Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kyllsa Siikanen
Gradient
342
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 11:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
We all serve some cause; that cause may be as straightforward as the accumulation of wealth, or as complicated and demanding as finding a cure for some disease, securing cluster-wide peace, or improving the lot of one's people. Virtually no one commits an act of evil, believing it to be evil at the time; social norms are convincing, powerful things.
My question for all of you is open ended, and without any agenda; I ask because I seek your opinions, your views, not because I intend to judge you; though, of course, doing so in unavoidable, I will keep my thoughts to myself. What won't you do in pursuit of your goals? When is enough enough? Where is the line you will not cross?
For me, I refuse to hold responsible those who did not commit the acts I find abhorrent; there is nothing to be gained in it, save an endless cycle of further retribution. While I value tradition (more than most, I'd wager - see above regarding norms!) I do not value clinging to that which prevents improvement, on any level.
What is yours? GÇ£Crying is all right in its own way while it lasts. But you have to stop sooner or later, and then you still have to decide what to do.GÇ¥-á
GÇò C.S. Lewis-á |
Karynn Denton
Clan Katanga Caravan
246
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 12:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Interesting question, Shaman.
I would never disgrace my Ancestors, of course. Nor would I settle, acknowledge the Thukker Tribe as part of the Republic, or knowingly harm a child.
Other than that, anything goes. Karynn Denton Caravan Master
Drug-dealing, frigate-fighting, Rifter-rolling Thukkervixen |
Jinari Otsito
Otsito Mining and Manufacture
740
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 12:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
When is enough enough? When there are no more grievances. This will have to be up to the individual to determine. For many it's not about retribution or vengeance. It's about restoring that which has been lost. It's about righting a wrong. It's about delivering your kin from suffering or death. It's about fixing that which is broken. It's about improving the lot of yourself or others.
Whether the opponents believe themselves to be evil or righteous is of little consequence. It's what you consider to be abhorrent, immoral or a threat that matters, and whether or not you act upon it. Social norms may justify things for those in that society, but unless it holds up to your own moral and ethical compass, why would you consider it justified or unworthy of action?
Where is my line? There is none. There is only the act of greatest good or lesser evil. The specifics depend entirely on the situation at hand.
Oh, and your agenda is showing. Might want to tuck it in a bit. Prime Node. Ask me about augmentation.
|
Anslo
Scope Works
8142
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
My line is when people try to spin a simple thread as a way to smear some one. In other words, get ****** Jinari you self righteous little ****.
|
Jinari Otsito
Otsito Mining and Manufacture
740
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm a starcluster, yay! Prime Node. Ask me about augmentation.
|
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1446
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
There is a significant distinction between the practical and the theoretical in this sort of question. It is all well and good to say that there are uncrossable lines when discussing hypotheticals, but it is a different thing altogether when one finds oneself in an emotional decision-making moment. Similarly, uncrossable lines are only made theoretically clear beforehand through the use of hypothetical situations that may have no resemblance to reality. Clear, straightforward hypothetical situations may help us organize our worldview in our minds and discourses but they are hypothetical for a reason - it is only through the removal of the majority of context that one can find that level of clarity.
Uncrossable lines, in reality, are only discovered afterward when it can be shown that one did not in fact cross them. |
Stitcher
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
3989
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
For my part, I would strive to choose a goal in life that inherently can't require that I breach my moral principles under any conceivable circumstances.
Obviously, I'm not able to comment on inconceivable circumstances. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1465
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 14:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:For my part, I would strive to choose a goal in life that inherently can't require that I breach my moral principles under any conceivable circumstances.
Obviously, I'm not able to comment on inconceivable circumstances.
How might this function without becoming tautological? If you choose a goal because it eliminates the possibility of violating your moral principles, does that not mean that not violating your moral principles is in fact the actual goal and whatever it is that you are filling your time with is merely a means to that goal? You are choosing a goal because it is your goal, is what I am saying. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement, but I am curious. |
Pieter Tuulinen
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
4009
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 14:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
In my experience you never see that line until you've crossed it. It's not like mathematics, unfortunately, where X value of broken bodies and dreams is acceptable and y value is too many, it's an accretion of tiny sins and compromises. I didn't see the big picture until it was far, far too late. "You let one of them go, but that's nothing new is it? Every now and then a little victim is allowed to escape; because she smiled, because he's got freckles, because they begged. And that's how you live with yourself. That's how you slaughter millions." "Only a killer would know that..." |
Stitcher
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
3989
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 14:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:Stitcher wrote:For my part, I would strive to choose a goal in life that inherently can't require that I breach my moral principles under any conceivable circumstances.
Obviously, I'm not able to comment on inconceivable circumstances. How might this function without becoming tautological? If you choose a goal because it eliminates the possibility of violating your moral principles, does that not mean that not violating your moral principles is in fact the actual goal and whatever it is that you are filling your time with is merely a means to that goal? You are choosing a goal because it is your goal, is what I am saying. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement, but I am curious.
That's a fair point. My immediate reaction is that it's possible to have more than one life goal, of which one of mine would be "don't violate my moral principles" but now you've pointed it out I can see how that verges on the redundant. Hmm.
I can see I'll have to give Kyllsa's question some more thought. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|
Jace Sarice
Sarshitra Corporation
4821
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 15:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
At the risk of the responses sounding like an echo chamber, I agree with the others that say lines are often discovered by crossing them. Never again is a much stronger sentiment than I would never. |
Stitcher
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
3989
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 15:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Just so long as we learn from other people's experience as well as our own. A line may only be visible in hindsight, but that doesn't mean that I have to be the one who first crosses it. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1546
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 15:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
I would like to reiterate that hindsight may provide clarity without actually crossing any lines ourselves. One can have a theoretical framework for the practical application of moral principles and see it fulfilled through hindsight. There was a line we did not cross, our principles did in fact guide us admirably, and so forth. As the person previous to me mentioned, the formation of those principles is often reliant upon history and the experiences of others. The notion that one must experience everything for oneself is often a sign of a lack of discipline, not a necessity for forming principles. |
Pieter Tuulinen
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
4010
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 15:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:Just so long as we learn from other people's experience as well as our own. A line may only be visible in hindsight, but that doesn't mean that I have to be the one who first crosses it.
Sometimes, in the dark, it can be hard to get the proper perspective or to see clearly enough to learn lessons from afar. "You let one of them go, but that's nothing new is it? Every now and then a little victim is allowed to escape; because she smiled, because he's got freckles, because they begged. And that's how you live with yourself. That's how you slaughter millions." "Only a killer would know that..." |
Darsena Izuma
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 16:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
There was a time when my moral code was well defined, and matched with that of my parents. Life is short, and thus, sacred. Do not steal. Do not kill. Do no harm.
Then I became a god who treats with other gods.
Now there is only that which is expedient, and that which is not. That which is beneficial, and that which is not. There are, of course, concerns for the long-term ramifications of one's actions, especially when one is immortal, but those are questions of practicality, not morality. We are beyond such mundane concerns.
So, the answer is: the line does not exist. Fedo are not what they seem to be.-á Welcome to Night Vale. |
Jade Blackwind
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
158
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 17:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
What if one has no goals?
Imagine a surfer atop a sea wave. What is his goal? To stay afloat until the wave crashes and to have fun. Imagine a skydiver falling through the atmosphere mile after mile. What is his goal? To survive the landing and to have fun, perhaps, to take some selfies and post them to be wow'ed at. Imagine a skydiver falling through the atmosphere of a large gas giant. One way ticket. There'll be no landing. Perhaps, some selfies to post, yes, and lots of fun during those minutes of descent. Then, nothing.
But are those selfies and fun the real goal, especially if someone was thrown there without consent, or after signing up for something else entirely? Then what is the goal? To feel the wind against the thin suit and to awe at the majesty of the immense cloudscape stretching before you, at the thunderstorms capable to devour Matar whole, to greet the stars and the ring splitting the horizon in two. Then, suffer for a while - because pressure - and die.
Poetry aside, I try to minimize collateral damage and to not betray people. Sentient beings that have emotions, such as infomorphs, count as "people". Other than that, anything goes. Especially towards eggers. |
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1627
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 17:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jade Blackwind wrote:What if one has no goals?
Everyone that continues to live by their own volition by definition has at least a minimal goal, namely, to keep on living. It is a simplistic goal without much thought behind it, but a goal nonetheless. If that person had no goals whatsoever they would be dead. |
Jade Blackwind
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
158
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 17:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:Jade Blackwind wrote:What if one has no goals? namely, to keep on living What if there is no goal to keep on living? In capsuleers, that is perfectly possible and, i'd say, quite common. There is no active desire to commit the final suicide, but zero self-preservation anyway. Then what?
|
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1627
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 18:03:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jade Blackwind wrote:Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:Jade Blackwind wrote:What if one has no goals? namely, to keep on living What if there is no goal to keep on living? In capsuleers, that is perfectly possible and, i'd say, quite common. There is no active desire to commit the final suicide, but zero self-preservation anyway. Then what?
It is not possible to do so. Living requires resources. If one does not have the desire to live the resources would cease to be gathered and death would occur. Whether that resource is simply food and water for a baseliner or the maintenance of clones for a capsuleer, the maintaining of those resources indicates a desire to continue living. And thus, a goal. |
Jade Blackwind
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
158
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 18:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'd argue with that, but i'm too bored, really.
Hint: Alpha clones are sponsored by governments en masse. One can suicide as often as he/she wishes, get podded to an alpha clone and yet come back for more insane sheetz and giggles for free. The final death requires either a conscious decision, or an upload error that can happen to anyone regardless of their will to live (and happens to a ton of people daily). |
|
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
1657
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 19:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jade Blackwind wrote:I'd argue with that, but i'm too bored, really.
Hint: Alpha clones are sponsored by governments en masse. One can suicide as often as he/she wishes, get podded to an alpha clone and yet come back for more insane sheetz and giggles for free. The final death requires either a conscious decision, or an upload error that can happen to anyone regardless of their will to live.
You do not think the government would revoke that clone access if a capsuleer was downloaded into a clone and just sat there and let it die of dehydration over and over again? If one had no goals that is precisely what would happen. Dehydrate, download into new clone, dehydrate, download into new clone, ad infinitum. After a while, access to those clones would certainly be revoked and final death would occur.
This absurd notion of capsuleers as nihilistic demigods has only come about because people are giving the term 'nihilism' very generous usage. Acting randomly for '***** and giggles?' ***** and giggles are now your goal. Sit and watch holovids all day? Sitting and watching holovids is your goal. In order for there to be any action whatsoever, there must be some sort of goal driving that action. If there was no goal there would be no action. |
Jude Kopenhagen
Stormcrows
40
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 19:07:00 -
[22] - Quote
Live with what you have done, and try in the future to only do that which you can live with. |
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Imperial Outlaws.
1639
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 20:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
In the pursuit of ensuring that the legacy of Matias Sobaseki is maintained through the continued political, economic, and military strength of Kaalakiota Corporation I do not feel there should exist limits to those ambitions. What must be done, shall be done, by whatever means deemed personally sufficient and necessary. |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
1751
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 20:51:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kyllsa Siikanen wrote:We all serve some cause; that cause may be as straightforward as the accumulation of wealth, or as complicated and demanding as finding a cure for some disease, securing cluster-wide peace, or improving the lot of one's people. Virtually no one commits an act of evil, believing it to be evil at the time; social norms are convincing, powerful things.
Indeed. One of the greatest tragedies of our age is that the Shakorites do not believe themselves to be evil. If only they could be convinced of the the truth regarding their abhorrent activities then peace in the cluster would be a lot closer.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Jade Blackwind
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
158
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 20:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:Dehydrate, download into new clone, dehydrate, download Meh. I believe the Amarrians call that "ad absurdum"? Whatever. |
Nissui
73
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 21:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kyllsa Siikanen wrote:What won't you do in pursuit of your goals? Where is the line you will not cross? Across the Sobaki Sands, beyond the Great Wet Desert, amidst the Vasty Dark; honor the Tribe, the Clan more, the Family most of all. Wherever you roam, tell of your name is tell of the Family. Never forget them what raised you from the dust of forebears gone back to the deep sands, and never tell a pathmark of em, or deny salvage to em, or spit in the wind when the kine are athirst.
Let all else beg the spirits to stop us. |
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
379
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 22:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:Stitcher wrote:For my part, I would strive to choose a goal in life that inherently can't require that I breach my moral principles under any conceivable circumstances.
Obviously, I'm not able to comment on inconceivable circumstances. How might this function without becoming tautological? If you choose a goal because it eliminates the possibility of violating your moral principles, does that not mean that not violating your moral principles is in fact the actual goal and whatever it is that you are filling your time with is merely a means to that goal? You are choosing a goal because it is your goal, is what I am saying. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement, but I am curious.
Mr. Stitcher is onto something here. The question then is, if there is a goal which we can choose, that isn't simply 'not violating my moral principles', which would in fact be tautological and even more than that: circular in an unhealthy way. That is, it wouldn't really tell us anything about how we should act.
Of course Shaman Siikanen already hinted at a solution to that:
Kyllsa Siikanen wrote:Virtually no one commits an act of evil, believing it to be evil at the time. If we accept the statement that no ones is pursuing an evil, believing it to be an evil at the same time (and I think that is analytically true), then we do accept as well that all action are pursued for the sake of a good.
The solution therefore lies in looking at the goods that are existing. Doing so shows that there are two types of goods: First there are goods that are pursued as means (to other goods). For example the knowledge of medicine is pursued to produce health, the knowledge of economy is pursued to acquire wealth and wealth is acquired as a means to acquire other goods. Second, there are goods that are, in a way, pursued as ends. If we pursue knowledge of medicine, that knowledge is a means to produce the good of health, which we would pursue as an end in this case.
Of course, goods can be a means from one perspective and ends from another. The question now is: If goods form relationships to one another like that, what is the order of such relationships? That is, if we take the sum of our actions as pointing to goods, with some of these goods themselves being means to pursue other goods, then we can say that some goods are never pursued solely as ends, but always also as means: For example monetary wealth was intorduced as a means to acquire goods and it is only in so far a good as it is a means to acquire other goods. If ISK lost it's value, no one would pursue to have lots of ISK.
Thus we can see that there are natural hierarchies of goods. The good of a shoe-lace is subservient to the good of a shoe and the good of a shoe is subservient to the good of egtting from here to there by foot, because a shoe's good consists in assisting in getting from here to there and the shoe lace's good consists in holding the shoe closed. And in this the goods that rule over the subservient ones are to be preferred, for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued.
To give an ancient quote (of course found in the vast body of the Scriptures):
Quote:If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good.
And while Mr. Stitcher here likes to portray the Amarr religion and faith as an irrational pursiut, it is indeed the pursuit to identify this chief good and to consciously orient our lives to pursue this good, as oftentimes our human minds take a good that is merely a mean to another good and rests in the illusion that because this good can be pursued as an end, therefore it must be an end which we desire for its own sake and that everything else is desired for the sake of this.
And knowing this weakness of humankind, I think the best safeguard from doing more than we really should is to reflect on this and keep in mind how easily we place goods that are means as the end desired for its own sake. And instead to live righteous lives in awe of the chief good, fearing to deviate from pursuing it. Thus to stop again and again and to ask yourself, critically, whether you truely still pursue the chief good or if you are idolizing a means.
Or as the Scripture put it so simply and elegantly: Whether we "live righteously and in fear of God". |
Nauplius
Hoi Andrapodistai
228
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 22:45:00 -
[28] - Quote
If God granted me the means to exterminate the Minmatar people, I would do so without the slightest guilt or the slightest hesitation. |
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
379
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 23:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
You might not hesitate nor feel guilt, but guilty you would be none the less, if you'd fail that test as happily as you declare you would. |
Arista Shahni
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 00:41:00 -
[30] - Quote
Nauplius wrote:If God granted me the means to exterminate the Minmatar people, I would do so without the slightest guilt or the slightest hesitation.
Silence is as great a lesson as a voice. I'd wonder then, why the means have not been granted. "I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you - so the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also. -áAnd as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, so the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |