Neutral Alignment esp Justifica

[Kenneth Gauck]

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--

[Samuel Weiss]

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--