386

There is almost no genuine philosophical discussion in this thread, unless your definition of philosophy is so debased it counts "repeating what your opponent said in a nasal voice" as high wisdom.

>> No.19513387

>Complain that moralists are children or intellectually underdeveloped
>call somebody on fucking 4chan 'morally depraved' because they played Rogue Trader

I don't even.

>> No.19513390


>But laws can be immoral or unjust, and everyone knows that


>I fucking explained it clearly. If you're justified in only following the rules of your "group", the rules you have to follow are dependent on how you define your group.

You are parts of literally hundreds of groups right now. You dont even know or care about many of them or subconsciously follow their norms. Many of groups are not even formally defined.

Your family is a group. Your gaming circle is a group. Your workplace is a group. People living in your town are a group. Do you think you dont follow norms there? Do you think you dont FORM norms subconsciously?

>> No.19513391

That's deep man.

>> No.19513392

Hey, I answered OP's question the best I knew how and skipped the troll sweat. Mission accomplished, I'm heading home.

>> No.19513401

You want to do bad things. You take impish glee in being able to do so in the absence of police to stop you.

>> No.19513404

>> No.19513406

No argument here, but it seems as close as 4chan is ever going to get to a genuine philosophical discussion.

>> No.19513407

>> No.19513409 [DELETED] 

Since you seem to be the second person who doesn't know what that word means and is too much of a douchebag to look it up on Google, refer to my post answering the other douchebag here:

>> No.19513413

>> No.19513415


>put words in my mouth

But moral objectivism IS about the universal truth. I dont put words in your mouth, you already said them without knowing what do they mean.


>Since when does the CRIMINAL get to decide what happens to him?

By NOT murdering a criminal you are sentencing him to something that is relatively harshes to him than murder. I also guess you used "murder" here colloquially here, not as a legal term.

>> No.19513417

>> No.19513420

I like to play good characters because it's fun for me.

>> No.19513422

Oh no you got me, tis true, I be the cruelest scallywag on all the seven seas and the British navy can nary keep up with me, aaaaaargh I be rapin and pillagin this night

>> No.19513423

>> No.19513424


Shit, why did I laugh.

>> No.19513434

I didn't make any argument. You assumed my position and then constructed a strawman. That is a fallacy.

Now we are going to play a game. It is called knowledge. It used to be called philosophy, but then fucks like you decided "I don't need to prove anything, I just wanna argue all day." So its not philosophy anymore. Its knowledge, where you only argue in the absence of evidence because the subtleties of argument will never match the subtleties of nature.

You claimed something was true. Provide evidence or you are full of shit and no one, not even yourself, should take you seriously let alone believe what you claim to "know."

>> No.19513436

...and then the Paladin rushes out of the gate to take the threat head on and buy some precious some time, just so the Villagers have a chance to make it through.

>> No.19513437

>> No.19513439

ITT: people confusing moral relativism with moral nihilism.

Keep humping dem bibles.

>> No.19513442

You don't even make any sense and I believe this thread has in fact lead you towards a total mental breakdown that is occurring right before our eyes.

>> No.19513446

>> No.19513448

This shitfling hasn't risen to the level where that distinction could be made. I tried, but they would rather troll and bullshit.

>> No.19513449

don't judge, my bible and I are in a very caring relationship, and we love one another

>> No.19513452

there is the barest difference between them, nihilism just doesn't bother with the bullshit pretensions of being anything more than it is

>> No.19513454

Hope you're enjoying your doritos /tg/

>> No.19513455


>claims to know and support universal truth

>refuses to prove universal truth

Its like you are disproving yourself on a meta level. And no. You claim something first, you prove it. Especially when its about something universal and immutable.

>> No.19513460

I am actually, those Flamas Flavored ones are quite good.

>> No.19513462


>> No.19513467

Outsider here. Admit neither of you have proof and stop this "no u" shit.

>> No.19513468


>there is the barest difference between them,

The malady you have is called religious and moral fundamentalism.

Lets play a game. You claim you have insight to absolute morality that every human should. Where do they come from? God?

>> No.19513470

Children tend to enjoy moral centric protagonists. It appeals to the moral policeman freshly instilled in their young brain. Older audiences tend to enjoy characters who are reflective of real people, characters who are morally ambiguous or at the very least are logically fleshed out.

Adults who cling to black and white heroes are essentially overgrown children. It is likely they own every silly piece of plastic Kamen Rider has spawned and think the Star Wars movies are good.

>> No.19513477

I did not say that and fuck you for your presumptions, I am in favor of nihilism, but relativism is just a whored-out nihilism being pretentious about how things really are.

>> No.19513478


Have you SEEN Kamen Rider? Kabuto...there is almost no character there I can say was completely good, or quite evil (Save most of the monsters)

>> No.19513481

>Not original cheese

>> No.19513483

So it's "childish" to believe that people are capable of doing good?
Yep, you're OP alright.
I was the guy who argued with you in that first thread, I was the guy who ratted you out in the Kamen Rider thread, and guess what, I am going to be here, calling you out as a faggot and a troll, forever.

>> No.19513485

Not really. Moral relativism as originally stated is merely the observation that social mores are different in different societies at different times. That doesn't imply anything about whether those differences are good or bad or whatever. Its just data.

>> No.19513487

I never claimed anything. I quoted something you said and asked you to show evidence. DO IT FAGGOT.

>> No.19513488

well Kabuto is kind of the point where Kamen Rider took a shit allover itself, in an anniversary series too.

>> No.19513493


>never claimed anything

Okay, admission of trolling, move along.

>> No.19513498


I see absolutely nothing wrong with playing an evil character even though most people would call me lawful good in D&D terms, but when I do play a good character I don't play them like some generic can-do-no-wrong saturday morning cartoon hero, because things simply don't work that way. There's nothing wrong with being a moral person, but like you said, being an overgrown child and not understanding that things aren't black-and-white is pretty stupid.

>> No.19513502

Your point?

>> No.19513504


Thats the point. You simply cannot claim objective, universal morality over thousands of cultures.

>> No.19513505

The post is right up there. There's a neat train of links right up to it. Its not like there's any debate here. I quoted something you said, and asked you to prove it rather than just stomp your foot. Do it.

>> No.19513508

> There's nothing wrong with being a moral person

See >>19512929

>> No.19513510


Quite ironically, most of the wannabee grimdarkians in their teen phases are moral absolutists trying to claim that the shades of gray approach of good and bad heroes are bad and try to claim everything is black.

>> No.19513511


I'll give you a 4/10 for effort, because I'm a generous person.

>> No.19513515

Nice, you couldn't even be bothered to attempt a comeback.

>> No.19513516

Fun thread, but seriously: why do we even need alignments for rpgs?

In the games I run, I only make my players make their alignments obvious if they have some game rule reason to (taking a vow, for example). Other than that, I just let them basically do whatever they want. Alignments turn a serious choice into "should I do good or evil?" which hinders roleplay. Who cares what's good or evil, just do whatever your character would want to do.

Of course, these are just my opinions. When I play in games that still use alignments, I just put down TN and just act however I feel.

>> No.19513519


You have admitted you have never claimed anything. There is no arguement without a claim, thus you admitted trolling.

If you want to debate, provide proof. If you reply without it, you will 100% prove you are a troll.

>> No.19513520

No that is not your point, lol.

>You are parts of literally hundreds of groups right now.
Wow. This statement here reveals that we're not using even remotely the same definition of relativism. The common conception of moral relativism would be that people should follow one specific ethos that's shared by a specific group of people. People say things like "that tribe's religion allows X, so that tribe is justified in doing X". I was arguing that that idea is inconsistent.

Your idea on the other hand seems to define right and wrong as whatever norms you've instinctively absorbed in the context of any group. Right and wrong could change based on which group you're interacting with at a given time.

Honestly, I find this view rather alien (and close to openly nihilistic) and I don't feel like spending the time it would take to find common ground. It was nice talking to you.

>> No.19513524


Thank you!

>> No.19513525

Flip the chessboard around. What benefit does amorality have, in your opinion?

Don't tear on us, explain why you're better.

>> No.19513530

>still eating original cheese

>> No.19513536

Children before the age of 9 do not have the ability to understand ethics because they do not yet understand death. They are amoral creatures, lying and stealing when it suites them, because they don't understand why that is wrong. Between the ages of 9-12 most of them understand death and gain the complexity to realize that lying is wrong because it erodes trust. Not all do however. They go on to mature physically and never mature morally, surviving in a society built on trust without understanding their behavior erodes trust by being too scared to break the laws.

That is what you are: An adult with the moral development of a 2 year old who is mad at society because its police force you to follow their rules, which you think are baseless, unjustifiable authoritarian programming. The fallacious arguments you construct are easily dismissed by pointing out their logical flaws, but you are not swayed, regurgitating them endlessly, and why? Because something went wrong in your brain when you were between the ages of 9-12. Like 20% or so of people, you genuinely do not realize actions have consequences and are enraged at the idea that others will enforce rules that reflect this.

>> No.19513547

>What benefit does amorality have

Everything. Literally. If you play your cards right you CANNOT help but benefit from abandoning conventional morality.

>> No.19513550

black people dance better than white people

>> No.19513557

>conventional morality
are you talking about being gay, poly, and into leather or are you talking about lying and killing because I'm quite sure the first 3 have no inherent negative consequences while the last 2 do

>> No.19513562


You shut the fuck up. Michael Jackson could dance like nobody's business and he was absurdly white.

>> No.19513563

>gorilla warfare
That bit gets me every time

>> No.19513564

For the individual, or society as a whole? Provide an example?

>> No.19513567


uh are you legitimately retarded?

michael jackson's black

>> No.19513568


Thats EXACTLY the point of moral relativism by its correct, formal meaning.


For the rest of the post: I dont think you even understand the words you use there. How could you even claim something without defining what do you claim?

>in my opinion

No, fuck your opinion. X means X not Y. You cant twist meanings into a headcanon.

>Your idea on the other hand seems to define right and wrong as whatever norms you've instinctively absorbed in the context of any group. Right and wrong could change based on which group you're interacting with at a given time.

Its, like, moral relativism of some sorts!!!

>> No.19513572


>> No.19513579

Critique is not trolling. It is a fundamental part of the scientific process of peer review. The most fundamental aspect of knowledge is that facts are independently verifiable and yet when I try to verify yours you get obnoxious and petulant, like a street preacher who insists his listeners never question him.

>> No.19513583

The individual of course, in fact, it is of monumental importance that society be moral, so the amoral can easily exploit it.

>> No.19513585

Why does /tg/ always fall for this more than obvious troll threats? It's not like we have this bullshit almost every day.

>> No.19513589


he had surgery you dickhead

>> No.19513597


If you are defining yourself exactly aganist the norms of society, you are still defined by them.


>you genuinely do not realize actions have consequences and are enraged at the idea that others will enforce rules that reflect this.

This. In a society based on norms, you can not afford to be immoral.

>> No.19513601

I think the relative rarity of it actually contributes to the failure to recognize it as trolling garbage.

>> No.19513603

If a society is moral that society is dangerous to the amoral. They will lock him up and throw away the key. If a society is amoral that society is dangerous to the amoral. Every single person is waiting to fuck him up just like he is waiting to fuck them.

>> No.19513606

>If a society is moral that society is dangerous to the amoral.

Take a look at Wall Street, friend.
Moralfags are literally sheep to be exploited by those with no such scruples, who unsurprisingly turn out to be the most successful.

>> No.19513608


Because its fun to see people go LOLITROLLU gritting their teeth in the middle of discussion.

They never realize they are the ones being trolled.

>> No.19513612

Okay. Now, what you've said: It's a good thing to be amoral in a moral society, because you can exploit it for personal gain? Could you give an example of how you would exploit moral society? More importantly, could you explain why society cannot be amoral for your success?

>> No.19513613


>implying they dont follow their own morals

I love when people claim that they morals are the absolute gold standard everyone should follow

>> No.19513624


But what you're doing in that post (declare yourself a successful troll) is just such a proclamation.

>> No.19513625


The elite in any society will lie, manipulate, exploit, abuse, and otherwise do anything to get ahead with no MORAL scruples at all. They are not bound by a right or wrong that would limit lesser men. That's how they get to the top.

>> No.19513629


>Moralfags are literally sheep

I'm pretty sure farm animals are not the only things on Earth with morals.

>> No.19513631


These are the people who act amoral to everyone and genuinely surprised when their amorality is reciprocated.

I had a lot of co-workers like these, always trying to steal my papers, trying to whine out a promotion, backstabbing everyone, never spending effort on anything and they whine the loudest when I was promoted ahead of them. Then they start licking my ass when I`m their shift manager.

Absolutely disgusting.

>> No.19513632


They are moral. Everyone including the poorest and weakest lies and cheats and manipulates, because those things are not considered serious breaches of morality.

Getting on the top raping and murdering is much harder these days.

>> No.19513633

I developed a lot of my arguing skills when I'm arguing retards on 4chan. I like to keep them sharp every now and then. Well, I haven't participated in this thread, but that may be one of the many reasons why people still indulge themselves into answering to this kind of thread.

>> No.19513638

The people on Wall Street are all constantly being backstabbed by each other to the point where investors are abandoning stocks and executives are abandoning the publicly-traded model.

Whether the society that hosts Wall Street is moral or amoral is better answered by realizing societies are more complex than that. In the society of Wall Street, like many, there is a totem pole. Wall Street is associated with those at the top, and just beneath it, which functions in a law enforcement vacuum that can be described as "amoral" or "laissez-faire." Beneath it however are social tiers where humans who commit the same crimes are penalized harshly. That's just a fundamental aspect of hierarchical human societies: Those at the top feel they are entitled to lie, cheat, and steal, and they feel they are entitled to punish savagely anyone beneath them who tries to do the same thing.

This is of course a tremendously bad thing.

>> No.19513639


And you got proof for that? Many, many leaders, commanders, kings etc. were willing to go into battle, die, being tortured and suicide because of his convictions and morals.

You are just literally coming up excused why you arent successful.

>> No.19513643



>> No.19513645


isn't weird how bashing your head against a relative brick wall- or, in this care, arguing with retards- really does get you somewhere, over the long term? hah. Used to think it was pointless, now I know you just learn how to demolish poor arguments that much more easily.

>> No.19513646


There's an exception for everything, bottomfeeders don't always make it to the top for being completely without morals.

>> No.19513648

>Everyone including the poorest and weakest lies and cheats and manipulates,

Not nearly with the same magnitude.
Joe the garbageman telling a lie does not effect the entire economy.

They just know how to hide their crimes carefully. There is no room for weakness at the top of the pile.

>> No.19513654


>The people on Wall Street are all constantly backstabbing each other


we've come full circle

>> No.19513658

Not that retards care if you demolished your arguments logically, even if you take good care not to irritate them too much. But you definitely feel a certain surge of relief when they start to backpedal and corner themselves with some silly anecdotal evidence.

>> No.19513659


>no proof

>i dont know how economics work! dey r evul rite?

>> No.19513664

Indeed OP, you showed those moralfags whose boss.

>> No.19513672


>Joe the garbageman telling a lie does not effect the entire economy.

Neither do the lies of Jamal the little goldnugget of the 'hood.

I shouldn't need to explan that's just because they are not in a position where their lies can affect large numbers of people, not because they lie less. Certainly isn't evidence of WS people lying more often.

>> No.19513678

That is true, but for the elite the very nature of their job necessitates they lie more or lose their position.

>> No.19513681


for me, it was circular. I learned the trade arguing with people from PeTA on a message board back in the late 90s and early part of the 2000s. They tended not to backpedal, so much as either completely drop the argument ("whatever, you won't listen to reason, I'm done") or Deny evidence, or (and this one was my favorite) claim your argument held no weight because reasons. the reasons varied from argument to argument, of course.

>> No.19513684

>That feel when most of you probably have the same sentiments as the OP and are only arguing for the sake of it

>> No.19513686

Fuck off Akagi.

>> No.19513687

To get back to this: how would society change if everyone were amoral? Would it still be beneficial to the individual?

>> No.19513691

I'm not OP. I've said exactly nothing whatsoever concerning my thoughts on the matter in the two (now three) posts I've sent in this thread this far. Why the fuck do you feel the need to attack me so with a poorly worded jab?

>> No.19513699

Of course not, everything would grind to a cataclysmic halt.
Amorality is the cloak and dagger, the knife in the dark, the surgical strike. It is NOT the sledgehammer that smashes the chessboard.

>> No.19513704

Is your hug-box and/or comfort blanket comfortable enough?

>> No.19513712


I overwhelmingly prefer "good/moralfag" style characters in pretty much everything other than 3e D&D, in which like 51% of the options I find cool are EVUL ONLY.

But in everything else I favor being as noble bright as possible, even, and ESPECIALLY, when it is something where being noble bright is ill fitting and suicidal looking.

>Dark Heresy
>Vampire the Requiem

>> No.19513713

I'll use the word "ethics." That implies misdeeds that have objective consequences (lie, cheat, steal), which is universal across primate societies. "Morality" tends to describe sins that have no real justification, only the pseudo-justification of religious conviction and/or social conditioning.

As I pointed out to another anon in another post, human hierarchies are characterized by an upper class that proclaims they are against liars, cheats, and thieves, who are liars, cheats, and thieves, who will severely punish any liars, cheats, and thieves in the lower classes. This is of course disastrous for multitudes of individuals as well as the group itself and often disastrous to the upper class ("Sword of Damocles").

Why are human societies usually organized this way? First observe that for 95% of human history they weren't. Second, this miserable arrangement does have utility:

-Organization for food surplus and war.
-Overpopulation from enslaving women.
-Pressure to emigrate spreads the hierarchical culture.

With one major drawback:

-Extinction due to overpopulation explosion.

While it is true that this hierarchical model out-competes more egalitarian societies, it is inherently miserable and doomed to failure. The only reason it has managed to go on for as long as it has (which is not very long at all in evolutionary terms) is that the overclocked monkeybrain has allowed humanity the infinite growth their system needs to sustain itself. It is only relatively recently that humans even noticed the Earth started to show signs of strain (global warming, mineral shortages, food and water shortages).

Disagree with as many tenets as you want, the one thing that cannot be denied is that the situation is more complicated than trolling and sloganeering allow.

>> No.19513716

No, I'm moreso curious as to where this apparently intense hatred of yours stems from.

>> No.19513717

In an amoral society, people would be less trusting, thus it would be harder to deceive them.

>> No.19513724

I just think it's funny, is all. You (or whoever originally brought it up) claim amorality is vastly better than being a moralfag, because the former allows for personal gain. But the only way for this to hold up is if at least a significant portion of society has morality. Does it not seem strange to you that you need morality for amorality to be a worthwhile alternative? Is it not weird that amorality seems good to you on an individual, but terrible on a large scale?

>> No.19513729

You're putting words/concepts into my mouth/mind again. You should really stop doing that. At most, I found you amusing, in a rather conteptuous way.

>> No.19513732


Eventually they'd have to trust or they won't get shit done, then buttsex by the more powerful partner.

>> No.19513737


I, too, prefer being good in the face of pain, terror, and ultimately death. It not only makes for one hell of a good story (and character interaction with those playing more stereotypical of the setting) but it encourages you to continue on and overcome whatever is ahead.

It ultimately comes down to "good" being stronger than "evil".

>> No.19513743

It has been over 20 years since Somalia has had a government. "Or they won't get shit done" is not enough to convince amoral people to cooperate. They do not care if shit does not get done; they care about remaining alive.

>> No.19513750

Trust is not binary.
The more amorality a person is exposed to, the better they learn to defend themselves against it.

>> No.19513759

Cyclic economic boom and bust is a good example of what we're talking about in-action. Its not an inherent good for your theoretical amoral supermen. Its a gauntlet that usually no one wins and everyone loses, especially those who don't even play at the top-tier where amoral behavior is allowed.

>> No.19513760


Ah, Somalia. that place is the epitome of 'clusterfuck'

Wonder if it'll ever get sorted out? 'course, till they do, it's great for planes and mercs settings, ha.

>> No.19513761

Goodness, like all things, exists in an ideal form independent of us. I cannot define Goodness, because goodness is immaterial. I can, like your senses, make roughly analogous descriptions of Goodness, the same as I can give of Chairness, Horseness or Meness, but I cannot in words express it's essential characteristics.

>> No.19513762

There is no defending yourself against an AK-47. Even the best people at spotting lies have a 60% change success rate, which is just enough to be dangerous, and far from enough to be useful.

>> No.19513765


Is it your amoralist view that is giving you the false impression that this person is putting words in your mouth, or is it the fact that a genuine curiosity regarding an irrational hatred is putting you into a corner? Are feelings like holy water, garlic, or crosses to you?

>> No.19513766

Sorry bro, but >>19513704 is a pretty fucking hateful post, so if you didn't intend to express hatred, you probably need to learn to write better.

>> No.19513769


If they're low on status, that doesn't help at all, except against other (stupider) powerless people. Resulting in a normal hierarchical society.


Somalians cooperate just like any other human beings, it's just not on "central government" level but on tribal/breakaway wannabe state/islamist rebel army level.

>> No.19513777

The level of cooperation is so minor it makes other African countries with hundreds of their own tribes and similar socioeconomic problem look coordinated and advanced.

>> No.19513778

Oh, OP, you can't destroy or disprove what a Good character believes.

Because they don't need a reason to help people

>> No.19513793

Practically, though, you don't need to know whether a person is lying to you; you just need to know what types of situations are risky, and stay away from them.

Is your argument that you can never 100% protect yourself from other people's amoral behavior so you shouldn't even try, or are you suggesting that humans are literally unable to learn from experience? I hope you have something better.

>> No.19513796


Just because Somalia lacks a central government doesn't mean their tribes are less knit or their cooperation was lesser.

Besides, the islamists came close to uniting Somalia and would have probably eventually succeeded (like what happened in Afghanistan in the 90's) if it wasn't for other countries like Ethiopians wrecking their shit because they don't want islamist Somalia.

>> No.19513799

Disillusionment and compromise plague many people who try to be good because they have a moral code based on "what mummy told me" rather than a code of ethics based on facts and consequences. This is aggravated by credulousness and fear for your life in combat zones, but can even happen absent of moral naivete or combat stress if it becomes apparent your efforts aren't doing any good. We can all lose faith, and most of us do at one time or other. The question becomes: Do you give up or get back up?

>> No.19513801


>you just need to know what types of situations are risky, and stay away from them.

Which you can't reliably do with 60% success rate.

>> No.19513807

Not to mention, capture and outright lombotomizing them would also constitute "destroying their world outlook"

>> No.19513811

> you just need to know what types of situations are risky, and stay away from them.
Dealings with amoral people without the protection of police.

>are you suggesting that humans are literally unable to learn from experience?
The data indicate that if a human doesn't realize lies have the consequence of eroding trust by the age of 12 they will never learn it. The anecdotal evidence of this thread indicates that there is something vile within people that prevents them from learning. Consider how long it takes for a tribe of apes to learn some new trick (for instance, sifting wheat from sand using water, upon which wheat floats and sand does not). Compare to how long it takes groups of humans to learn things like "global warming is real," "evolution is real," or in this thread, "amoral people are dangerous, stay away from them and amoral societies."

>> No.19513813


>> No.19513816

Okay got curious, came back, saw all this bullshit.

Evidently you read neither your link nor my post, and you don't seem intellectually capable of understanding either. You quoted me saying "in my opinion" when I never even said that. You have an autistic obsession with precise meanings of philosophical terms without understanding that they can encompass broad categories of thought. One can't simply say that they're a relativist, or a deontologist, or a utilitarian and expect anyone to have more than a vague idea of their ACTUAL POSITION. Why would you even *attempt* to engage in a philosophical discussion if you don't understand this incredibly simple concept?

Now. Back to those specific theories. You see, as you should have been able to learn from that wiki article, moral relativism is popular among anthropologists who study other cultures, because it lets them say that the *norms of that culture*, a specific set of norms for one culture, are not inferior to the norms of our culture. That's the context in which it's used. That's what's commonly argued.

For you to assert that people can hold not just relative but *internally inconsistent* moral principles, while still believing in right and wrong, that is strange. If every one of your own ethical principles is subject to your current social context, you are essentially a nihilist. That view is not compatible with moral intuition nor with most commonly accepted definitions of ethics itself. You are not simply a relativist, you are a nihilist.

Now fuck off, moron. You're out of your depth.

>> No.19513818

60% indicates that, when dealing with liars, cheats, and thieves, you have a high probability of death after one contract, and statistical probability of death after two contracts. You can see how this is not evolutionarily selected-for.

>> No.19513861

No amount of cruelty, no matter how shocking you attempt to make it, will change the inherent goodness of their actions or the inherent vileness of yours.

>> No.19513863

Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man.

>> No.19513870

Actually, no, we're going to leave you alive for another half-century with JUST enough mental power to remember who you were but not enough to ever act again.

>> No.19513871

The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't.

>> No.19513876

Lies can kill?

But seriously, though, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line of reasoning. I just reread through this discussion and I'm pretty sure all I was supposed to prove is that an amoral person would be more successful in a moral society than in an amoral one.

>> No.19513880

What is the fucking point here? To shock? To be so horrible you transform from bad guy to good guy? To change the consequences of your actions from bad to otherwise? What is your fucking point, Edgy McTeen?

>> No.19513884

Not really. The analogy was that he needed something reassuring to shield himself from the fact that we aren't all actually agreeing with him. Admittedly, I could have been more clearer, but I found the image pretty funny.

>> No.19513885

>Lies can kill?
Yes. Why is this a question? How naive are you, that you don't know that liars, thieves, and murderers can all lie and that the consequence of this lie can be deadly for their victims?

>> No.19513891

>its not hateful
>they need to toughen up
>I found it funny
confirmed for antisocial personality disorder

>> No.19513892

Uh, in his narrative, this is the point where the camera switches to the BBEG fucking your mom. And she has a swastika tramp stamp.

>> No.19513898

50 year old non-milf with flapjack tits, slowly undulating in black+white. Bush's "Mouth" plays over the soundtrack. A guy in a horned helmet and skull pauldrons shotguns a puppy like a beer.

>> No.19513902

>an amoral person would be more successful in a moral society than in an amoral one.
The examples and figures I cited indicate that being an amoral person is a bad choice whatever society you find yourself in, not that societies can be clearly labelled "amoral" or "moral."

>> No.19513903

In this thread butt hurt moralfags.

>> No.19513909

"Mental power". Really. We don't work this way, man. Try to read up on our neurological make-up. You're just spouting some cartoon villains line, most of us aren't twelve anymore.

>> No.19513918

Putting words into my mouth AGAIN. I never said they need to toughen up, unless by toughen up you mean "accept that other people have different worldviews" in that case, yeah, maybe they should toughen up, as you say.

>> No.19513920

You do realize that one word can have many different definitions, right? There isn't one true definition to rule them all in all contexts. Rather than being a faggot about it, you could've just asked the person their specific definition for the word "belief" and criticize his points from there, not dismiss them outright because his definition of the word isn't yours.

Clearing up the terms is a very important thing that you should do when attempting to discuss philosophy, it's the prerequisite to a logical discussion.

>> No.19513927

I thought the purpose of gaming was to be 12 forever

If it isn't, well uh, why do we treat girls here with the same fear and contempt that we did when we were 12?

(Instead of "cooties" we call it "feminism")

>> No.19513943

I'm sure most of us don't really care. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I can't see imaginative people as bad. Of course, there are rollplayers and rule-lawyers but somehow I don't think they would be much interested in a feminism debate. Plus there are quite a few girls around here who just don't disclose their gender, though sometimes I can see some feminity in the way some posts are worded.

>> No.19513951

No one here seems to notice - certainly not you - that your every response to confrontation is "YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!" Always blaming others for things you do. Always claiming others are lying. Always claiming you're misunderstood. Antisocial personality disorder.

>> No.19513962

>treat girls here with the same fear and contempt that we did when we were 12?

>> No.19513967

Or it is that a strawman is a very commonly used rhetorical tactic around these parts. I've never said "you need to toughen up", and I admitted not having been as clear as I could have earlier.

>> No.19513981

That expression is perfect.

>> No.19513993

More bullshit. You should be in a padded cell where the shrinks are wise to your bullshit. This is what you posted, which you claim does not mean "you need to toughen up":

>Is your hug-box and/or comfort blanket comfortable enough?
> The analogy was that he needed something reassuring to shield himself from the fact that we aren't all actually agreeing with him.

Learn to shut the fuck up before someone IRL goes Thor to your Loki.

>> No.19514034

You're deliberately forgetting to which statement I said that. "Accepting that other people do not share the way you see the world" does not mean "toughen up" in any way whatsoever.

>> No.19514056

Yes, it does. It means exactly that.

>> No.19514075

What I was making fun of, is that the post I was referring to claims that after 2 instances of being lied to, the victim will be dead.

Oh, because that's not how I read it. For example, in >>19513818, it seems like the moral person has a poorer outlook than the liars, cheats and thieves.

I'm going to restate my claim in a way that hopefully makes it easier to prove or disprove:
Given a perfectly moral society, a moral person would be able to trust all of his fellow citizens perfectly, and that would be the most profitable choice for him. If an amoral person were introduced to such a society, he would be able to profit by abusing the trust of the moral.
Given a perfectly amoral society, the best outcome a moral person could hope for is to reduce the amount that is taken from him by the amoral. An amoral person might be able to break even, by stealing as much from others as is stolen from him.

Thus, an amoral person of sufficient skill could obtain more than his fair share, but a moral person never could.

>> No.19514091

Well, I'm not a native speaker, but I always understood that "toughen up" or "man up" meant summoning the willpower to shrug off a traumatizing situation. Something you'd say to a shellshocked person, not to a person blind to other persons' beliefs and values.

>> No.19514134

I know what you were making fun of. You're wrong to do so. Real life is not D&D. There is no resurrection spell. A single arrow in the back or a stab wound can kill a person. You can starve to death, or die from the elements. Any and all of these are likely consequences of making deals with amoral people because they are likely to betray you to their benefit. If you have a 50% chance to detect a lie, you have a 50% chance of being betrayed, and in the process marooned, shot, enslaved, kidnapped, or any number of lethal consequences. Its statistically likely that given a lie-detection of 50% every two contracts will result in a betrayal and death.

As for your scenario, why does the moral society in question have no police? Why are you assuming the most important part, that his actions will have no consequences for him? Its impossible to define it as a moral society if cheaters prosper in it. That's not moral at all. It indicates the absence of laws to prevent, detect, and punish it. Which is the very crux of the issue: Both societies are amoral in that neither of them have laws. You distinguish the moral society from the amoral by defining "moral" as credulous, naive, and apathetic.

Just stop. Nobody believes your lies, and I am amazed that even you do.

>> No.19514172

>Just stop. Nobody believes your lies, and I am amazed that even you do.

>> No.19514212

Don't you dare think you can get away hiding your hate and deceit behind the veil of "you can't question my beliefs and values moral relativism herp derp."

>> No.19514253

>You distinguish the moral society from the amoral by defining "moral" as credulous, naive, and apathetic.
This is in fact the very core of my argument. I'm saying that a person who is not exposed to amorality has no reason not to be naive, and that the more amorality a person is exposed to, the better that person can protect against amorality.
Police are just one such example: a police force is expensive, and therefore in a society without crime (my definition of a moral society is "one in which all the members are moral") there would be no reason to maintain one.

>Why are you assuming the most important part, that his actions will have no consequences for him?
I am not assuming that. I'm stating that the consequences will be easier to avoid when the victims have had less experience dealing with amoral people.

>> No.19514359

This is simply not correct. All people are exposed to amorality as children, in the form of other children before they understand death and consequences. And police do more than just protect against malicious intent; they also protect against errors and mistakes.

The larger theme here is that you are wrong, but have serially refined your scenario so that you can be seen to be right. Realities like the complexity of human society get ignored to divide it into two philosophical constructs, "moral" and "amoral" societies. Then I get to discover by myself that your logic necessitates a very specific, very alien, and not very moral "moral" society that could not exist for a variety of reasons. It is perfect yet stupid, wise yet naive, efficient yet slow to detect or imprison a sociopath so they can run amok without fear of consequences.

This scenario is ludicrous. It is impossible in any practical sense and is impossible even in theory. If this is the length to which you must go to prove a point it is a Pyrrhic victory. It does nothing but prove my point, a point readily seen looking at childhood development of ethics. Amorality is not economically rational; it is the dangerous product of a brain that did not develop correctly in childhood, and only a small minority of humans are afflicted with it.

>> No.19514532

The scenario has not changed, and nor does it require that either of the two extremes exists. At all points on the continuum between completely moral and completely immoral, the amount of effort a society spends preventing immorality will be proportional to the amount of immorality that is present. The way a person profits from immorality is by being more devious than his/her peers.
This is based in my own observations, as I have noticed that in the places I have lived which have had a high crime rate, people are more careful with their possessions and safety, and in areas where people are honest, one's dealings can be more straightforward.

I'm not really sure why you are assuming a moral society is necessarily perfect, wise and efficient.

>Then I get to discover by myself...
This is bullshit. What you see as me changing my position has in fact been me trying to make known to you the position I have held all along. To be honest, it's felt as if you've been wilfully trying to misunderstand me the whole time (although I've never had an argument on 4chan that hasn't felt that way, so whatever).

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.