Ethics and Rulership

[ryancaveney]

Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories about one absolute morality.

Not in any empirically accessible sense. Different levels of understanding about one absolute truth is definitely the case for physics (in which case the underlying truth is inherently probabilistic anyway) and the other natural sciences, but not for anything involving human society. The problem is fundamentally one of measurement. If we took all the 4873 registered members of our website and tried to arrange them in order of increasing height, it wouldn't matter whether our ruler was marked in feet, meters, cubits, picas, or anything else -- the individual numbers would be different, but in a highly systematic fashion (e.g., there are always 2.54 centimeters to the inch), and the end result would always be the same. Every person would always find themselves taller than the same group of people, and shorter than the same other group of people. This is not true for morality because no large, randomly-chosen group of people will give you consistent answers about which acts are better or worse than which other ones. There will be common themes, and majority agreement on some large differences, but there will be no consistent pattern in the ordering of small details, which is where all interesting ethical decisions lie. In fact, the answers any particular person gives you tells you more about the person than it does about the actions you have asked them to order -- there is no independent calibration for the moral compass. The problem is that you cannot judge which acts are more or less moral than others unless you already have a morality to judge them with! There is no escape from this essential logical circularity; you can assume morality into existence, but you cannot construct it from more basic elements which are not equally unsupported assumptions. You can assert that a particular moral code is your personally preferred one, but there is no objective reason to pick any one of them in favor of any other as the global standard of measurement.

Moral philosophy certainly does--heck, utilitarianism explicitly removes the judgment of the "good" of an action until viewing its consequences.

But I already said you can't judge the relative goodness of the consequences either, unless you already have some preexisting standard of goodness!

(Lack of sexual reproduction) would be a major departure from their closeness to nature and the "natural order."

Eternal youth is already a bigger departure from actual biology. So is the fact that they Pass Without Trace -- tracking them isn't just difficult, it is literally impossible. The spell description says they don't leave scent or footprints; complete physical nontrackability, as explicitly provided by the spell, further requires that they don't bend blades of grass when stepping on them or leave clothing fibers on thorns or even shed hair. Furthermore, "an elf can travel over heavy snow, soft sand, or a treacherous mountainside as easily as a human walks across a smooth wooden floor." Therefore, it is quite clear to me and many others that they are in fact not biological creatures at all, but rather a kind of spirit which feels some responsibility to watch over some of those creatures which are biological, and to appear to be biological in order to better relate to their charges.

Further, they'd have no problem letting the humans have all of the other terrain types, needing only to defend their forests--which as several of us have shown in the Battle Elves thread, they can do quite handily.

Far more of Cerilia was once forested than it is now. What the elves want to do, in my opinion, is reclaim the lands the humans have stolen, and replant the forests which once grew there.

It is quite possible for humans to control sources of level 7 or higher, especially if they reduce the province level. Would elves go on crusade against these humans?

Yes, absolutely.

Would any province of level 7 or higher start spontaneously generating an elven population?

I am presently inclined to think so.

If those elves are formed as adults and outside of families or community in these isolated locales, how do they learn anything? Might they end up being "raised" by humans or other sentient creatures, thereby becoming impressioned by their traits and culture?

I have yet to work out all the implications of the idea I only adopted a few weeks ago as the solution to a host of other difficulties, so this is a very useful line of inquiry. I don't yet know how to answer the first question, except that I know I want it to be such that the answer to the second question is a definite no.

[ConjurerDragon]

Rowan schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4126
> ...
> Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories about one absolute morality.
> ...
>
Which is completely clear and understandable to you but not to those
that have other opinions about morality because all who don?t share your
opinion on morality must lack knowlegde, understanding or only have a
different theory about your view on morality? Are you L. Ron Hubbard or
the Pope? ^^

> I never claimed that all people are attracted to fantasy because of its moral components (though even the atheistic author of the Golden Compass was). I only stated that a huge variety of experts and authors have recognized that these traits exist strongly in fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy`s huge growth and mass appeal.
>
*even* the atheistic author of the golden compass was attracted by it?s
moral component? Is it really something special when someone who, being
atheistic, lacks moral guidelines for example from faith, and finds them
in some kids book instead?

A huge variety of (not named or listed) experts and authors...
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png

Or fantasy actually is only a form of escapism which is from time to
time heard by those that do not share our interest in fantasy and no
guideline to morality whatsoever. Please note that I do like fantasy
literature. But claiming that people in general like a huge genre that
contains very different books because they find the moral components so
great... ;-)


> As much as I`d love to get into the debate with you about absolute morality and ethics, this isn`t really the forum for it. Suffice it to say that your characterization of moral philosophy seems to me to have suffered from poor teachers, insufficient investigation, or just denial.
You?re not only L.Ron Hubbard or the Pope - you must be both. Because
you not only know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics
but you also have visions about the reasons why other can?t see it your
way. Poor teachers? Wow. Did your crystal ball tell you that?
> ...
> If this is so, the implication that follows is that elves have no use for terrain other than forests, mountains, and swamps. If they care about their species, they`d probably try just as much to push dwarves from the mountains for their influence on mebhaigl. Further, they`d have no problem letting the humans have all of the other terrain types, needing only to defend their forests--which as several of us have shown in the Battle Elves thread, they can do quite handily.
>
Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)

[Rowan]

There were many sources of and evolutions of natural law; no, I don't see elves as stoics either. I refer mainly to the fact that their lives of relative leisure leave them able to observe and experience an incredible amount over their long lives, and if they are at all inquisitive, this will lead to philosophical thought--why are we here, how ought we to live, seeking meanings, seeking to understand the natural order, etc. Their perception of natural order can and likely would lead to the formation of some sort of natural law, as they can observe the principle of noncontradiction and also the consistency of nature.

[Rowan]

You can assert that a particular moral code is your personally preferred one, but there is no objective reason to pick any one of them in favor of any other as the global standard of measurement.

Ryan, each philosophy, culture, moral system, whatever have been aimed at discovering and describing an absolute, just like science does but in respect to non-physical questions. Each makes arguments appealing to an absolute, and the reason for choosing any over another is by making a judgment based on the best arguments, just as scientists make judgments about the best theories.

Which is completely clear and understandable to you but not to those
that have other opinions about morality because all who don?t share your
opinion on morality must lack knowlegde, understanding or only have a
different theory about your view on morality? Are you L. Ron Hubbard or
the Pope? ^^

Boy, moral relativists get so upset when you try to suggest any absolute other than their own self-contradictory absolute that there are no absolutes!

Conjurer, I never said that all who don't share my moral views lack knowledge or understanding. I was responding to Ryan's attack on moralism as not being based on logic or reason--I was saying that it seemed to me that he had missed the vast, vast body of deep intellectual and rational thought from incredibly intelligent people throughout history relying on logic and reason to discern moral systems and truths.

*even* the atheistic author of the golden compass was attracted by it?s
moral component? Is it really something special when someone who, being
atheistic, lacks moral guidelines for example from faith, and finds them
in some kids book instead?

A huge variety of (not named or listed) experts and authors...
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png

Or fantasy actually is only a form of escapism which is from time to
time heard by those that do not share our interest in fantasy and no
guideline to morality whatsoever. Please note that I do like fantasy
literature. But claiming that people in general like a huge genre that
contains very different books because they find the moral components so
great... ;-)

I'm not sure what you're getting at in reference to the Golden Compass. The author used it to make moral points and theological arguments to support his belief that there was no God and religion was evil, and to rail against the strong theistic element in fantasy.

You doubt that there is a huge variety of experts and authors who support my statements about fantasy? Or are you just pointing out my laziness in waiting for someone to dispute the point before bringing it up? In terms of popular authors that each are individually responsible for vastly expanding fantasy's popularity, I can't think of a one who'd disagree. JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling are perhaps the three biggest in that arena; let's add Robert Jordan, Orson Scott Card, Ursula K LeGuin...If you really want me to come up with a list of authors and others, I will; I just figured it was pretty indisputable. Philosophers, literature experts, and anthropologists observe the popularity of ideas not based solely on explicit, conscious acceptance by people, but by its appeal to their other subconscious senses.

Would fantasy be so attractive if it were not so often a struggle between Good and Evil or their various shades?

You?re not only L.Ron Hubbard or the Pope - you must be both. Because
you not only know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics
but you also have visions about the reasons why other can?t see it your
way. Poor teachers? Wow. Did your crystal ball tell you that?

Again, I never claimed to "know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics," just that Ryan's assertion of the essential illogic of moral philosophy was unfounded. It's not very effective to make erroneous assumptions and conclusions about what I've said and then argue against them Yes, there was an ad hominem element to my assertion, but it was also an expression of bewilderment about how one could miss the overwhelming dependence on logical thought in moral philosophy.

Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)

Some of Anuire would, yes, but not all. Climate prevents forests from overtaking plains in many places, and many forests removed to support plains may lose conditions necessary to support a resurgence of forest.

[ThatSeanGuy]

There were many sources of and evolutions of natural law; no, I don't see elves as stoics either. I refer mainly to the fact that their lives of relative leisure leave them able to observe and experience an incredible amount over their long lives, and if they are at all inquisitive, this will lead to philosophical thought--why are we here, how ought we to live, seeking meanings, seeking to understand the natural order, etc. Their perception of natural order can and likely would lead to the formation of some sort of natural law, as they can observe the principle of noncontradiction and also the consistency of nature.

Well, it's certainly more interesting than every elf ever being some strange blend of neo-pagan isolationist aristocrat. While, certainly, any demihuman race should have distinct traits that seperate them from humanity, I think that sometimes folks take that way too far, especially when differences within the race itself are proposed.

Remember that elves, especially Cerilian elves, are an arcane magic using race. It's very much their thing. Arcane magic is the magic of experimentation, it has rescearch libraries, it has formal schools, it has laboratories. If the elves were ment to be animistic nature-casters who's powers are more intuitive than practiced, they would have been given druidic-ranger magic as their principle focus.

In other words, just being educated doesn't mean you can't like nature. If anything, I could see that as one of the reasons the elves still have a grudge against humanity: only the most barbarous of their tribes, the Rjurik and the Vos, have a consistant respect for nature, and both groups have a disrespect and fear of the education that is so dear to the elven heart. Certainly, there are elves who honestly think that they can shove humanity off of the continent and make the whole place into a green paradise, but in the source material these guys are consistantly treated as a minority group. Who says elf philosophers can't have ideas beyond 'Laying in sunlit fields being fed grapes.' and 'Kill all humans!'? The whole concept of, "Law is a part of nature." seems very fitting of the character of Cerilian elves to me, especially since they don't have any spiritual source to derive law from.

Giving elves a philosophizing aspect gives some value to all that leisure time, it reinforces the idea of elves as scholars of the arcane, and it opens more possibilities for interesting twists in game time. Like, what if the major villain in your campaign isn't the ol'GS come a calling again, but a group of radical young elves who have noticed how animals "evolve" to succede in the world and, seeing as the elven race is in decline, resolve to do something to make their species more evolutionarily vyable?

[ConjurerDragon]

Rowan schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4139
> ...
> Ryan, each philosophy, culture, moral system, whatever have been aimed at discovering and describing an absolute, just like science does but in respect to non-physical questions. Each makes arguments appealing to an absolute, and the reason for choosing any over another is by making a judgment based on the best arguments, just as scientists make judgments about the best theories.
>
Which is a very general statement that doesn?t say anything about that
only one absolute viewpoint of morality exists which you wrote a few
posts of yours ago.


> ...Boy, moral relativists get so upset when you try to suggest any absolute other than their own self-contradictory absolute that there are no absolutes!
> Conjurer, I never said that all who don`t share my moral views lack knowledge or understanding. I was responding to Ryan`s attack on moralism as not being based on logic or reason--I was saying that it seemed to me that he had missed the vast, vast body of deep intellectual and rational thought from incredibly intelligent people throughout history relying on logic and reason to discern moral systems and truths.
>
You wrote: "Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories
about /one/ absolute morality."
That implies to me that those that do not see the one absolute morality
you see as lacking knowledge or understanding.
> ...
> I`m not sure what you`re getting at in reference to the Golden Compass. The author used it to make moral points and theological arguments to support his belief that there was no God and religion was evil, and to rail against the strong theistic element in fantasy....
>
I replied to your sentence "I never claimed that all people are
attracted to fantasy because of its moral components (though even the
atheistic author of the Golden Compass was)." and questioned the
validity of your conclusion that the moral components in fantasy must be
so appealing because even an atheist was attracted by them.

> You doubt that there is a huge variety of experts and authors who support my statements about fantasy?
Oh, I don?t doubt that fantasy authors see or want to see their works as
something that is bought or has success because of the moral component.
It?s always good to believe that what you do serves some greater good.
However many writers simply make a living writing or/and do it to
entertain those that buy and read their books without wanting to
reinvent the bible in fantasy format.
> Or are you just pointing out my laziness in waiting for someone to dispute the point before bringing it up? In terms of popular authors that each are individually responsible for vastly expanding fantasy`s popularity, I can`t think of a one who`d disagree.
I can?t either. Simply because people tend not to disagree if the
assumption is to their advantage or puts them into a good light.

> JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling are perhaps the three biggest in that arena; let`s add Robert Jordan, Orson Scott Card, Ursula K LeGuin...If you really want me to come up with a list of authors and others, I will; I just figured it was pretty indisputable. Philosophers, literature experts, and anthropologists observe the popularity of ideas not based solely on explicit, conscious acceptance by people, but by its appeal to their other subconscious senses.
>
> Would fantasy be so attractive if it were not so often a struggle between Good and Evil or their various shades?
>
A struggle between Good and Evil is existing everywhere and not in
fantasy literature alone. Even Margret Rutherfords Miss Marple has it?s
share of Good vs. Evil and is not something I would label "fantasy".
And many things are attractive that have no struggle between good and
evil at all - feeding your Tamagochi for example some years ago had some
real mass appeal even here in Germany.
So no, I do not see your point "that moral components exist strongly in
fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy?s huge growth and mass appeal".
...
> Again, I never claimed to "know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics," just that Ryan`s assertion of the essential illogic of moral philosophy was unfounded. It`s not very effective to make erroneous assumptions and conclusions about what I`ve said and then argue against them Yes, there was an ad hominem element to my assertion, but it was also an expression of bewilderment about how one could miss the overwhelming dependence on logical thought in moral philosophy.
>
Your words were: "Suffice it to say that your characterization of moral
philosophy seems to me to have suffered from poor teachers, insufficient
investigation, or just denial."

That implies that Ryan was wrong because he had poor teachers, Ryan was
lazy investigating the matter or worse.
Regardless how bewildered you were and how different your opinion is
from that of someone else stating or implying such does nothing to
further any discussion. And you continue here again "...how one could
miss the overwhelming dependence..." as if everyone not seeing what you
see must be wrong and not only wrong but apparently so.

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
> those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
> certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
> those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
> wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)
> -----------------------------
>
> Some of Anuire would, yes, but not all. Climate prevents forests from overtaking plains in many places, and many forests removed to support plains may lose conditions necessary to support a resurgence of forest.
>
In our world perhaps. In the short time of a humans lifespan perhaps.
In the view of Sidhelien society I see them as patient as people
planning to bring vegetation to Mars and see forests grow on it?s surface.

[ryancaveney]

The other school are the realists. They say that Action A is better than Action B because after a long period of observing many cases directly through my senses and indirectly through descriptions (history and biography) I have found that A comes to a happy end much more often than B.

The difficulty upon which I am trying to focus is the nature of the idea "happy end". There are two significant problems here, one with each word.

The lesser problem is with the word "end". We don't know how anything actually turned out in the end, because things haven't ended yet, and some actions which happened in the distant past are still having powerful effects today (other actions have no apparent consequences at all, though this may be a problem more of detectability than unimportance).

The greater problem is with the word "happy". As anyone with a smattering of knowledge of modern psychology can tell you, different people are made happy in different amounts by different things. Therefore, even if things did ever finish coming to an end, or we were able to agree on a particular time horizon to use in defining the happiness caused by an event, happiness is fundamentally unlike height or weight or speed or temperature in that while we can all agree that ice cream scoop A is larger than ice cream scoop B, we will not all agree on which will make us happier if A and B are different flavors. It also assumes a pre-existing notion of what happiness is and what causes it. Where does that come from?

This is why I say there is an inherent measurement problem, which has as its consequence the unfortunate fact that the self-styled realists are in practice much more like the idealists than they wanted to be in theory. I would like ethical realism as you describe it to be possible, but I think the inherent variation in human sensation and valuation of pleasure and pain in themselves and others makes it impossible to achieve. That is the level of "realism" to which empirical psychology has led me.

[ryancaveney]

what if the major villain in your campaign isn't the ol'GS come a calling again

I far prefer the campaign in which the Gheallie Sidhe are the *heroes*, and the *humans* are the recurring villain we all love to hate!

[Rowan]

Which is a very general statement that doesn?t say anything about that
only one absolute viewpoint of morality exists which you wrote a few
posts of yours ago.

When did I say there was "one absolute viewpoint?" There are many viewpoints and ways of approaching and discovering the one absolute truth that exists. No one has discovered all truth or knows it completely. It's very similar to science, in that respect: there are absolutes that moral philosophy tries to discover.

Conjurer, please read my posts more carefully. Most of what you seem to be responding to are things that I have never said. Almost your entire last post is. If I haven't explained my position well enough, I'm sorry, but you seem to be interjecting statements that I've never made, like "one absolute viewpoint."

You wrote: "Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories
about /one/ absolute morality."
That implies to me that those that do not see the one absolute morality
you see as lacking knowledge or understanding.

No, it means just what I said, that there are different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories of one absolute morality/truth. I never claimed to know it all myself. Like science, it's about trying to discover fact. Just as all scientists lack an extraordinary amount of information/knowledge about what they're studying, so do we all lack knowledge and understanding of truth--which is why we seek to learn and understand more.

...and questioned the
validity of your conclusion that the moral components in fantasy must be
so appealing because even an atheist was attracted by them.

Not appealing necessarily to all, but the point was that this isn't something only theists are attracted to, but an atheist was as well, even though one of his stated reasons for writing was to combat the prevalent moralism and theism in fantasy.

It?s always good to believe that what you do serves some greater good.
However many writers simply make a living writing or/and do it to
entertain those that buy and read their books without wanting to
reinvent the bible in fantasy format.

Again, it's not always a conscious thing. Moral elements and struggle between good and evil are part and parcel to fantasy. I doubt most fantasy authors set out to write specifically to tell moral fables, though some of the best have.

A struggle between Good and Evil is existing everywhere and not in
fantasy literature alone. Even Margret Rutherfords Miss Marple has it?s
share of Good vs. Evil and is not something I would label "fantasy".
And many things are attractive that have no struggle between good and
evil at all - feeding your Tamagochi for example some years ago had some
real mass appeal even here in Germany.
So no, I do not see your point "that moral components exist strongly in
fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy?s huge growth and mass appeal".

I'm saying that the struggle between Good and Evil is the major driver in almost all fantasy. Most other modern literature doesn't seem so direct about it. I didn't say though that this struggle is only existant in fantasy, nor that it is the sole qualifier for being attractive, so I agree with you there. Yet how many forums in our age does the struggle between Good and Evil receive center stage in a dramatic light, and where in times past has it received that focus? In times past it was myth and religion. Those things have been edged out of the public conscious, now, so many (do you need me to start citing?) acknowledge Fantasy as filling this social role that has existed for most of human history. It fills a social need for these tales and for the attention to the struggle between the ideas of absolutes, Good and Evil.

That implies that Ryan was wrong because he had poor teachers, Ryan was
lazy investigating the matter or worse.
Regardless how bewildered you were and how different your opinion is
from that of someone else stating or implying such does nothing to
further any discussion. And you continue here again "...how one could
miss the overwhelming dependence..." as if everyone not seeing what you
see must be wrong and not only wrong but apparently so.

First off, I say "seems" because I don't pretend to know what people think or that I'm understanding them correctly, and so give them the opportunity to correct me. I never claimed that everyone had to see what I see or be wrong. Again, I was pointing to the deep investigation of truth that has gone on through history by many great minds. In my experience, many people do dismiss these people out of hand, usually either out of ignorance of their arguments or out of genuine, monumental arrogance assuming that they are simply better than all of these people who came before. Or people simply make a statement calling moral philosophy illogical and unreasonable, claiming that their reason is better, and then when I point out the disingeniousness of such a statement, they are willing to recognize that yes, they exaggerated and do indeed realize that there is much logic and reason involved in moral philosophy and even faith and theology. So yes, as I admitted, there was an ad hominem element of my statement, but it furthers the argument certainly no less than yours against me.

In our world perhaps. In the short time of a humans lifespan perhaps.
In the view of Sidhelien society I see them as patient as people
planning to bring vegetation to Mars and see forests grow on it?s surface.

So elves are terraformers? They'd need to change the climate drastically to bring sufficient water everywhere for forests, and change the soil structures as well. I very much doubt they'd do this when the sources say they don't like conjuration or evocation because they don't like overt forces changing nature.

[kgauck]

One of the differences that I think is most important between the realists and the idealists is that the realists prefer a descriptive ethics, while the idealists prefer a proscriptive ethics. Realists, such as Machiavelli observe that when a ruler does action x, say executes a Great Captain, then the range of outcomes looks like this, and condition A is the most common outcome for these reasons. The realists also take care to talk a lot about what a happy end is supposed to be. In the case of Machiavelli, the survival and stability of the state is the best end, since he argues that its the collapse and failure of states that causes the most harm.

While Machiavelli offers advice to old Lorenzo, I certainly don't see him universalizing as much as talking about what factors lead to what ends. He always reminds us that YMMV, because some factors will be more important in the next case than they were in the previous one, but he does a pretty good job of explaining the factors and drawing broad conclusions that remain useful.

Aristotle's politics is basically a series of case studies into what those societies looked like, what their constitutions were, and how things worked out, at least to his day, if not earlier. For Aristotle (and for realists generally) ethics are an adaptation to solve particular problems. Consider his discussion of the Carthaginian custom of sacrificing the first born child of the great houses during times of crisis. Aristotle does not discuss the practice as a question of good or evil, but rather what function does this practice serve. His main conclusion is that it is meant to draw all the nobles together by assuring them all that everyone is prepared to sacrifice for the state, because they have already (by the act of infanticide) sacrificed.

We may recoil from this practice, but for a realist, the more important question is without this custom, would the nobles instead turn on one another in civil disorder? Because if they did, many more children (and others) would die.