Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Neutral Alignment esp Justifica

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    - ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01BE5DF3.CAC07840
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Samwise,

    This question of ends and means is not, in fact, a nullity. Let us =
    consider three kinds of means:
    1) means that are themselves worthy, that is they do not need =
    justification. This is the characterization of most actions, and =
    several that you use in your argument.=20

    >Lawful Good people feel that the end of having a safe, comfortable =
    society
    >for everyone justifies passing laws to restrict individuals freedoms =
    and to
    >protect those unable to protect themselves.

    Actually, Lawful Good characters consider such things as laws and =
    portections to be goods unto themselves and need no special =
    justification. =20

    2) means justified by the ends are means that the the actors know are =
    wrong, but must be done anyway because a greater good is at stake. Here =
    is a case from a Chaotic Good perspective. Yousef min Nanna is an =
    official in Sendoure. The regent is allied with the nasty Ghouda=EFa =
    Coster. The official, Yousef min Nanna decides to secretly oppose his =
    liege's ally for the good of the people. As an official of the regent, =
    min Nanna is clearly a supporter of the regiem, yet he defies his lord, =
    violates his office, doubtlessly disobeys his orders, and possibly =
    diverts funds. His ends are what he considers the welfare of the people =
    of Sendoure. His means are certainly dishonest, possibly treasonous. =
    In min Nanna's mind, the end justifies the means.

    3) The third kind of means are those that are not justified by the ends. =
    Let is continue to imagine Yousef min Nanna. Perhaps his family is in =
    dept. Despite his Chaotic Good alignment, min Nanna may consider =
    stealing to pay his family's depts to be insuffiencent for such a =
    violation. After all, if discovered he would be willing to die a =
    patriot, but not a thief. =20

    Just because someone is willing to allow the ends to justify some means, =
    does not mean they allow good ends to justify any behavior they can =
    imagine, or even any behavior they may find tempting. The whole point =
    of this line of thinking is that there is a distinction between means. =
    Some means are themselves worthy, some are wrong but can be justified, =
    some are wrong and are not justifiable. The more means someone is =
    willing to accept as we move towards evil the closer they are in =
    alignment to evil. The more they accept chaotic acts the closer they =
    are to chaotic in alignment.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Samuel Weiss
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 7:35 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Neutral Alignment


    >If you examine it closely, you will discover that "The Ends Justify the
    >Means" is a null value statement, except when used accusatoriluy =
    against
    >someone who you disagree with.
    >Everyone and every group believes that the ends they seek justify the =
    means
    >they use. They just have both different ends and different means.
    >Lawful Good people feel that the end of having a safe, comfortable =
    society
    >for everyone justifies passing laws to restrict individuals freedoms =
    and to
    >protect those unable to protect themselves.
    >Lawful Evil people feel the end of a society where everyone knows their
    >place (and they are on top of course) justifies laws that repress =
    people and
    >deny individual rights, even that of life.
    >And so on through the alignmnets.
    >"The Ends Jusitfy the Means" means nothing more than "I am right and =
    you are
    >wrong".
    >
    >Samwise


    - ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01BE5DF3.CAC07840
    Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






    Samwise,
     
    This question of ends and means is not, in fact, a nullity.  =
    Let us=20
    consider three kinds of means:
    1) means that are themselves worthy, that is they do not need=20
    justification.  This is the characterization of most actions, and =
    several=20
    that you use in your argument. 
     
    >Lawful Good people feel that the end of =
    having a=20
    safe, comfortable society>for everyone justifies passing laws to =
    restrict=20
    individuals freedoms and to>protect those unable to protect=20
    themselves.
     
    Actually, Lawful Good characters consider such things as laws and=20
    portections to be goods unto themselves and need no special =
    justification. =20

     
    2) means justified by the ends are means =
    that the=20
    the actors know are wrong, but must be done anyway because a greater =
    good is at=20
    stake.  Here is a case from a Chaotic Good perspective.  =
    Yousef min=20
    Nanna is an official in Sendoure.  The regent is allied with the =
    nasty=20
    Ghouda=EFa Coster.  The official, Yousef min =
    Nanna decides=20
    to secretly oppose his liege's ally for the good of the people.  As =
    an=20
    official of the regent, min Nanna is clearly a supporter of the regiem, =
    yet he=20
    defies his lord, violates his office, doubtlessly disobeys his orders, =
    and=20
    possibly diverts funds.  His ends are what he considers the welfare =
    of the=20
    people of Sendoure.  His means are certainly dishonest, possibly=20
    treasonous.  In min Nanna's mind, the end justifies the =
    means.
     
    3) The third kind of means are those that are not justified by the=20
    ends.  Let is continue to imagine Yousef min Nanna.  Perhaps =
    his=20
    family is in dept.  Despite his Chaotic Good alignment, min Nanna =
    may=20
    consider stealing to pay his family's depts to be insuffiencent for such =
    a=20
    violation.  After all, if discovered he would be willing to die a =
    patriot,=20
    but not a thief. 
     
    Just because someone is willing to allow the ends to justify some =
    means,=20
    does not mean they allow good ends to justify any behavior they can =
    imagine, or=20
    even any behavior they may find tempting.  The whole point of this =
    line of=20
    thinking is that there is a distinction between means.  Some means =
    are=20
    themselves worthy, some are wrong but can be justified, some are wrong =
    and are=20
    not justifiable.  The more means someone is willing to accept as we =
    move=20
    towards evil the closer they are in alignment to evil.  The more =
    they=20
    accept chaotic acts the closer they are to chaotic in alignment.
     
    Kenneth Gauckc558382@earthlink.net
    -----Original Message-----From: =
    Samuel Weiss=20
    <samwise1@email.msn.com>=
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM <birthright@MPGN.COM>Date: =
    Sunday,=20
    February 21, 1999 7:35 PMSubject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Neutral=20
    Alignment>If you examine it closely, you will =
    discover=20
    that "The Ends Justify the>Means" is a null value =
    statement,=20
    except when used accusatoriluy against>someone who you disagree=20
    with.>Everyone and every group believes that the ends they seek =
    justify=20
    the means>they use. They just have both different ends and =
    different=20
    means.>Lawful Good people feel that the end of having a safe, =
    comfortable=20
    society>for everyone justifies passing laws to restrict =
    individuals=20
    freedoms and to>protect those unable to protect =
    themselves.>Lawful=20
    Evil people feel the end of a society where everyone knows =
    their>place=20
    (and they are on top of course) justifies laws that repress people=20
    and>deny individual rights, even that of life.>And so on =
    through=20
    the alignmnets.>"The Ends Jusitfy the Means" means =
    nothing more=20
    than "I am right and you=20
    are>wrong".>>Samwise

    - ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01BE5DF3.CAC07840--

  2. #2
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    Neutral Alignment esp Justifica

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE5E5A.3D041D60
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Kenneth,

    >1) means that are themselves worthy, that is they do not need =
    justification. This is the characterization of most actions, and =
    several that you use in your argument.<

    Worthy to whom? To you? To me? To someone else?
    Of course I see a certain set of values as being worthy, but unless I =
    can explain why, justify them, how could anyone else ever understand why =
    they should do so as well?
    You tell me is is right to not kill. Why? justify it, or your statement =
    is simply an opinion with no weight.

    >2) means justified by the ends are means that the the actors know are =
    wrong, but must be done anyway because a greater good is at stake. Here =
    is a case from a Chaotic Good perspective. Yousef min Nanna is an =
    official in Sendoure. The regent is allied with the nasty Ghouda=EFa =
    Coster. The official, Yousef min Nanna decides to secretly oppose his =
    liege's ally for the good of the people. As an official of the regent, =
    min Nanna is clearly a supporter of the regiem, yet he defies his lord, =
    violates his office, doubtlessly disobeys his orders, and possibly =
    diverts funds. His ends are what he considers the welfare of the people =
    of Sendoure. His means are certainly dishonest, possibly treasonous. =
    In min Nanna's mind, the end justifies the means.<

    Actually, if he is Chaotic Good, he can rebel against an superior he =
    considers to be unworthy without compromising his values. He already =
    places the individual good over any orderly system. Only when viewed =
    from a Lawful Good perspective does his acts become questionable. Which =
    as I stated, is simply a case of disagreement without explanation.
    Bear in mind, from min Nanna's perspective, those who feel he should =
    faithfully follow his regent because he is the lawful ruler are =
    suggesting that the ends of order justify the means of allowing the =
    people to suffer in order to avoid the damage that would be done by a =
    Chaotic rebeliion.

    >3) The third kind of means are those that are not justified by the =
    ends. Let is continue to imagine Yousef min Nanna. Perhaps his family =
    is in dept. Despite his Chaotic Good alignment, min Nanna may consider =
    stealing to pay his family's depts to be insuffiencent for such a =
    violation. After all, if discovered he would be willing to die a =
    patriot, but not a thief.<

    Then if he steals, he is either not Chaotic Good, or basically insane. =
    If he violates his own, willingly embraced moral and ethical code, no =
    matter what he tells himself, or what judgement an outsider passes on =
    him, he is simply not being true to his core self.

    I say again, the statement only has value when passing value judgment on =
    others without giving explanation. Each in their own way believe the =
    means and ends they embrace and justify define what is right and proper =
    in the world. Saddam Hussein believes the ends of whatever the heck he =
    is trying to acheive justify the means of acting as he does. Sure I can =
    say it is wrong, but what more value does that have than his accusations =
    against the West if not backed up by specifics?
    "And you're another!"
    Wow, eloquent argument.
    And note also, I am not passing any judgement on value systems, simply =
    on a statement I contend is of null value in describing such. I think I =
    already established I have a very firm value structure in the past, =
    hopefully we don't have to go there again.
    Good people believe that the end results of their value systems justify =
    the restrictions They place on themselves and others. If you agree with =
    them, of course you will feel no need to justify it, you already accept =
    it. But how do you convince others?=20

    Samwise


    - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE5E5A.3D041D60
    Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










    Kenneth,
    &nbsp;
    &gt;1) means that are themselves worthy, that is they do not need=20
    justification.&nbsp; This is the characterization of most actions, and =
    several=20
    that you use in your argument.&lt;
    &nbsp;
    Worthy to whom? To you? To me? To someone else?
    Of course I see a certain set of values as being worthy, but unless =
    I can=20
    explain why, justify them, how could anyone else ever understand why =
    they should=20
    do so as well?
    You tell me is is right to not kill. Why? justify it, or your =
    statement is=20
    simply an opinion with no weight.
    &nbsp;
    &gt;2) means justified by the ends are means that the the actors =
    know are=20
    wrong, but must be done anyway because a greater good is at stake.&nbsp; =
    Here is=20
    a case from a Chaotic Good perspective.&nbsp; Yousef min Nanna is an =
    official in=20
    Sendoure.&nbsp; The regent is allied with the nasty Ghouda&iuml;a Coster.&nbsp; The official, Yousef min Nanna =
    decides to=20
    secretly oppose his liege's ally for the good of the people.&nbsp; As an =

    official of the regent, min Nanna is clearly a supporter of the regiem, =
    yet he=20
    defies his lord, violates his office, doubtlessly disobeys his orders, =
    and=20
    possibly diverts funds.&nbsp; His ends are what he considers the welfare =
    of the=20
    people of Sendoure.&nbsp; His means are certainly dishonest, possibly=20
    treasonous.&nbsp; In min Nanna's mind, the end justifies the=20
    means.&lt;
    &nbsp;
    Actually, if he is Chaotic Good, he can rebel against an superior =
    he=20
    considers to be unworthy without compromising his values. He already =
    places the=20
    individual good over any orderly system. Only when viewed from a Lawful =
    Good=20
    perspective does his acts become questionable. Which as I stated, is =
    simply a=20
    case of disagreement without explanation.
    Bear in mind, from min Nanna's perspective, those who feel he =
    should=20
    faithfully follow his regent because he is the lawful ruler are =
    suggesting that=20
    the ends of order justify the means of allowing the people to suffer in =
    order to=20
    avoid the damage that would be done by a Chaotic rebeliion.
    &nbsp;
    &gt;3) The third kind of means are those that are not justified by =
    the=20
    ends.&nbsp; Let is continue to imagine Yousef min Nanna.&nbsp; Perhaps =
    his=20
    family is in dept.&nbsp; Despite his Chaotic Good alignment, min Nanna =
    may=20
    consider stealing to pay his family's depts to be insuffiencent for such =
    a=20
    violation.&nbsp; After all, if discovered he would be willing to die a =
    patriot,=20
    but not a thief.&lt;
    &nbsp;
    Then if he steals, he is either not Chaotic Good, or basically =
    insane. If=20
    he violates his own, willingly embraced moral and ethical code, no =
    matter what=20
    he tells himself, or what judgement an outsider passes on him, he is =
    simply not=20
    being true to his core self.
    &nbsp;
    I say again, the statement only has value when passing value =
    judgment on=20
    others without giving explanation. Each in their own way believe the =
    means and=20
    ends they embrace and justify define what is right and proper in the =
    world.=20
    Saddam Hussein believes the ends of whatever the heck he is trying to =
    acheive=20
    justify the means of acting as he does. Sure I can say it is wrong, but =
    what=20
    more value does that have than his accusations against the West if not =
    backed up=20
    by specifics?
    &quot;And you're another!&quot;
    Wow, eloquent argument.
    And note also, I am not passing any judgement on value systems, =
    simply on a=20
    statement I contend is of null value in describing such. I think I =
    already=20
    established I have a very firm value structure in the past, hopefully we =
    don't=20
    have to go there again.
    Good people believe that the end results of their value systems =
    justify the=20
    restrictions They place on themselves and others. If you agree with =
    them, of=20
    course you will feel no need to justify it, you already accept it. But =
    how do=20
    you convince others?
    &nbsp;
    Samwise
    &nbsp;

    - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE5E5A.3D041D60--

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Neutral Alignment
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum Category
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:36 PM
  2. Neutral
    By Thelandrin in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 11:48 AM
  3. Clergy Alignment vs. God Alignment
    By Azrai in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-02-2002, 10:10 AM
  4. Neutral Alignment (was I feel a
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-1999, 06:30 AM
  5. RE: Neutral Alignment (was I feel a
    By Silveras in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-1999, 07:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.