Curse

arcanemacabre · Dec 02, 2007, 07:40 AM // 07:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

It is a basic precept of any moral code that you cannot put self preservation above avoiding doing harm. That is to say, safing yourself is -NEVER- an excuse to doing harm to innocents.

You're so sure? What exactly have cattle, or fish, or cabbage for that matter done to make it not-innocent, and good to go for killing? Perhaps our own survival? We do need to eat.

Oh wait, you mean to say it's not our species, so it's okay? Mursaat weren't killing their own to keep that door closed. Pretty sure they were fine with that. Exactly what made them evil and every other living thing not? (everything must kill something organic to eat)

Zeek Aran · Dec 02, 2007, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

You're so sure? What exactly have cattle, or fish, or cabbage for that matter done to make it not-innocent, and good to go for killing? Perhaps our own survival? We do need to eat.

Oh wait, you mean to say it's not our species, so it's okay? Mursaat weren't killing their own to keep that door closed. Pretty sure they were fine with that. Exactly what made them evil and every other living thing not? (everything must kill something organic to eat)

We don't NEED to eat meat. Honestly, no one cares [except vegetarians] about eating them. Unless they're furry and cute or endangered, any animal is edible. And... cabbage? What? There's nothing wrong with eating cabbage. o.O

You really can't talk about morals and nature. They have nothing to do with each other.

arcanemacabre · Dec 02, 2007, 07:57 AM // 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeek Aran

We don't NEED to eat meat. Honestly, no one cares [except vegetarians] about eating them. Unless they're furry and cute or endangered, any animal is edible. And... cabbage? What? There's nothing wrong with eating cabbage. o.O

You really can't talk about morals and nature. They have nothing to do with each other.

First of all, cabbage (ie any plant) is a living thing, just like you and me. It is very relevant to the discussion, since we're talking about different species interacting. What is right and wrong must radiate from the center - your own species first. Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with animals that aren't with humans (hit and kill a squirrel with your car - roadkill, hit and kill a human - manslaughter). Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with plants than animals. When discussing the Mursaat, this point is very important. They killed "innocents," however, they were "innocent" humans, not other Mursaat.

Second thing - morals and nature go hand-in-hand. I mean, unless you think our morals are embedded in our "souls" and handed down by God.

Zeek Aran · Dec 02, 2007, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

First of all, cabbage (ie any plant) is a living thing, just like you and me. It is very relevant to the discussion, since we're talking about different species interacting. What is right and wrong must radiate from the center - your own species first. Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with animals that aren't with humans (hit and kill a squirrel with your car - roadkill, hit and kill a human - manslaughter). Certain things are "ok" with regard to dealing with plants than animals. When discussing the Mursaat, this point is very important. They killed "innocents," however, they were "innocent" humans, not other Mursaat.

Second thing - morals and nature go hand-in-hand. I mean, unless you think our morals are embedded in our "souls" and handed down by God.

A plant can't really interact. I'm agnostic, so don't assume any religion's morals to be my own. How can nature and morals go hand in hand if animals besides us lack the ability to stop and think if what they are doing is right or wrong. Nature just happens and that's that. Nature doesn't need morals. Undomesticated creatures don't eat more than they need to to survive.

The Mursaat should have categories. Sapient beings and non-sapient. The innocents they killed were civil beings. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, so I'm going to stop here.

arcanemacabre · Dec 02, 2007, 08:14 AM // 08:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeek Aran

A plant can't really interact. I'm agnostic, so don't assume any religion's morals to be my own. How can nature and morals go hand in hand if animals besides us lack the ability to stop and think if what they are doing is right or wrong. Nature just happens and that's that. Nature doesn't need morals. Undomesticated creatures don't eat more than they need to to survive.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but uhh, we are part of nature. We stop and think because we have that luxury. Place a human in the wild for long enough, and all that will be important is survival. They will stop and think just as much as any primate, or any other living thing with a brain advanced enough.

So, is it proper to only feel empathy for other living things that can also feel empathy? Is that what is truly good? Which, by the way, really screws over sociopaths who cannot, no matter how hard they try, feel empathy. Are they just doomed to be evil?

Zeek Aran · Dec 02, 2007, 08:19 AM // 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Not sure if you're aware of this, but uhh, we are part of nature. We stop and think because we have that luxury. Place a human in the wild for long enough, and all that will be important is survival. They will stop and think just as much as any primate, or any other living thing with a brain advanced enough.

So, is it proper to only feel empathy for other living things that can also feel empathy? Is that what is truly good? Which, by the way, really screws over sociopaths who cannot, no matter how hard they try, feel empathy. Are they just doomed to be evil?

Sentient = feel
Sapient = know

I don't believe, in our current state, humans are a part of nature. If we wanted to, we could kill all life on earth. Nothing in nature can do that. This is why I think nature is one thing and morals are only held by humans. In our world, anyway; this doesn't have much to do with the topic.

sindex · Dec 02, 2007, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

First off, I don't recall - its in the lore section of this site and the wiki in a few places. Its been a long time since I payed much attention nor does it come from a single place to go read. Secondly I didn't say (or at least mean to say) they were just like the Mursaat (far from it) - I meant that the Mursaat have the same plan for us as they did them. That isn't even to say they are just like us either - just that the Mursaat already did unto them and plan to do unto us.

Well if that was true, then why does both the official and unofficial GW-wiki, say different? If you look at both they give you the standard information about the Mursaat and the Seer’s. Unless you have hard evidence to prove otherwise, then it’s not a fact.

Offical
Mursatt
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mursaat
Seer’s
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Seer
Unoffical
Mursaat
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Mursaat
Seer’s
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Seer

Quote:

It is clear that they are guarding the Door of Komalie to keep the chosen from opening it. It is clear that the "chosen" are a thing predicted and not known about before Glint gave the flamseeker prophecies. We know from the lore of the blood stones and the Door of Komalie that, at least at some time, it was unguarded. In fact, everyone seems surprised that it is now guarded. At least according to what we know the killing of the chosen upon the bloodstones is a White Mantle thing and recent.

I admit I do not (and we do not) know explicitly what happened before then, but it is reasonable to assume that since their sole reason for guarding it is the chosen opening it and the only reason we know of that is Glint's prophecies, it is reasonable to assume that they had the "oh crap" moment. Maybe they killed a bunch of forgotten that were guarding it before, however it is implied that guarding it is something fairly new. I would say it is hard to figure anything else without going into wild gyrations about what happened (though, of course, nothing to stop Anet from doing that or just simply contradicting themselves).

Therefore, what you are saying through those two paragraphs is basically an assumption of the fact. So the question I provide is still not answered, since theories are not fact.

zwei2stein · Dec 02, 2007, 09:28 AM // 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeek Aran

Sentient = feel
Sapient = know

I don't believe, in our current state, humans are a part of nature. If we wanted to, we could kill all life on earth. Nothing in nature can do that. This is why I think nature is one thing and morals are only held by humans. In our world, anyway; this doesn't have much to do with the topic.

No, we cant. In out current stage, it would be *impossible* for us to kill everything living on planet. And that is likely to be that way for thousands of years.

And evne if we were, it would be GG for us. No technology can replace what nature provides for us. Basically, we are still part of it, like it or not.

Were even incapable of killing every single human on this rock.

---

Anyway, gist of this discussion in fact that most people cant understand one thing:

Fighting evil does not make you good. You dont have to be good to fight evil. ... etc. Evil vs, Evil is completelly okay struggle, and history is showing that over and over.

Fighting is for survival and gain, noone ever fought for "higher ideals" (okay, common soldiers could think that, but thats propaganda.).

strcpy · Dec 02, 2007, 09:41 AM // 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

Wow. Either the moderators all took Saturday off, or this thread is tamer than I thought. When the mods do wake up, rather than closing this one can we just move it to off-topic or something. Its kind of interesting.

It has remained remarkably civil

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

The fact that I can disagree with it is exactly why I disagree with it.

One can disagree with many things, there are still people who *truly* believe the earth is flat and going to the moon was a great hoax perpetrated to convince us the world is round. That they can disagree doesn't change the truth at all (same thing goes for what I say - no amount of "other's believe" makes it any truer).

Quote:

Those actions you describe are from an individual that would be detrimental to society, and should be stopped. Prevented if possible, punished if not preventable so that other may learn to not do those things. How could you argue any different without applying emotion to the situation?

Easy - I follow that same bit of logic and determine that if they need to be removed from society that almost always "evil", though there are the occasional exception. You should understand that you also are not giving an objective step by step (even if hard to follow) definition of "detrimental to society", you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are me (I would guess for the same reason - it would take a book to explain it fully).

Quote:

You are right, a large portion of people would ignore me. Those people are the kind that often yell "Won't somebody please think of the children!" Empathy is important to the survival of our species; letting emotion play into our judgment calls is not. In fact, the latter not only doesn't do any good, but it can become 'evil' by your definition (see any religious war).

That is *really* belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you. Really, think that one over - so far have I (or quite a few of the other posters one here) even remotely resembled that post? Many ignore you simply after that simply because the actions Hitler did are inherently Evil, see part of my post as to why. An interesting counter the religious wars (and why I used him as an example) is that Pol-Pot took a large portion of your beliefes and (like the religious wars) took them to an extreme. He, and quite a few others, are the secular version of that. In modern time there have been WAY more people killed over secular non-emotional objective reasoning than religious wars.

Quote:

I have to ask, and this may end the conversation here, but where do you suppose morals come from?

There are two basic paths to where I figure they come from. First, is that regardless of anything else out there are are "morals" - even to some extent you recognize this in deciding some actions are "improper". In a sense this is the same question as to the US's Bill of Rights - they are simply inherent in the system. Effectively you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and infringing on those is wrong (though not always evil and, obviously, with any one line it isn't a complete answer).

The second, and what I suppose you are searching for is my religious beliefs. They are generally something between a deist and a Christian. However many of the "morals" are personal (much like the Jewish custom of eating Kosher food). They are quite a bit different from what is being discussed - things like telling the truth, not cheating on your spouse, that kind of thing. Though even should it be shown there is no god I would *still* consider them to be the moral standpoint.

Quote:

By mental condition, I did not mean a specific, documented psychological condition; I meant the overall mental state of the individual.

I realized that, as such I included both (the person had either legitimate reasons or a mental problem to think you were going to kill their family). In fact, as per this conversation I do not see any distinction as in both cases they person was still acting in good faith (there's that word again).

Quote:

Arbitrary definitions, perhaps?

We can only go by what we know about a situation. Pol Pot did what he did systematically and with full knowledge of what he was doing. Of course, any megalomaniac or murder has - by definition - some type of mental issue. But, unless it is one where you can not control your actions (Schizophrenia comes to mind) I find it irrelevant. No, not arbitrary definitions but not living in a binary world however much you want to make me out to believe that.

Quote:

You're right, I don't know what Nihilism is, but I had an assumption. After reading what you said, my assumption was correct. #1 and #2 could also be said of any Atheist or Agnostic, which I would agree with.

No, agnostics do not know and will not say if there is one or not. If you believe there is no God(s) then you are an Athiest. Of course, and Athiest is also a weak version of a nihilist so I would VERY much say that it is true they would meet those two.

Quote:

#3 goes against everything I've said (after the therefore; terrible if/then statement, btw), so no, I don't agree with it. Not sure how you could pin me as that.

In what way do you disagree with it? In fact, you explicitly state: "In real life, there is no objective system you could use to determine who is evil and who is good." which is a paraphrase of most of that last line (and why I use the term "weak nihilist", though in some places you do follow into the "therefore who cares?" realm). As I said, you are more properly a post-modernist, but that is a specific subset of a nihilist movement. People generally use the term incorrect and focus on the latter part of the third point, however the first part tends to be more important to if it is a nihilist philosophy.

Quote:

It appears Nihilism is against this way of thinking, and they would rather do nothing because it is right to them, rather than pursue a goal of survival, life, freedom, and happiness. That is not me at all.

Once more, the strong version of a nihilist would be that way, but yours is a weak version of it.

Quote:

I also don't really appreciate being pigeonholed into some kind of already-established belief, Nihilist or not. Which is also why I agree with the first two statements.

You are almost a classic fit for that "pigeonhole" - everything you are stating here is a fairly basic belief system that has been around a long time. There is almost nothing new under the sun, you don't have an original belief system (in that you are the only one to think so), and you fit nearly 100% to it (post-modernism, which happens to be a subset of a nihilist movement). I haven't assumed anything you believe, I didn't even assume you were an atheist (though I figured you most likely were).

Just to make sure, your not getting angry over the "strong" and "Weak" thing are you? They are simply technical terms used in discussing things like this and there is no good or bad connotations with them and simply mean how far do you carry the beliefs.

Quote:

It is the easy way out, you're right there. It is also a nice, short, abridged version you can feed your followers: "Kill these guys because they're evil." It worked in religious wars for millenia, and sometimes, the ends aren't even justified, despite the means.

Ah, but that is irrelevant to if it is correct or not. You are full of short easy to feed snippets also (we all are). A large part of good or bad is *why* - to manipulate for your own gain is bad, if you are recognizing a truth then not so.

Quote:

All I mean is that evil doesn't have to be evil just for evil's sake when it comes to fiction. It is much better to not even apply the term, and explain it as a more complicated, interwoven story.

To some extent, sometimes that makes for a better story, sometimes "good and evil" are better separated and obvious. I find each one interesting for different purposes.

henry · Dec 02, 2007, 09:43 AM // 09:43

I don't know how many of you have read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series, but I'd like to interject his "Hierarchy of Alienness" into this arguement.

It's described here in detail, for those that are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarc...y_of_Alienness

How does this relate to the Mursatt?

arcanemacabre · Dec 02, 2007, 10:33 AM // 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

Easy - I follow that same bit of logic and determine that if they need to be removed from society that almost always "evil", though there are the occasional exception. You should understand that you also are not giving an objective step by step (even if hard to follow) definition of "detrimental to society", you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are me (I would guess for the same reason - it would take a book to explain it fully).

The objective step by step is trying to find what works best in order for society to grow. It is nothing in particular, and in some cases, it may be. The point is, like the scientific method, it only ends up as a theory based on facts, rather than a belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

That is *really* belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you. Really, think that one over - so far have I (or quite a few of the other posters one here) even remotely resembled that post? Many ignore you simply after that simply because the actions Hitler did are inherently Evil, see part of my post as to why. An interesting counter the religious wars (and why I used him as an example) is that Pol-Pot took a large portion of your beliefes and (like the religious wars) took them to an extreme. He, and quite a few others, are the secular version of that. In modern time there have been WAY more people killed over secular non-emotional objective reasoning than religious wars.

Evil has many definitions. By some, I would agree that what Hitler, or Pol-pot, or whoever did was evil. Specifically this one: "anything causing injury or harm" or perhaps this one: "characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous." What I think you're going on about is this definition: "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" or: "the wicked or immoral part of someone or something." If so, that I entirely disagree with. Those require some universal or even divine kind of morality that all life (or at least mankind) abides to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

There are two basic paths to where I figure they come from. First, is that regardless of anything else out there are are "morals" - even to some extent you recognize this in deciding some actions are "improper". In a sense this is the same question as to the US's Bill of Rights - they are simply inherent in the system. Effectively you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and infringing on those is wrong (though not always evil and, obviously, with any one line it isn't a complete answer).

The second, and what I suppose you are searching for is my religious beliefs. They are generally something between a deist and a Christian. However many of the "morals" are personal (much like the Jewish custom of eating Kosher food). They are quite a bit different from what is being discussed - things like telling the truth, not cheating on your spouse, that kind of thing. Though even should it be shown there is no god I would *still* consider them to be the moral standpoint.

I find moral value to be an extremely important as a survival factor. I've said that many times. However, I disagree that morality exists as an objective, solid, unyielding force of any kind. Its roots are entirely in what we as humans agree upon, be it in actual communication or evolved into our genetics (social abilities), and not some unseen force. Our genetics, however mostly universal in our species, does mutate and change. It is also adaptable, and varies from person to person. For this reason, while we have basic social aspects that are relatively the same, our very nature ensures they are as much different as they are the same.

As I mentioned before, sociopaths do not feel empathy for their fellow human. I think I read somewhere that every 1 in 10 people are sociopaths. This is an oddball trait, but it is still fairly common. Take one of these and put them in the wrong environment (abused as a child, etc), and you end up with what people would call an 'evil' person doing 'evil' things. Evil as in "causing injury or harm," verbally and physically? You bet. Evil as in inherently wicked? Well I guess you be the judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

I realized that, as such I included both (the person had either legitimate reasons or a mental problem to think you were going to kill their family). In fact, as per this conversation I do not see any distinction as in both cases they person was still acting in good faith (there's that word again).

How would you know that? Unless you can read minds, you can't. But yet, you can readily declare someone or their actions as evil (wicked), when you don't really know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

We can only go by what we know about a situation. Pol Pot did what he did systematically and with full knowledge of what he was doing. Of course, any megalomaniac or murder has - by definition - some type of mental issue. But, unless it is one where you can not control your actions (Schizophrenia comes to mind) I find it irrelevant. No, not arbitrary definitions but not living in a binary world however much you want to make me out to believe that.

You can control your actions, but what if your condition (or environment) makes it so that you don't want to? Think about severe drug addictions for what I'm talking about. Taking the 'moral high road' isn't always the best decision, either. Again, this is where that perfect knowledge thing that I was talking about comes in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

No, agnostics do not know and will not say if there is one or not. If you believe there is no God(s) then you are an Athiest. Of course, and Athiest is also a weak version of a nihilist so I would VERY much say that it is true they would meet those two.

First of all, it isn't "believe there is no God(s)," it's "don't believe there is a God(s)." Big difference. I have no belief, but I am open-minded. I just need to be shown the proof to push me. Doesn't that make me at least a "light" agnostic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

In what way do you disagree with it? In fact, you explicitly state: "In real life, there is no objective system you could use to determine who is evil and who is good." which is a paraphrase of most of that last line (and why I use the term "weak nihilist", though in some places you do follow into the "therefore who cares?" realm). As I said, you are more properly a post-modernist, but that is a specific subset of a nihilist movement. People generally use the term incorrect and focus on the latter part of the third point, however the first part tends to be more important to if it is a nihilist philosophy.

Because good and evil don't play into the system. It's what is good for society (and advancement for humans blah blah blah), and what isn't. That's all. There is no system of who is good or evil, because there is no good and evil (in the 'inherently wicked' sense). I don't have a belief, nor do I adhere to any kind of specific philosophy, I simply try to understand the theories and apply them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

Once more, the strong version of a nihilist would be that way, but yours is a weak version of it.

This will be the last time I will say this - stop pigeonholing me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

To some extent, sometimes that makes for a better story, sometimes "good and evil" are better separated and obvious. I find each one interesting for different purposes.

It can make for a good story. See: The Holy Bible.

Sorry, had to.

Guildmaster Cain · Dec 02, 2007, 10:44 AM // 10:44

Don't forget that you can not judge the allegiance of an entire faction/race by the actions of one or more individuals.

It is like saying all Americans are evil, just because Bush is doing evil stuff.

Confessor Dorian might have been a nice guy in the past, his recent actions have corrupted him and he is 100% evil now in my book. The White Mantle just follows his command, but the individuals are not evil themselves. Look at Olias for instance.

Having said that, here is a proof of a evil Mursaat individual:
Lazarus the Dire: "Pitiful humans. My brothers are dead, but I will tolerate your existence no longer."
Justiciar Naveed: "Wait! It is me you're after, Lazarus. There's no need to harm these people any further. I... I surrender to your will."
Lazarus the Dire: "Surrender? That was never an option. Your only choices are death and... death. You are tool that has served its function. Your usefulness has ended. Disappear, now, from this world."
Justiciar Naveed: "Goodbye..."
Lazarus the Dire: "What...? What... is this? Something is wrong! My power twists upon itself! What have you done to me?"
Lazarus the Dire: "Accursed human! You have done this to me! I will not forget this!"
Lazarus the Dire: "Countless generations will suffer for your actions this day!"

It is the final quest in the questline given by Justiciad Navee, outside Tarnished Haven.

I think it is... interesting... how Rata Sum is an anagram of Mursaat plus the fact that the Mursaat have a hidden city deep in the Maguuma Jungle. Why can Asurans summon Mursaat at will? Maybe they were the hidden masters of the Mursaat.

arcanemacabre · Dec 02, 2007, 10:59 AM // 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guildmaster Cain

I think it is... interesting... how Rata Sum is an anagram of Mursaat plus the fact that the Mursaat have a hidden city deep in the Maguuma Jungle. Why can Asurans summon Mursaat at will? Maybe they were the hidden masters of the Mursaat.

I thought that as well. The Mursaat appeared to operate almost mechanically like the Golems, but in the new Saul mission, they appear to have a mind of their own. And the summons are a hard judge of a link mainly because the other beings they summon. No way they are the creators of Naga or Imps. Djinn, maybe, but no the other two.

I think one good theory of all of that is that where the Asura are now is what used to be where the Mursaat lived. The Asurans maybe studied them intently, and named their capital after them, perhaps intrigued by these beings from another planet. Maybe they tried to learn of their magic or technology that allowed interplanetary travel? Can we say "stargate?"

Cebe · Dec 02, 2007, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuclfus

Agreed. I really like the bonus mission pack for how it puts these characters under a new light. Not to mention we now know that Saul really had nothing to do with killing chosen for the Mursaat and was really just trying to help.

Definitely.

We kill Dorian in ThunderHead Keep because at the time we're led to believe he was evil, when actually It's been my belief for a while that the Mursaat (and by extension, the White Mantle) were "good" in a round-about sort of way. The Mursaat, through a need for self-preservation, had to keep the Door of Komalie closed, and used the White Mantle to make the sacrifices for them. As it happens, the rest of Tyria would have needed the door to be kept closed as well as the Mursaat, it's just the Mursaat seemed to know what was behind it.

I do not feel bad each time I kill Dorian though. I'm playing in-character and my Character doesn't know the whole story.

Shuuda · Dec 02, 2007, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guildmaster Cain

Having said that, here is a proof of a evil Mursaat individual:
Lazarus the Dire: "Pitiful humans. My brothers are dead, but I will tolerate your existence no longer."
Justiciar Naveed: "Wait! It is me you're after, Lazarus. There's no need to harm these people any further. I... I surrender to your will."
Lazarus the Dire: "Surrender? That was never an option. Your only choices are death and... death. You are tool that has served its function. Your usefulness has ended. Disappear, now, from this world."
Justiciar Naveed: "Goodbye..."
Lazarus the Dire: "What...? What... is this? Something is wrong! My power twists upon itself! What have you done to me?"
Lazarus the Dire: "Accursed human! You have done this to me! I will not forget this!"
Lazarus the Dire: "Countless generations will suffer for your actions this day!"

It is the final quest in the questline given by Justiciad Navee, outside Tarnished Haven.

I think it is... interesting... how Rata Sum is an anagram of Mursaat plus the fact that the Mursaat have a hidden city deep in the Maguuma Jungle. Why can Asurans summon Mursaat at will? Maybe they were the hidden masters of the Mursaat.

Explain to me how that makes Lazarus evil? It means that he, maybe like all Mursaat, sees humans as inferior, like how whites felt blacks were. To Mursaat, Humans are like sheep to be herded. Judging by all their gold and posture, I'd assume the Mursaat view themselves as the superior race. We may see that as morally wrong, but it's not evil.

strcpy · Dec 02, 2007, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

The objective step by step is trying to find what works best in order for society to grow. It is nothing in particular, and in some cases, it may be. The point is, like the scientific method, it only ends up as a theory based on facts, rather than a belief.

That is your opinoin, that I disagree shows that I am right (after all, that is your point, correct?)

Quote:

"the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" or: "the wicked or immoral part of someone or something." If so, that I entirely disagree with. Those require some universal or even divine kind of morality that all life (or at least mankind) abides to.

No, you complain about pigeonholing you and then you do so to me like crazy after finding out I mostly believe in a judeo-christian god. Until you quit doing this I am not going to respond to any of these taunts. At the least I have only argued about things you expressed as your belief and tried not assume the rest - you make no attempt at doing so.

Quote:

I find moral value to be an extremely important as a survival factor. I've said that many times. However, I disagree that morality exists as an objective, solid, unyielding force of any kind.

Ok, so this a rebuttal of anything I have said you believe in what way? I understand that, I have agreed that is what you believe and stated why I think it is wrong.

Quote:

How would you know that? Unless you can read minds, you can't. But yet, you can readily declare someone or their actions as evil (wicked), when you don't really know?

Actually the altered state of mind that we humans can not control take very little to diagnose and do not need for us to read minds. These things are physical and are, as such, observable from the outside world. This also applies to the paragraph you write above this one - it isn't just some random observation any more and as the science progresses it is even less so.

Quote:

You can control your actions, but what if your condition (or environment) makes it so that you don't want to? Think about severe drug addictions for what I'm talking about. Taking the 'moral high road' isn't always the best decision, either. Again, this is where that perfect knowledge thing that I was talking about comes in.

Drug addictions and those conditions are controllable - thousands of people do it all the time. And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about you might want to think again on that one. You may understand it as I do, but I can assure you that you do not have a better idea of it than I do.

Quote:

First of all, it isn't "believe there is no God(s)," it's I don't believe there is a God(s)." Big difference. I have no belief, but I am open-minded. I just need to be shown the proof to push me. Doesn't that make me at least a "light" agnostic?

No, that would make you a weak Athiest. Do you *really"* want to get into this argument? You didn't know what a nihilist was and you obviously have no idea as to what "strong" and "weak" mean in this case. You can give all the smiley faces you want yet those are still standard terms and if you *really* want to pin your arguments on that I can provide links. However, like the nihilist stuff you seem to have acquiesced this too will be wrong on your part.

Quote:

This will be the last time I will say this - stop pigeonholing me.

This may not be the last time I say this - then don't express your beliefs as nearly 100% in line with one of the pigeonholes if you do not want labeled as such. Nor am do I assume that because you fit it 90% the 10% you haven't expressed fall in line with them (unlike what you have posted to me).

If you want to have a fully original idea that no one else believes then I suggest being a Philosophy major and doing something no one you have studied believes. Otherwise, when you match a certain philosophy to the point you do then generally expect others to figure you, well, believe as such (and since you do believe as such I don't see the issue).

Quote:

It can make for a good story. See: The Holy Bible.

Sorry, had to.

Why be sorry? The holy Bible contains lots of good stories. Even though I would consider them mostly works of fiction I find the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita do also (even though, like the bible, they have large parts of them only meant for Believers). I find a large portion of the Bible to be fiction also (hence the whole something between a deist and Christian). I can't see them lasting this long if they didn't do so, we studied them in our Fiction classes in college and that had been standard practice for many decades and should have still been so since I graduated. In fact, many of our standard archetypes come from those stories.

DreamRunner · Dec 02, 2007, 02:50 PM // 14:50

Good and evil is just a group of people's motives vs another, the end.

Stockholm · Dec 02, 2007, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

. Second thing - morals and nature go hand-in-hand. I mean, unless you think our morals are embedded in our "souls" and handed down by God.

Wrong, morals is an artificial state of being as far as Human nature is concerned, humans is the most dangerous preditor earth has ever seen. We are the only species that kill for pleasure and sport.
And our "morals" have changed over time according to who has wielded the biggest stick. Even GOD (according to legends) sent his Angels to punish the humans for their behaviour (Sodom and Gomorra). And we try to say whats "evil" and whats "good", as if we are qualifide to make that judgment.

Terraban · Dec 02, 2007, 04:31 PM // 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuuda

Explain to me how that makes Lazarus evil? It means that he, maybe like all Mursaat, sees humans as inferior, like how whites felt blacks were. To Mursaat, Humans are like sheep to be herded. Judging by all their gold and posture, I'd assume the Mursaat view themselves as the superior race. We may see that as morally wrong, but it's not evil.

The thought itself is not evil. Thinking you are superior to others is not exactly evil. However, destroying things because you feel they are inferior is evil, for example, the KKK is pretty much considered evil.

Stockholm · Dec 02, 2007, 05:26 PM // 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terraban

The thought itself is not evil. Thinking you are superior to others is not exactly evil. However, destroying things because you feel they are inferior is evil, for example, the KKK is pretty much considered evil.

there we go, considered, not is, now we are getting somewhere,
evil and good is what we consider it to be, it is in the eye of the beholder, nothing absolut, just an opinion.