The Morality of Awakened Ones

[Mentar]

OMG you are dead on! She is a prototypical antisocial personality disorder - perfectly written. When it suits her/amuses her to do something which *happens* to seem compassionate, it makes her appear charming <-- a perfect choice of words. What is not apparent is that she could just as easily have crushed all of them - and the two actions would have internally seemed completely justified. The hallmark of an antisocial personality disorder - external rules don't apply to them; their internal 'morality' (or absence thereof) trumps all. And God forbid you go against that personal sense of right and wrong - then you frequently encounter a ruthless response.

Nope, you're applying human concepts to a non-human being. That's why this verdict is so very much off.

Look at it that way: If you insist on just looking at it from the human perspective, torturing and killing humans is flat-out evil. From the perspective of an Awakened Being, she's killing creatures which were sent out to HER hideout to kill HER. Is that "evil"? Much less so.

I'm not arguing that she's a saint - but applying her own point of view, her actions become easily justifiable. Torturing humans becomes the equivalent of "brainwashing enemies" to turn them to your side. She did interfere when Duff was in danger of being killed. And she still honored her promise to Clare.

Antisocial from a HUMAN perspective, maybe. Not from hers, however.

There's no question that she seems fun, childlike, and honest...

She's not childlike at all. She has a childlike appearance and voice, but her actions make alot of sense. She's aware and extremely perceptive. She's outspoken, honest and... well, whimsical. But no child, not at all.

Quite an interesting creation ;)

[NoSanninWa]

In the episode 17 discussion thread, a debate about morality suddenly cropped up. While a bit of a tangent, it quickly outstripped discussion of the actual episode.

Those 84 posts have been moved to this thread so that the discussion can be continued without continuing to interfere with the discussion of the actual episode.

[Lecrew]

I guess Riful is not too evil at all, because she was willing to help Clare where to find Isley and Priscillia who killed Theresa back then to get her revenge and plus she was going to offer her to destroy Isley only if she join by her side, so that makes Riful be the neutral girl.

[TinyRedLeaf]

I'd rather have the ethics/morality debate concerning Yoma, humans and rabbits
than this broken record repeating through all the episode-threads.

Lol. Well, if you want it that way, here's my take on that debate: Mentar's reasoning has a crucial flaw.


Nope, you're applying human concepts to a non-human being. That's why this verdict is so very much off.

Look at it that way: If you insist on just looking at it from the human perspective, torturing and killing humans is flat-out evil. From the perspective of an Awakened Being, she's killing creatures which were sent out to HER hideout to kill HER. Is that "evil"? Much less so.


It sounds almost convincing except that he overlooks a crucial point. Morality applies equally to all rational beings, regardless whether you are human or not. The one thing that does blur the whole issue however, is that an Awakened Being needs to eat human intestines to survive. In other words, they don't have a choice but to kill other rational beings.

If however, it can be shown that ABs can choose to eat animal intestines to sustain themselves, but they choose not to, then the debate becomes moot. They are pure evil, regardless what they may think of themselves, vis-a-vis human beings.

[Lecrew]

It sounds almost convincing except that he overlooks a crucial point. Morality applies equally to all rational beings, regardless whether you are human or not. The one thing that does blur the whole issue however, is that an Awakened Being needs to eat human intestines to survive. In other words, they don't have a choice but to kill other rational beings.


It's like for example, your on the top of the snowy mountain and there's no food that you got left, so the only choice is to find a dead body and eat all the parts to survive by yourself.

Demon eating guts and Humans eating "meat" makes no difference anyway.



Riful had a line that made me laugh. I think it was something like "your the only one that can endure me without breaking" now what does tha sound like you? LOL

Does that mean make " love"?:heh:

[half_awake]

Nope, you're applying human concepts to a non-human being. That's why this verdict is so very much off.

OK, you're right... fictional characters (even creatures) aren't based on human templates... because I heard the mangaka is actually half yoma, so he has a completely different point of view.

:rolleyes:

All characters written by humans have to, by definition, fit a condition that is comprehensible to the human experience. Even though we all may perceive a character differently, claiming that a character's personality is inherently different from 'human' isn't really possible - or if it is, it would certainly make the character less understandable and therefore less appealing to the reader/viewer.

The reponse of many to this is "a character that is mysterious is, in itself, appealing", but what is being discussed here isn't a matter of mystery; it is, instead, a matter of being able to associate a character's type to one's personal experience. This aspect of a fictional character is what dictates it's popularity or widespread appeal. The larger an audience that a character, be they protagonist or antagonist, can speak to with regards to hopes, desires, fears, etc., the more frequently they are found interesting or fascinating.

Riful, for example, is found appealing to many (including myself). She also fits the pattern of an antisocial personality disorder. Regardless of 'diagnosis', she performs her actions from the perspective of one who does not suffer consequences. She, at no point, was concerned for her safety - intervention was possible at any time; she simply chose not to exert her vastly superior power. The Claymore's were animate toys.

Were I to guess about what Riful's appeal, i.e. what makes many cheer for her despite her manipulative and narcissistic perspective, is her calm sense of omnipotence. Who, deep in their childhood memory, didn't want to have the kind of power that Riful does? The fact that it "all works out in the end" makes her seem compassionate... only increasing her appeal. She's a benevolent dictator.

Children are inherently narcissists (which is normal). Their perspective, or 'worldview', is extremely limited and until later in traditional personality development they see this world as centered around them. This also lends to Riful's credibility as a character - she really acts like a child... she can just back her egocentricy up with power.

:heh::heh::heh::heh:

oops, started running on a little bit there.... sorry :D

Anyway, one thing I agree with - she is an interesting creation!

[TinyRedLeaf]

It's like for example, your on the top of the snowy mountain and there's no food that you got left, so the only choice is to find a dead body and eat all the parts to survive by yourself.

Mmm....nope, poor analogy. If it's a dead body, and if it's because that person died from the cold, there isn't really much of a moral issue here (other than personal taboos against cannibalism).

I'm not sure if Awakened Beings can choose to be scavengers. From what we've seen so far, they need to eat fresh guts.

[Defiled one]

It's like for example, your on the top of the snowy mountain and there's no food that you got left, so the only choice is to find a dead body and eat all the parts to survive by yourself.

Demon eating guts and Humans eating "meat" makes no difference anyway.



Does that mean make " love"?:heh:


:rolleyes: No...it´s just a thing they play hide and seek...Just as Clare was toyed by Youmas...

Of course it means love..Otherwise why would This Esley have Priscilla? :rolleyes: For talking? For cooking skills?!:cool:

[Xellos-_^]

:rolleyes: No...it´s just a thing they play hide and seek...Just as Clare was toyed by Youmas...

Of course it means love..Otherwise why would This Esley have Priscilla? :rolleyes: For talking? For cooking skills?!:cool:

Status symbol

Middle Age old man and cute young girl :rolleyes:

Isley is going through a mid-life crisis :heh:

[Lecrew]

Mmm....nope, poor analogy. If it's a dead body, and if it's because that person died from the cold, there isn't really much of a moral issue here (other than personal taboos against cannibalism).

I'm not sure if Awakened Beings can choose to be scavengers. From what we've seen so far, they need to eat fresh guts.

You got a point in there.

Status symbol

Middle Age old man and cute you girl :rolleyes:

Isley is going through a mid-life crisis :heh:

Middle age old man with loli-girl:twitch:

That would be weird though, but hey they don't age, so it makes sense.:p

[Mentar]

Lol. Well, if you want it that way, here's my take on that debate: Mentar's reasoning has a crucial flaw.

Aha? Let's see.

It sounds almost convincing except that he overlooks a crucial point. Morality applies equally to all rational beings, regardless whether you are human or not.

What's that? :)

Proof by definition? You say so, and therefore it is? Where do you have this wisdom from? Start by listing which "rational beings" are not human (that's where your reasoning already falls apart)

Morality is a purely human concept. If you go down to other living things we attribute the highest degree of sentience to (primates), us humans don't talk about "morality" anymore to classify structures of behavior. Therefore, reducing the discussion to "rational" beings is pointless. And it's also misplaced - Riful isn't talking about morality, she is talking about simple natural concepts of hunters and hunted, and survival of the fittest species.

So let's rather talk about different species instead. Here, it's clear that predators are not to be considered "evil" for hunting and killing/eating their prey. Noting about morality, just the laws of nature. What's the point in suddenly interjecting purely human concepts in all this?

The one thing that does blur the whole issue however, is that an Awakened Being needs to eat human intestines to survive. In other words, they don't have a choice but to kill other rational beings.

If however, it can be shown that ABs can choose to eat animal intestines to sustain themselves, but they choose not to, then the debate becomes moot. They are pure evil, regardless what they may think of themselves, vis-a-vis human beings.

This whole "evil" thing is nonsense. Sorry.

Again, if we reduce everything to purely the human aspect and the human perspective, there's no discussion that Riful and other Awakened Beings are "evil". Of course their actions are, they are mortal threats to humans and human societies. Torture, murders... you name it. Though it tickles me for making a point of the devil's advocate that killing those people who invade your home with the intent to kill YOU might be considered acceptable even for humans ;)

Still, I'd rather see this whole conflict exactly in the context Riful put it: A struggle between different species. BOTH sentient. And in this perspective, we have the simple and well-known case between predator and prey. Riful as an Awakened Being is a predator, and she behaves like one. I disagree that she would have to adopt Human concepts of morality - if anything, I'd say it's clear that she would have to show allegiance to her OWN race first and foremost. That's what she does - shoring up forces to fend off a threat for her minions, from Easley.

Argue from Riful's perspective, or at least from a neutral one. You'll see that it will become difficult to rationalize "evildoing" then.

[half_awake]

I'll not argue your point about 'evil' - I agree: it's a human construct.

Here is where the flaw lies:

Riful isn't talking about morality, she is talking about
simple natural concepts of hunters and hunted, and survival of the fittest species.

Even if you put aside the fact that Riful possesses intelligence to the point of employing detailed strategy and forethought regarding survival techniques (which, in itself, is ignoring a great deal), you are still left with the method she employs to achieve that goal, and further, the enjoyment she gleans from this brutality.

She is more than powerful enough to exert the level of damage/strain required to induce a Claymore's awakening (and probably more rapidly, to boot). Instead, she allows a more vicious, slow technique utilizing another being's (Dauf's) resources. In addition, she derived pleasure from watching Clare get brutalized despite believing that Clare was limited in her potential contribution to her "means of survival" - she was letting Dauf 'play'. I could go on and on, especially if I drew from the manga, but I think this point was relatively clear.

Sure, the final goal for Riful is survival. It's the means she uses to reach that goal that reveal her to be either:

1) Ruthless, a personality disorder <--- this is if you give her the credit of intelligence and/or moral development.

2) A pathological animal, similar to a vicious dog that would be put down due to excessive aggression <--- this applies if you assume she is a simple creature, and the planning is basic.

Either way, the pathology extends beyond simple 'predator/prey' and 'survival of the fittest'.

[Mentar]

Even if you put aside the fact that Riful possesses intelligence to the point of employing detailed strategy and forethought regarding survival techniques (which, in itself, is ignoring a great deal), you are still left with the method she employs to achieve that goal, and further, the enjoyment she gleans from this brutality.

Hmmm... okay, I'll concede that this is a point worth examination.

She is more than powerful enough to exert the level of damage/strain required to induce a Claymore's awakening (and probably more rapidly, to boot). Instead, she allows a more vicious, slow technique utilizing another being's (Dauf's) resources.

What makes you think so? Even with full manga knowledge, I wouldn't say that she's more "skilled" in force-awakening Claymores than Duff is. For non-spoilage sakes, I don't wanna go into detail here, but I don't think that manga or anime support your position?!?

In addition, she derived pleasure from watching Clare get brutalized despite believing that Clare was limited in her potential contribution to her "means of survival" - she was letting Dauf 'play'.

To be honest, I didn't see Riful's pleasure from seeing Clare "getting brutalized" either. I rather got the impression of Riful as someone watching a boxing match, discussing the various skills of the combatants and their strategies. If anything, Riful was showing genuine concern about Clare's level of injury - after all, Riful wanted her awakened, not killed. If you criticize Riful for letting this whole battle take place at all - okay. Point taken. Then again, the AB who showed pleasure about the inflicted hurt and pain, it was clearly Duff. I didn't see that from Riful.

Sure, the final goal for Riful is survival. It's the means she uses to reach that goal that reveal her to be either:

1) Ruthless, a personality disorder <--- this is if you give her the credit of intelligence and/or moral development.

Ruthless? Aren't you already doing exactly what you said you wanted to avoid, by injecting human morality into the equation again? We're turning around in circles: If you continue to measure her deeds by HUMAN standards, you can reach the "evil/disorder/etc" conclusion directly. But from the standpoint of ABs, why would it matter for them whether or not she lets another AB fight another species, a human? Is a matador in a bull fighting arena in spain suffering from a personality disorder? Or those people sitting on the ranks of the stadium, watching and discussing/cheering? Answer me that :)

Either way, the pathology extends beyond simple 'predator/prey' and 'survival of the fittest'.

I still see no pathology. From her POV, ABs and humans are different species. ABs consider humans prey and food. Just like humans have no second thoughts for those animals they devour (and even breed simply for devouring), they have no second thoughts about killing humans.

Until you show me pathology within this perfectly logical mindset (which has easy and obvious analogies in our real world), we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[hollywoodlou]

Yes, and can you imagine doing the honorable things when you are in such a powerful position? How many of us humans can still do the honorable things when we are in the absolutely powerful position and all others have zero chance to fight back? Take a look at newspapers and history of mankind; it is very rare in human traits. If in humans, 10% can do it, it is like 90% of claymores or awaken beings can do it.

Hey guest. You have to separate fiction from reality. I suggest reading posts 216-219. Riful is a sociopath and what compassion and honor does one show when Kathia awakens, shows she's weak and Riful states: "AWWW, DUFF SMASH HER PLEASE." She is indeed calculating, serves her own agenda when it suits her and will rip your head off when she's hungry. Don;t let that little girl with her flowery language fool you. I kinda feel pity for you about your negative view of the world BUT THIS IS AN ESCAPE FROM REALITY. If Clare were really alive in this world, I would have dated her by now...;)(yeah, screw you Raki, drink your milk):heh:

[Twisted Reality]

I've heard somebody say that Riful has a pathology. A mental disorder.

And what exactly, is a mental disorder or a pathology? This sort of philosophical question is important for doctors because it really has quite a bit to do with when doctors can exercise their powers of treatment over other humans. Common definitions might be that a pathology causes discomfort to its victim or presents a threat to other people.

Homosexuality used to be classified as a pathology, mind you. And in some sense, you could say that this might cause both discomfort to both the homosexual or cause a threat to others. To me, this just tells me about the standards of the time. A pathology is simply a standard of health, and to a lesser degree, a standard of behavior. Psychosis and sociopathic behaviors being indicative of the straying from the accepted standards. These standards are nothing more than tools used by responsible adults. The form of the words themselves, the concrete ideas, are meaningless.

To call Riful psychotic or sociopathic just seems like the greatest exercise in redundancy. You're basically labeling her conduct, her "mental health," as being unacceptable to any participant of human society.

Allow me to say, "Uhhh. . .no duh?" It's a huge exercise in redundancy. Does labeling Riful really give you that sense of superiority? It's not like you can actually prove that your standards really make you the superior being. We can invoke higher supernatural authorities if you want, but that always seems like such a cop-out.

Am I saying that these standards don't work? Hardly. They work for humans. But mind you that they only have proof that these morals work for humans. Even then, we spend a lot of time bickering about what the correct policies for society are. It's kind of laughable to expect something like Riful to care about participating in your society. Humorously enough, it looks like she wants to create her own. She may be a tyrant, but I doubt many humans are much better.

Then you have the people who get up on the soapbox telling you about how righteous they are because they're healthy in their behavior. God is their witness. Or they follow natural laws or whatever. These people are categorically insane. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of what I just said.)

Have you ever seen a Yuppie wax on about purity of spirit and body and tout the virtues of organic food? See, these people scare me. (Well, maybe only if they were to ever pull their heads out their neurosis.) They're unreasoning fanatics who don't even question the underlying assumptions of their words. I could probably expand this out into martial arts cults and so on, but I really gotta quit editing my post over-and-over.

[Goofus Maximus]

Twisted Reality, in answer, I called her a Sociopath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath)

[Davidj]

A

Argue from Riful's perspective, or at least from a neutral one. You'll see that it will become difficult to rationalize "evildoing" then.

I don't think so. All I have to do is think about how she treats her own kind, even her closest associate. The change in perspective from human to Awakened One is more than merely having a hunger for the least sanitary parts of the human body.



To call Riful psychotic or sociopathic just seems like the greatest exercise in redundancy. You're basically labeling her conduct, her "mental health," as being unacceptable to any participant of human society.

Actually her conduct probably makes any kind of society untenable when it is shared by all the members of it. Which is under normal circumstances, yoma and AOs are lone predators with at most one companion.

One other thing. I have now seen enough Claymore nudity to determine to my satisfaction that their bodies are not in fact disgusting. I have to assume that Teresa was shapeshifting to discourage those men, or that she possessed some unique blemish most Claymores don't have.

[Mentar]

I don't think so. All I have to do is think about how she treats her own kind, even her closest associate.

Really? Letsee, what did she do? She obviously managed to get her Yomas to cooperate, and she trained them in anti-Claymore combat (even though it didn't save them). In respect do Duff, she first held him back when he was going overboard torturing Jeane, she then let him have it his way with the incoming "weenie" (Clare), she came around to "coach" him how to fight his battle, and eventually when he was about to lose, she saved his hide. The only case I can see you make would be her order to kill the Awakened Katea.

The change in perspective from human to Awakened One is more than merely having a hunger for the least sanitary parts of the human body.

That's what I'm saying all along. And that's why I disagree with applying human concepts of morality here, ESPECIALLY those about how humans are treated. My point is that the way ABs are judged should equal how humans treat pigs or chickens.

Actually her conduct probably makes any kind of society untenable when it is shared by all the members of it. Which is under normal circumstances, yoma and AOs are lone predators with at most one companion.

Very broad claim, where's the proof? Without bringing manga knowledge into the discussion, this is hard to refute. I'll just say that you'll soon be proven wrong.

From social structures, Riful's rule seems like the gang leader kind. The same of small human societies a long time ago. A despotic, monarchic leader who generally cares for his people and their protection, but who also has the power to kill anyone of them on a whim.

[Anh_Minh]

I don't think so. All I have to do is think about how she treats her own kind, even her closest associate. The change in perspective from human to Awakened One is more than merely having a hunger for the least sanitary parts of the human body.
Well, yeah. It wouldn't be surprising if Awakened Ones don't behave with each other exactly the way humans behave with each other. Why should they?

(Though I have to say, Riful didn't do anything too bad to Duph. She showed a certain lack of empathy for his pain, but hey, whatever they cut, it'll grow back. In time.)



Actually her conduct probably makes any kind of society untenable when it is shared by all the members of it. "Being overwhelmingly more powerful than you gives me the right to indulge in whatever whims I have even if they hurt you"? What's unsustainable about it?

Which is under normal circumstances, yoma and AOs are lone predators with at most one companion.Not true. We've seen packs of four or more yomas several times.

[khryoleoz]

Try as I may to adopt Riful's own worldview, I run into a little problem in that my food never uses its own capacity to reason in order to appeal to my own rational faculties to protest my actions and persuade me to do otherwise. I wonder what would I do the moment I run into one that can. Would I feel compassion for a talking chicken or would I laugh at its desperate plea and either fry it up anyway or sell it to a circus? I'm really hard pressed to argue from a neutral position where there is none. The orientation of the world tends to be that of "what is" in terms of "what ought be", even if "oughtness" changes depending on perspective.

I'm afraid Riful's too simple argumentation doesn't hold much water. She digs herself into a hole by classifying the actions of another pair of ABs, calling them intolerable, flaunting, and audacious. These classifications don't just describe her own private experience of a string of inconveniences. She's telling this to Clare and Galatea as if the two would understand that they OUGHT not to be doing them. So even if ABs do not conform themselves to human morality and ethics (and I think we give ourselves too much credit by attributing morality's existence to our creation when we are creatures who hold no power to create anything from nothing) they judge the behavior of others against some standard that can though ought not be violated. It is further assumed that at least the existence of this standard is grasped, even if rejected. So only the relative perspective has changed. ABs still haven't abandoned the primitively human notion of "oughtness". Evil then comes in varying degrees when there is some variation to what ought to be.

Riful's own actions also prove contrary to the worldview she professes. She rationalizes the position of AB's in the natural order of things making 3 basic propositions: 1) they're of a different species, 2) nature pits different species against another in order that they may feed upon others, 3) there's a hierarchy in which this providentially occurs, and it is that the weak feed the strong. She has no problem with each of these tenets until she finds herself in that weaker or disadvantaged position. Then all of a sudden she wants strong allies in order to deal with a threat to what is merely a shift in balance in accord with nature when something else stronger comes along. But what is there in her rationale that confers upon her any right to assume she must continue existing even if she is found to be at a disadvantage? If one stronger species may prey upon weaker ones, then why not stronger members preying upon weaker ones of the same kind, especially when species are not even monolithic? And we can't attribute her actions to the fight-or-flight instinct which responds to threats at hand, not gathering ones.

We call human ethics a purely human construct by taking for granted that humans are the only rational beings physically inhabiting this world. The Claymore world is cohabited by humans and yoma who are [or seem to be] completely compatible in their ability to exchange and grasp ideas. So there, ethics is a construct commonly apprehended by both species. Riful objects to Jean's concept as a matter of taste, not because it is incomprehensible to her. But in appealing to Jean's sense of justice by portraying the thankless vocation of a Claymore as unjust, contemptuous ill-treatment by a different, lower and contemptibly unworthy species, she indicts herself by affirming some set of right or wrong. We don't attribute morality to the behavior of apes because they do not demonstrate rational faculties. But there's a different dynamic between the human and yoma relationship.

[astrallionheart]

khryoleoz:

You know, lots of people exhibit this sort of thinking in real life. Generally those in the far ends of the political spectrum.

They have these "principles" and "beliefs" set in stone but when suddenly they are in some way involved, they suddenly become "liberal" (or assume the black veil position of justice--i.e., what is just assuming I know nothing about my race, gender, or nationality?).
Examples:
* The stout neo-conservative is suddenly open to the idea of homosexual relationships when he realizes his daughter is one.
* The social Darwinist that suddenly changes stance on Eugenics because it applies to him.
* The yuppie tree-hugger that goes to conventions and calls Bush a corporate lapdog, and then goes back to his home in his H2 hummer and has a monthly utilities bill of $5,000, and suddenly becomes "more moderate" when the press starts reporting on his behavior.

In other words Rilful's spiel is just warped arrogance given her physically superior traits compared to humans, yomas, etc. Any hypocrisy is merely the result of child-like ignorance here.

[Anh_Minh]

Try as I may to adopt Riful's own worldview, I run into a little problem in that my food never uses its own capacity to reason in order to appeal to my own rational faculties to protest my actions and persuade me to do otherwise. I wonder what would I do the moment I run into one that can. Would I feel compassion for a talking chicken or would I laugh at its desperate plea and either fry it up anyway or sell it to a circus? I'm really hard pressed to argue from a neutral position where there is none. The orientation of the world tends to be that of "what is" in terms of "what ought be", even if "oughtness" changes depending on perspective.
I'd just go find another non-sapient chicken to eat.

I'm afraid Riful's too simple argumentation doesn't hold much water. She digs herself into a hole by classifying the actions of another pair of ABs, calling them intolerable, flaunting, and audacious. These classifications don't just describe her own private experience of a string of inconveniences. She's telling this to Clare and Galatea as if the two would understand that they OUGHT not to be doing them. So even if ABs do not conform themselves to human morality and ethics (and I think we give ourselves too much credit by attributing morality's existence to our creation when we are creatures who hold no power to create anything from nothing) they judge the behavior of others against some standard that can though ought not be violated. It is further assumed that at least the existence of this standard is grasped, even if rejected. So only the relative perspective has changed. ABs still haven't abandoned the primitively human notion of "oughtness". Evil then comes in varying degrees when there is some variation to what ought to be.It's not about right or wrong. Isley's making moves that, unlike his previous actions, indicate a willingness to fight. The other two respond. That's all there is to it.

If a lion moves into another's territory, they'll fight to the death for it. Neither is evil. It's just one of those things lions do. The only difference is that Riful's perspective is more long-term than any lion's.

Riful's own actions also prove contrary to the worldview she professes. She rationalizes the position of AB's in the natural order of things making 3 basic propositions: 1) they're of a different species, 2) nature pits different species against another in order that they may feed upon others, 3) there's a hierarchy in which this providentially occurs, and it is that the weak feed the strong. She has no problem with each of these tenets until she finds herself in that weaker or disadvantaged position. Then all of a sudden she wants strong allies in order to deal with a threat to what is merely a shift in balance in accord with nature when something else stronger comes along. But what is there in her rationale that confers upon her any right to assume she must continue existing even if she is found to be at a disadvantage? If one stronger species may prey upon weaker ones, then why not stronger members preying upon weaker ones of the same kind, especially when species are not even monolithic? And we can't attribute her actions to the fight-or-flight instinct which responds to threats at hand, not gathering ones.She doesn't say the humans are wrong for trying to defend themselves. By whatever means they want, including ganging up on her. She just says there is no wrong in her for coming out on top.

"It's not the strong that wins, it's the winner that's strong". Riful just intends to survive, that's all there is to it.

She's not saying the wolf is somehow more deserving of life than the rabbit. She's saying it just works out that way. The wolf eats the rabbit. Accept it.

We call human ethics a purely human construct by taking for granted that humans are the only rational beings physically inhabiting this world. The Claymore world is cohabited by humans and yoma who are [or seem to be] completely compatible in their ability to exchange and grasp ideas. So there, ethics is a construct commonly apprehended by both species. Riful objects to Jean's concept as a matter of taste, not because it is incomprehensible to her. But by appealing to Jean's sense of justice in portraying the thankless vocation of a Claymore as unjust, contemptuous ill-treatment by a different, lower and contemptibly unworthy species, she indicts herself by affirming some set of right or wrong. We don't attribute morality to the behavior of apes because they do not demonstrate rational faculties. But there's a different dynamic between the human and yoma relationship.Some set of right and wrong... maybe. (It could be a purely intellectual exercise for Riful.) It doesn't have to have anything to do with what us, 21st century humans think of as "right and wrong".

But really, Riful's speech had as much to do with self-interest as with justice. Indeed, she was trying to convince Jean that her idea of justice was completely illusory.

[khryoleoz]

I'd just go find another non-sapient chicken to eat.LOL! But why?

It's not about right or wrong. Isley's making moves that, unlike his previous actions, indicate a willingness to fight. The other two respond. That's all there is to it.

If a lion moves into another's territory, they'll fight to the death for it. Neither is evil. It's just one of those things lions do. The only difference is that Riful's perspective is more long-term than any lion's.
I know this argument. But I think it's still taking for granted why the lion even fights instead of pursuing some other territory. It will do only according to its instinctual programming and will make no attempt to explain his actions. But unlike the lions, ABs are like humans in having rational faculties. Riful, though she didn't have to, felt the need to explain her reason for amassing comrades in arms in the hope of persuading the candidates.

She doesn't say the humans are wrong for trying to defend themselves. By whatever means they want, including ganging up on her. She just says there is no wrong in her for coming out on top.

"It's not the strong that wins, it's the winner that's strong". Riful just intends to survive, that's all there is to it.

She's not saying the wolf is somehow more deserving of life than the rabbit. She's saying it just works out that way. The wolf eats the rabbit. Accept it.
Yes, all creatures possess the instinct for survival. I'm just taking her reasoning to its logical conclusion, that if she's not on top she should accept it too. But that she doesn't seem willing tells me she doesn't believe in it. And if she doesn't believe in that, she must believe in the other alternative by which she assumes a right to fight.

Some set of right and wrong... maybe. (It could be a purely intellectual exercise for Riful.) It doesn't have to have anything to do with what us, 21st century humans think of as "right and wrong".

But really, Riful's speech had as much to do with self-interest as with justice. Indeed, she was trying to convince Jean that her idea of justice was completely illusory.

It looks like Riful's justice is that which serves her interest. If she's projecting that upon her own species, then she is even closer to the admission of "right conduct" befitting her race. She had at least formulated an idea of what they ought not do as ABs, to be subject to lower beings, them succulent humans. Mm, mm good.

[Anh_Minh]

Yes, all creatures possess the instinct for survival. I'm just taking her reasoning to its logical conclusion, that if she's not on top she should accept it too. But that she doesn't seem willing tells me she doesn't believe in it. And if she doesn't believe in that, she must believe in the other alternative by which she assumes a right to fight.

The logical conclusion isn't to accept you're not on top. The logical conclusion is to fight for your survival. That's how you find out who's on top or not. She never claimed it was a preordained thing.

[khryoleoz]

That's the logical conclusion if she was arguing for doing anything at your disposal for survival. But one may survive by fleeing also, yet this doesn't seem to be a matter of consideration to her. The context of her argument is the food chain, which places the strongest on top, not determine the strongest by who wins. She argues it is pre-ordained by calling it providence, yet denies that same providence if she's (metaphorically speaking) food for somebody else.

[Anh_Minh]

She might flee if she has to. But if she can fight... Why not?

What's providence is that those who can eat others... do. Remorselessly.

I don't really see where you're going. Why shouldn't she defend herself?


Remember, she was talking to Jean. Not to a prospective lunch. She wasn't saying "let yourself be eaten, It Is Your Destiny". She was saying "Eh, I'm not any worse than a human eating a pig. Join me, it's in your best interest. All other things being equal, wouldn't you rather be strong, respected, and not tortured?"

[TinyRedLeaf]

She was saying "Eh, I'm not any worse than a human eating a pig."

Except that a pig doesn't talk back to a human. Guess you're going to have to find another non-sapient animal to eat. :D

Lol, I've just come out of another heated debate on morality in another forum to see another debate on morality here.

Start by listing which "rational beings" are not human (that's where your reasoning already falls apart)

Morality is a purely human concept. If you go down to other living things we attribute the highest degree of sentience to (primates), us humans don't talk about "morality" anymore to classify structures of behavior.

Well, I think you're mistaken, as khyroleoz has already explained before me:


We call human ethics a purely human construct by taking for granted that humans are the only rational beings physically inhabiting this world. The Claymore world is cohabited by humans and yoma who are [or seem to be] completely compatible in their ability to exchange and grasp ideas.

Morality isn't a human construct. It is about deciding between right and wrong. It is a decision that only rational beings can make. I believe it is abundantly clear that Riful is capable of intelligent and rational action. By definition then, morality applies to her as much as to any other rational being.

[Nightbat®]

In nature's way, killing is done efficiently
except humans not one creature has the desire to torture their prey for entertainment
and even among humans it's thought of as "abnormal behaviour"

those hunting for sport want a clean kill, they don't aim for the rear leg
and then empty their 357 on the struggling animal to see how long it can hold up

and that's where Yoma differ from all other creatures in the world
if anyone calls them "Evil" I concur

Nature says plain and simple: "You don't play with your food, you eat it"
In nature, the only creatures that 'play' with their prey' are the young
but basicly it comes down to their inexperience to kill efficiently

[Defiled one]

In before Clare wasn´t food....:rolleyes: If you know what I mean


She was a Punching Bag...:rolleyes: Yeah....A Punching Bag.

[khryoleoz]

I guess I still have a long way to go about making clear statements. Hopefully, it's not because my deduction is flawed. How I wish I've had a classical education.

My point is that there's an incongruity between what she does and what she believes. It's not that she can't or should not defend herself. It's that the consistent application of that natural law she calls providence gives her no basis for it. Which is why deriving "goodness" or "evilness" from her rationalization of the food chain is too simple an argument when good/evil and morality concepts are profoundly complex. While she derides Jean's values by reducing humans to just game, here she is characterizing in a certain way the actions of that other pair of ABs with regard to how they affect her. From where does she derive her right to complain about it? There's a significant difference between her response to a threat and my favorite lions, especially because the reasoning faculties are involved in one and not the other. Nomads even flee at the intimidating roar of a pride's male. But Riful decides she wants to get stronger, a response that doesn't seem merely prompted by instinct.

All I wanted to show is that there is some standard that they do apprehend as governing their conduct then choose not to follow it. It doesn't even matter how such standard may differ among other ABs as they hold their own views of oughtness. Therein would lie their evil if it must only be outside of human standards (even though what we find in them are standards more akin to our own). Call it a vestigial remnant of their humanity, but it's still there. I suppose that I've expanded the topic quite much when the original proposition is that ABs do no evil by simply eating people who are to ABs as pigs are to humans. That's not really the case when dealing with two sapient, rational beings.

[Anh_Minh]

You mean she accuses the other two Abyssals of "evil"? Of doing stuff they "ought", in the moral sense, not to do?

That's not really it. What they're doing is threatening her, but it's not "wrong" per se. It's not even necessarily inconvenient to her, since it relieves her of her boredom.

What Isley's doing is basically challenging the other two. Instinct could push to either fight or flight. I don't see why it has to be flight.

And because she's able of rational thought and long term planning, "fight" involves more than baring her teeth and charging. I don't see how her actions are inconsistent with the views she espoused.

[Defiled one]

Evil, is in the eyes of the beholder.


To me, she is a menace.
Evil? No....
Trying to survive? Yes...


Human and Awakened can never show afection for each other.

Claymores, eventually, will turn in to Awakened...And they will feed and kill for it. The only respect they might have, is giving you a quick death.


Claymore and Awakened see each other as enemies. But there is a one side interest for the Awakened faction. Which is...

1- Strong one to fight against foes.
2- To have a compannion.
3- Both of the above.



And voilá....You have to remember that for a medieval Age. Riful has quite a sense of morale greater than any person we have met. Except Teresa which proved that Human and Claymore can never interact...

[Kinematics]

Morality isn't a human construct. It is about deciding between right and wrong. It is a decision that only rational beings can make. I believe it is abundantly clear that Riful is capable of intelligent and rational action. By definition then, morality applies to her as much as to any other rational being.

Except what is 'right' and 'wrong'? During the various Shogunate periods in Japan, a samurai killing a peasant for any random reason was 'right', despite the fact that he had killed another rational being. That was an accepted part of their moral structure. For the Aztecs, it was 'right' to provide human sacrifices to their gods.

'Right' and 'wrong' have always been decided by pervading social standards of what benefits the society (and possibly separate rules for the privileged part of that society), and the general philosophical belief systems of the time and location. There is no reason to expect someone like Riful to abide by our modern day belief systems and moral structures.

Having different sets of rules for different classes of people is common. Saying that Riful cannot use different rules for her interactions with humans, Claymores, and other awakeneds is just being obtuse as to the nature of moral structures. The most classic of moral rule structures - the Bible - has different rules for Jews vs gentiles (non-Jews), or even for men vs women. In modern society, there is a vast difference in the perception of a person who kills any given random individual, and a person who kills a police officer, even though from a philosophical viewpoint they should be identical.

Requiring absolute consistency with all interactions is an artifact of modern mathematics (as math and statistics have had a heavy influence on our conceptualizing belief systems) and certain (but not all) philosophical belief systems.


Morality -is- a human construct, though it is very likely that any rational being will come up with some sort of moral system. A moral system is a set of rules that provide a guideline for deciding what should be considered right and wrong. A moral system only defines right and wrong themselves as a secondary consequence, since a certain set of right and wrong has to be decided on before you can write the rules. What that set of right or wrong is varies from person to person.

You might say that there must be some inherent morality that itself guides you to construct such rules. However Machivellianism is just as valid a moral system as Ghandi's complete pacifism, in that each define what actions one may take that are appropriate (and thus right) or not (wrong), and each are quite different from the other in their outlook on life.

There may be some inherent level of morality in place for any rational being simply due to the need to explain the base causes of their own actions. There is not, however, any need for that morality to match your own expectations of it, nor for your morality to apply to any other rational being. It is expected that other rational beings within your own society to have a base morality similar to your own, but even that is not guaranteed, which is why we have governmental law which overrides such things.


Any given moral system is a human construct, like the metric system is a human construct. The metric system is based on math, and one might argue that a moral system is likewise based on some amorphous 'morality'. However pure math doesn't really tell us anything other than lots of different ways to put numbers together. It doesn't have any inherent meaning until it is applied to some particular concept (eg: measuring stuff, thus the metric system). I would say that any naturally existing base morality is similar, in that individual nuggets of morality don't have any meaning until they are applied together in some way to form a rule system.



Anyway, this is all my own view on this particular argument. I have a friend who majored in philosophy who I'm sure could tear these arguments to shreds, so I'll be sure not to mention any of this to him :)

[houkoholic]

I'm pretty sure that from Riful's POV, when she got turned into a Claymore against her will and the Organisation put her through many suffering as a disposable tool (the pain of adapting to Yoma blood without dying, fighting for humans and recieve no appreciation, knowing that she would have to be cut down if she awakens etc) that she no longer thought that there is a need to abid to human ethics, since it was the humans who broke their own set of morals and ethics in the first place. From her POV (and probably alot of the other Claymores. even Teresa before Clare turned her back) they only saw the ugly and selfish side of human behaviour and the hypocracy of human morals and ethics. Thus they shunted their human heritage. IMO it's perfectly understandable.

Do remember that Clare is only one of the very few Claymores who willfully become one, and I would say someone like Jean who still have such a noble mind considering the method of the Organisation are in a way quite extraordinary as in many ways people would not be that selfless. I would say Clare and Jean are more oddballs than someone like Riful, but then again that's what makes them more noble and respectable.

[Anh_Minh]

For all we know, back when she was a Claymore, Riful was every bit as compassionate and altruistic as Clare. It's hard to say.

[TinyRedLeaf]

'Right' and 'wrong' have always been decided by pervading social standards of what benefits the society (and possibly separate rules for the privileged part of that society), and the general philosophical belief systems of the time and location. There is no reason to expect someone like Riful to abide by our modern day belief systems and moral structures.

Morality -is- a human construct, though it is very likely that any rational being will come up with some sort of moral system. A moral system is a set of rules that provide a guideline for deciding what should be considered right and wrong. A moral system only defines right and wrong themselves as a secondary consequence, since a certain set of right and wrong has to be decided on before you can write the rules. What that set of right or wrong is varies from person to person.


Well, to be sure, I don't think that many people watch Claymore to get into a philosophical debate on morality. That's something for say...Death Note or Code Geass maybe. :p

Definitions are in order. Basically, your reasoning is flawed because you confused ethical systems with morality. I'm hardly a well-read student of philosophy myself, but I make a very clear distinction between the two, to avoid falling into the trap of applying "relative" morality.

When I say "morality", I am referring to the quality of right and wrong. These qualities are absolute for all rational beings, for all time. "Ethics", on the other hand, refers to a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially a system based on morals. Some ethical systems are valid. Some are not. Without an absolute yardstick to judge each ethical system, it is impossible for us to say which system is valid or not.

Case in point: We can't just say that because different "standards" apply for different people, that therefore you are free to do as your standard dictates. What does that make the Holocaust then? To the Nazis what they were doing were justified, but it was hardly "right" for those who died. If it had been "evil" for the Jews who were killed, then by definition, any act of genocide must also be equally "evil" to any victims of that action.

In other words, by my definition, morality comes before ethics. Riful and other Awakened Beings are entitled to an ethical system that is different from a human being's ethical system, but they are not exempted from moral judgement by virtue of being rational beings themselves.

Ethical systems may change with time, and with different perspectives, but absolute moral values of "good" and "evil" do not. Assuming that all rational beings are self-aware, and would therefore naturally want to live as long as possible, as happily as possible, it would be "wrong" to take that basic right away from another equally self-aware rational being on purpose.

But the way I see it, Awakened Beings don't have much choice in the matter. They are biologically forced to eat fresh human intestines, which naturally means that they have to kill another self-aware creature to survive. That's why the debate is heavily blurred on this issue.

Bottom line? I'm glad I don't live in the World of Claymore. :heh:

[Anh_Minh]

When I say "morality", I am referring to the quality of right and wrong. These qualities are absolute for all rational beings, for all time.
Prove it. Prove that what you call "morality" exists.


"Ethics", on the other hand, refers to a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially a system based on morals. Some ethical systems are valid. Some are not. Without an absolute yardstick to judge each ethical system, it is impossible for us to say which system is valid or not.

Case in point: We can't just say that because different "standards" apply for different people, that therefore you are free to do as your standard dictates. What does that make the Holocaust then? To the Nazis what they were doing were justified, but it was hardly "right" for those who died. If it had been "evil" for the Jews who were killed, then by definition, any act of genocide must also be equally "evil" to any victims of that action.

In other words, by my definition, morality comes before ethics. Riful and other Awakened Beings are entitled to an ethical system that is different from a human being's ethical system, but they are not exempted from moral judgement by virtue of being rational beings themselves.

Ethical systems may change with time, and with different perspectives, but absolute moral values of "good" and "evil" do not. Assuming that all rational beings are self-aware, and would therefore naturally want to live as long as possible, as happily as possible, it would be "wrong" to take that basic right away from another equally self-aware rational being on purpose.

But the way I see it, Awakened Beings don't have much choice in the matter. They are biologically forced to eat fresh human intestines, which naturally means that they have to kill another self-aware creature to survive. That's why the debate is heavily blurred on this issue.

Bottom line? I'm glad I don't live in the World of Claymore. :heh:Prove that you know anything about absolute morality. Show how it applies to Awakened Beings and their actions. Prove that killing another self-aware creature is wrong, and not just something we humans (most of us, anyway), decided is wrong.

You're making big claims, but it seems to me you started with a conclusion - that Relative Morality was Bad(tm) - and went from there.

I dont know about other peoples here.. but I so want to see her in claymore uniform..

As in, not in loli form >.>
Who, Riful? I think she was loli back when she was a Claymore.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Prove it. Prove that what you call "morality" exists.

You pose a very big challenge. How do you prove an axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)?

To quote from Wikipedia: "An axiom is any starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived....axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs—simply because they are starting assumptions."

In other words, I cannot directly prove the existence of "morality". The distinction between "right" and "wrong" is something that is assumed to exist, not unlike how we naturally assume that the distinction between "true" and "false" exists.

You wrote in an earlier post:

"It's not the strong that wins, it's the winner that's strong". Riful just intends to survive, that's all there is to it

She's not saying the wolf is somehow more deserving of life than the rabbit. She's saying it just works out that way. The wolf eats the rabbit. Accept it.


...without realising that, in making such a statement, you are making a value judgement. "The weak must accept being eaten by the strong." In other words, "might makes right".

If morality doesn't exist, that statement would be completely meaningless. Or, put it another way, suppose your proposition is: "There is no morality." Well then, by pointing to the example of your own quote, I demonstrate that you made a moral judgement. Therefore, by contradiction, your proposition is not true. In which case, "there is morality."

[Anh_Minh]

You pose a very big challenge. How do you prove an axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)?

To quote from Wikipedia: "An axiom is any starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived....axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs—simply because they are starting assumptions."
I know what an axiom is. It is, among other things, something we decide to accept as true. Not something which is, in any real sense, certainly true.

It is also something that is supposedly simple and obvious (that's why Euclid's fifth axiom caused so many headaches). Which the existence of absolute morality isn't.

In other words, I cannot directly prove the existence of "morality". The distinction between "right" and "wrong" is something that is assumed to exist, not unlike how we naturally assume that the distinction between "true" and "false" exists.
The difference between "true" and "false" is something on which there is a consensus and that we can, I think, all readily accept. Not so with your idea of absolute morality.

It's like barging in an atheist convention and just saying "God exists, therefore you're all wrong!". You don't get to do that if you want to be taken seriously.

You wrote in an earlier post:


...without realising that, in making such a statement, you are making a value judgement. "The weak must accept being eaten by the strong." In other words, "might makes right".

If morality doesn't exist, that statement would be completely meaningless. Or, put it another way, suppose your proposition is: "There is no morality." Well then, by pointing to the example of your own quote, I demonstrate that you made a moral judgement. Therefore, by contradiction, your proposition is not true. In which case, "there is morality."

It's not about morality. It's about reality. The way the world is, rather than the way it ought to be.

A posteriori, we can see that wolves eat rabbits. It's a fact.

Now, you can tear your hair about it. Maybe you think rabbits ought to be packing heat and shoot all the wolves that come near them.

Or you can be pragmatic, accept it, and move on.

Right? Wrong? To Riful, those ideas are meaningless. She understands survival, whims, pride... But not "unfairness" or "immoral".

[khryoleoz]

Maybe it's not such a big challenge. Morality exists because there are beings who make moral judgements. And to deny one set of moral values is to simply affirm another. Someone who proclaims that no such absolute morals exist is reacting this way not because they do not find its reality, but they simply find a particular set that someone else embraces repugnant.

I would maintain that Riful does understand "unfairness" and "immoral" by the way she characterizes the humans' treatment of Claymores and calling Jean idiotic for enduring it.

[Anh_Minh]

That people make moral judgment doesn't imply the existence of an overarching, absolute moral, anymore than the existence of fashion magazines implies the existence of an absolute standard of elegance, valid for all times and all places.

And Riful could be simply speaking of self-interest and alienness. That was her point to Jean: Awakening is in her best interests, and she's already outside humanity anyway.

[khryoleoz]

But that's what I don't get. Why is it in her best interest if there is no morality? If there is only what is, then there are no states in which there is a better or worse. So there's no basis for calling Jean's act of perseverance idiotic.

Also, I think what you may be referring to are "facts". Truth and falsehood does not depend upon human concensus. The way in which we discern between the two are limited by our state and quality of knowing at any given point. How much information we have and to the extent our inductive and deductive faculties are in working order determine whether our conclusions about particular events conform to truth or not. But our inability to make that discernment has bearing only upon the effectiveness of our fact finding, and none at all upon what is actually true and false.

Absolute morality fits in the same category. Though I'll be using points made by someone else, I'll compare and contrast the moral values between different societies to show that they are not so entirely different. One country may make use of a turn coat in times of war and not another, but both regard him as vermin. We can find no nation or kingdom that will reward treacherous efforts. One group may approve of multiple wives where as another upholds only one. But both affirm a social structure wherein men and women have specific familial roles. One society upholds that government must have a limited function and leave individual citizens to its own power to conduct his own affairs. Another believes that goverment should exert its force to ensure fair, equal treatment of all its citizens. But both agree that government's chief purpose is to serve the welfare of its people. In spite of the differences, where they share things in common are even more profound. Culture will lend to divergences, but these differences are less significant.

[Anh_Minh]

There are interests outside of morality. Or at least, outside of what we commonly refer to as "morality". Self-preservation, for example. Even if someone is a remorseless murderer, it doesn't mean he doesn't value his own life.


And you can doubt everything if you want to. I think it more reasonable to find some kind of consensus on reality and go from there. So yeah, maybe we humans have all been duped and most of the time, rabbits eat wolves rather than the reverse. Do you really want to defend that position?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Heh, this has turned into an interesting discussion, which I think is in danger of being off-topic with respect to this thread. ;)

Suppose there is no morality. What kind of world would that be?

[Anh_Minh]

That's the point, isn't it? How are we going to tell the difference between a world with or without absolute morality?

"Morality", or rather, "ethics", by your definitions, arise naturally from us living together. If they don't, or if the system they arrive at is "bad", the society just won't last. (Note that various forms of tyranny, while "wrong" by our modern standards, have in fact endured the test of time for quite a while).

Different societies will reach different consensuses, but there will be consensuses. Some people will think of the consensus as an absolute. Who knows if they're right or not?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Different societies will reach different consensuses, but there will be consensuses. Some people will think of the consensus as an absolute. Who knows if they're right or not?

Well...in a way, you're dodging my question. Doesn't matter. Going along with your observation, "different societies will reach different consensuses, but there will be consensuses".

Having to arrive at a consensus implies that competing needs exist in the first place. How do societies arrive at consensus?

[Anh_Minh]

Well, my desire to kill someone is certainly competing with that person's desire to not be killed. Duh.

As for how societies arrive at consensuses... They have several means to suppress deviance. Punishments, rewards, education... We're also, probably, somewhat hardwired for cooperation. Apes do it, even more distant relatives, such as wolves and elephants do it - it doesn't take human level intelligence.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Disregarding the many mechanisms that exist to suppress "deviance" (putting aside the question of "what is deviance?" if there is no "right" or "wrong"), why should societies interefere when someone is trying to kill another who wants to live?

[Anh_Minh]

Deviance is being markedly different from your neighbors.

As for why society should intervene - and note that in some circumstances, in some societies, it doesn't - it's because it doesn't want murderers in its midst. It reduces the efficiency of cooperation. For what I'd think would be obvious reasons.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Ahh....but you're making an assumption that is no less absolute than mine.

Why do you want to make co-operation more efficient? What is so obvious about co-operation that makes it desirable? And note, you just mentioned "murderer", which in itself implies a moral judgement on your part with respect to the killer.

[Anh_Minh]

Not moral, legal. As I said, sometimes society will allow or even encourage the killing of human beings.

And yes, it is obvious that cooperation is more efficient. With stone age tech or less, try to bring down a woolly mammoth on your own. Or better yet, try to kill man eating tigers.

Or, oh, try to develop from the stone age to today's technology with just individuals who only come together once in a while to reproduce.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Suppose you have a society whose law encourages the killing of human beings. What do you tell those who are about to be killed? "Too bad chump, you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time"?

[Anh_Minh]

I don't know, what did the Aztec say?


For the record, I believe that killing people for no reason is wrong. But I'm not so arrogant as to think my belief is enough to make something an Universal Law of the World.

[TinyRedLeaf]

I believe that killing people for no reason is wrong.

Ok. Then we have consensus on at least one moral value. Which would then "disprove" your claim that there is no morality. ;)


But I'm not so arrogant as to think my belief is enough to make something an Universal Law of the World.

I agree. At best, I can only infer that absolute morality exists. Inference however, is not 100% proof. But, assuming absolute morality does exist, can we then proceed to test if it does? What do we mean by "absolute"? For something to be absolutely true, it would have to be true for all rational people and for all time. As it turns out, my assumption can be tested, at least for the one case we agree on - "killing people for no reason is wrong." It is a moral value that can be demonstrated to be true for all rational people, based on the further assumption that all rational people would want to live as long as possible, as happily as possible.

If we assume there is no morality (there is no "right" or "wrong", only the brute fact of competing natural needs), we can't even begin to make such a test. Basically, the test would be meaningless, since there would be no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the first place.

I'll stop here, because obviously any one of my above assumptions can be challenged endlessly, but such discussion is hardly relevant to Claymore Episode 17. :p

But on a final note - I'd just like to point out that regardless of my first assumptions, I share the same conclusion as you and Mentar actually -- I'm not 100% certain that Awakened Beings can be considered "evil". They have to eat to survive. Unfortunately, they have to kill humans, another species of rational beings, to do so. I suppose the more relevant question to ask would be: to what extent are they irrational creatures? That is, to what extent are they slaves to their biological urge to feed on fresh human guts? Food for thought (no pun intended). ;)

[Anh_Minh]

Ok. Then we have consensus on at least one moral value. Which would then "disprove" your claim that there is no morality. ;)
Wrong. We've got two relative moralities that happen to coincide on at least one point - which, considering the similar pressures we face (we're both human beings who grew up and live in human societies) is hardly surprising.


I agree. At best, I can only infer that absolute morality exists. Inference however, is not 100% proof.
And as far as I'm concerned, your inference, in this case, is about as worthwhile as a cointoss.

But, assuming absolute morality does exist, can we then proceed to test if it does? What do we mean by "absolute"? For something to be absolutely true, it would have to be true for all rational people and for all time. As it turns out, my assumption can be tested, at least for the one case we agree on - "killing people for no reason is wrong." It is a moral value that can be demonstrated to be true for all rational people, based on the further assumption that all rational people would want to live as long as possible, as happily as possible.
Not really. Plenty of people have died at the hands of others, for what I would consider to be "no reason". It seems to me there is something backward about your test. If someone doesn't accept that killing on a whim is wrong, you'll just label that person as "irrational" and move on. That's not a real test at all.

If we assume there is no morality (there is no "right" or "wrong", only the brute fact of competing natural needs), we can't even begin to make such a test. Basically, the test would be meaningless, since there would be no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the first place.
Test? What kind of test would you want? It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who says "X definitely exists" rather than on the one who says "We don't know if X exists or not". And so far, you've failed to show anything in what we can agree is observed data that requires the existence of absolute morality.

Or even to show anything that would indicate the existence of absolute morality.

I'll stop here, because obviously any one of my above assumptions can be challenged endlessly, but such discussion is hardly relevant to Claymore Episode 17. :p

But on a final note - I'd just like to point out that regardless of my first assumptions, I share the same conclusion as you and Mentar actually -- I'm not 100% certain that Awakened Beings can be considered "evil". They have to eat to survive. Unfortunately, they have to kill humans, another species of rational beings, to do so. I suppose the more relevant question to ask would be: to what extent are they irrational creatures? That is, to what extent are they slaves to their biological urge to feed on fresh human guts? Food for thought (no pun intended). ;)
To me, the reason they're not evil is that they don't have the ability to distinguish good from evil, let alone to choose one over the other. They may reason out what humans would consider evil, if they're so inclined, but it has no meaning to them, the way it has for us.

I suspect Mentar's reason is yet again another.

[Gavrielo]

They may not be evil in their own eyes but to their victims they are, and thats good enough to classify them as evil.
Anyway get back on topic -.-, the episode was amazing as always.

[ArmisaelXVIII]

I just think that moral applies equal to all rational beings. It's just that we don't know another species that is rational at the same degree as us, hence moral is treat as a something that applies only to humans.

If you can base your moral on reason then moral should be absolute. That we can't reach it is another story.

[xVxObliVioNxVx]

Despite all the discussion here regarding what can be considered evil and what your moral stance on good and bad is, the anime is presenting the Yoma and the Awakened Ones as an evil force to be reckoned with, hence why they should be categorized as evil until the anime "presents" it otherwise. It's not about how the given thing is, but how the given thing is "presented." And I think we can agree that the anime presents the Awakend Ones as an evil force.

[Kinematics]

Why do you want to make co-operation more efficient? What is so obvious about co-operation that makes it desirable?

That gets into game theory research. It's been shown in various ways that a cooperative society (or at least simulation of a society, to varying degrees) will be more successful than a selfish one. Even limited cooperative behavior will always do better than completely non-cooperative behavior.

An individual is assumed to always act in such a way as to better its own self-interests. Most of the time cooperation will result in net greater return than acting selfishly, especially as the individual is able to accurately plan further and further ahead.

Someone who can view only the immediate consequences will tend to act selfishly (ie: instant gratification). That seems closer to the behavior of the standard yomas (and most typical shonen heroes). Someone with greater foresight (such as Riful) will tend to act cooperatively.

Also, in a fully corrupt society (with selfish, generally non-cooperative elements), it is in the best interests of the individuals to remain corrupt. However, the introduction of a single 'honest' element will eventually trigger a cascade change that puts the corrupt elements on the fringe, solely due to individual elements continuing to act in their own best interests.

[Davidj]

Ahh....but you're making an assumption that is no less absolute than mine.

Why do you want to make co-operation more efficient? What is so obvious about co-operation that makes it desirable? And note, you just mentioned "murderer", which in itself implies a moral judgement on your part with respect to the killer.

No it doesn't. Personally I prefer to leave "murder" as a legal concept. As for cooperation, the success of those who cooperate over those who don't is sufficient justification.

[khryoleoz]

I don't know, what did the Aztec say?


For the record, I believe that killing people for no reason is wrong. But I'm not so arrogant as to think my belief is enough to make something an Universal Law of the World.
That's another thing I don't quite follow. Why would your belief in killing people for no reason is wrong be your own private fancy in which others may join you in a chorus by mere tangential coincidence? We may differ in how we define the reasons for killing a man. But we're all agreed that at least not all men should be killed, which is the logical conclusion to denying any idea that we must not kill any man without reason. So here we do have a universal law that you just happen to affirm in one way that another would still affirm but in a slightly different way.

No it doesn't. Personally I prefer to leave "murder" as a legal concept. As for cooperation, the success of those who cooperate over those who don't is sufficient justification.
But why would anyone place greater value to the success that cooperation brings over its alternative? What is the difference between successful and unsuccessful societies when there is no reliable objective framework by which to measure them?

[Davidj]

To me, the reason they're not evil is that they don't have the ability to distinguish good from evil, let alone to choose one over the other. They may reason out what humans would consider evil, if they're so inclined, but it has no meaning to them, the way it has for us.



I'm not all that fond of the theory that you can only define something as "evil" if they had a choice. For one thing, it assumes anyone has a choice.

[khryoleoz]

I'm not all that fond of the theory that you can only define something as "evil" if they had a choice. For one thing, it assumes anyone has a choice.

But they don't even have to have a choice to not be evil. They must simply apprehend what it is and act accordingly, even if evil is all that they are inclined to do. Riful doesn't show she doesn't apprehend it, only that she places no value upon human life aside from dinner.

[Seska]

Hello?? Wake up please, Don't you see. That we are a big huge step outside of the Topic. What has this discussion to do with Episode 17? Ask an Admin to make other Thread, so for this discussion.... Please this is a Anime. And a Anime in the 17th Episode. An Anime with the name Claymore. An Fiction World, with its own fiction rules.....

*Wake up*..... Let the Anime stuff in your Imagine world. don't drag it into your Own. See the boarder... see the front line, from Imagine and Real Life things...

No hard feelings...

[Anh_Minh]

That's another thing I don't quite follow. Why would your belief in killing people for no reason is wrong be your own private fancy in which others may join you in a chorus by mere tangential coincidence?
I hardly claim to be unique. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm against senseless killings is that everyone around me professes to be, too. While it's not totally rational (what if everyone around me jumped off a bridge?) or absolute (I don't care how successful it is, I still say Reality TV is horrible), it does have its weight.

My point is, we're all human beings living in human societies. It's hardly surprising we'd have a few common ideas. Especially if morals is a mechanism evolved to make societies thrive.


We may differ in how we define the reasons for killing a man. But we're all agreed that at least not all men should be killed, which is the logical conclusion to denying any idea that we must not kill any man without reason.
"Not all men should be killed" is a much weaker statement than the one I made. You probably meant something else, but damn if I know what.

So here we do have a universal law that you just happen to affirm in one way that another would still affirm but in a slightly different way.
Universal law? Hardly. All men believing the earth is flat wouldn't make it so.


But why would anyone place greater value to the success that cooperation brings over its alternative? What is the difference between successful and unsuccessful societies when there is no reliable objective framework by which to measure them?
The test of time. While there is a myriad of cooperative societies of assorted forms, are uncooperative societies still around for us to hear about them?

[NoSanninWa]

Hello?? Wake up please, Don't you see. That we are a big huge step outside of the Topic. What has this discussion to do with Episode 17? Ask an Admin to make other Thread, so for this discussion.... Please this is a Anime. And a Anime in the 17th Episode. An Anime with the name Claymore. An Fiction World, with its own fiction rules.....

*Wake up*..... Let the Anime stuff in your Imagine world. don't drag it into your Own. See the boarder... see the front line, from Imagine and Real Life things...

No hard feelings...

Since the discussion is relevant to the relative morality of Awakened Ones and humans I cannot see it as more than slightly off-topic. The discussion is even periodically returning to the main point which is Riful's morality. I'll just ask everyone to remember that the discussion is about Riful.

Just remember to keep it relevant to Claymore and keep playing nice without rancor and I see no reason to shut down the discussion.

[Seska]

Since the discussion is relevant to the relative morality of Awakened Ones and humans I cannot see it as more than slightly off-topic. The discussion is even periodically returning to the main point which is Riful's morality. I'll just ask everyone to remember that the discussion is about Riful.

Just remember to keep it relevant to Claymore and keep playing nice without rancor and I see no reason to shut down the discussion.

Sry, i was afraid (cause of my not 100% English skills). That this discussion went a bit over the lines...

[Nightbat®]

Sry, i was afraid (cause of my not 100% English skills). That this discussion went a bit over the lines...

Well, it's enough material to fill a seperate thread, that's for sure

[khryoleoz]

I hardly claim to be unique. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm against senseless killings is that everyone around me professes to be, too. While it's not totally rational (what if everyone around me jumped off a bridge?) or absolute (I don't care how successful it is, I still say Reality TV is horrible), it does have its weight.
I can't necessarily see that the reason why you are not unique to having this belief is simply because you have been infected with it by keeping company with others who hold the same. But let's say that were so. Where does that idea come from originally? Surely not by pure reason, because reason only tells us that if we don't set limits upon the killing of men then mankind will become extinct. It doesn't tell us why mankind should not become extinct, and therefore we must exercise limits in dealing death. The crux of the belief is the value it places upon human life. That is why we must not take human life without reason. Then we can argue about those reasons. So if all your thinking simply affirms what is true, you need not ascribe arrogance to your proclamation of it and its universal application.

I agree that Reality TV is horrible. It may be weak reasoning on my part, but I simply don't know how to account for that agreement if we didn't have some objective standard to agree upon. Ensemble musicians play in time because tempo is an objective measurement of pulse, and therefore can be reliably observed. And while there are fringes, outside of that you'll never encounter a group of people around you willingly jump off a bridge...without reason. :)

My point is, we're all human beings living in human societies. It's hardly surprising we'd have a few common ideas. Especially if morals is a mechanism evolved to make societies thrive.
This just goes against my intuition, though I don't know how to prove my following point. I think that just as mathematics is a codification of natural phenomenon,
morals is a codification of certain truths about human behavior that can be grasped by the human mind. We didn't create the truth to which morals point to no more than we did what the multiplication table points to. Morals evolve as cultures progress, just as we ended up needing calculus to solve more complex problems. But as I've tried to demonstrate before, the evolution of morals doesn't seem to produce opposite kinds of morality that we can and would expect if there were no standards whatsoever. Instead, we get just slight variations depending upon different social values.


"Not all men should be killed" is a much weaker statement than the one I made. You probably meant something else, but damn if I know what.It is simply the logical conclusion to all divergent views of the idea that we must not kill men without reason however they may differ in what makes for reasons that are valid.


Universal law? Hardly. All men believing the earth is flat wouldn't make it so.
Neither does our denying absolutes eradicate it, especially when our rational thinking tends to verify that it is there.


The test of time. While there is a myriad of cooperative societies of assorted forms, are uncooperative societies still around for us to hear about them?No. But my question isn't what had become of uncooperative societies. Cooperative societies being more successful at sticking around longer is hardly an answer to why we should value sticking around over some desirable short term effects of uncooperative selfishness that would lead to our not being around anymore. Our instincts for self-preservation only triggers responses to immediate dangers to the self and does not extend to the preservation of our kind, so we can't attribute the whys of what we do for the commonwealth to primitive instinctual responses.

[Anh_Minh]

I can't necessarily see that the reason why you are not unique to having this belief is simply because you have been infected with it by keeping company with others who hold the same. But let's say that were so. Where does that idea come from originally? Surely not by pure reason, because reason only tells us that if we don't set limits upon the killing of men then mankind will become extinct. It doesn't tell us why mankind should not become extinct, and therefore we must exercise limits in dealing death. The crux of the belief is the value it places upon human life. That is why we must not take life without reason. Then we can argue about those reasons.
That belief is an evolutionary advantage. If not for the individual itself, for the society that spawned it. That, I think, is where it comes from. All the rest are just a posteriori rationalisations.


So if all your thinking simply affirms what is true, you need not ascribe arrogance to your proclamation of it and its universal application.
To believe something is Absolutely True just because you feel it's true is pure hubris, even if you happen to be right. (Which, as I've been pointing out for pages, isn't necessarily the case here.)

That the feeling is shared by many people makes it only slightly less arrogant.

I agree that Reality TV is horrible. It may be weak reasoning on my part, but I simply don't know how to account for that agreement if we didn't have some objective standard by which we come to an agreement.
That is, indeed, weak reasoning. There doesn't need to an objective truth about the worth of reality TV. There only needs to be points of commonality between our subjectivities.

Considering all our similarities, it's not surprising that there are some.

Ensemble musicians play in time because tempo is an objective measurement of pulse, and therefore can be reliably observed.
It doesn't mean there needs to be some kind of objective measurement for people to act in concert. See how everyone dresses alike. Do you think there is some objective measurement of elegance?

And while there are fringes, outside of that you'll never encounter a group of people around you willingly jump off a bridge...without reason. :)
Fine, nitpicker. What if everybody around me decides to kill all the Jews?


I don't quite know how to prove this point, but it just goes against my intuition.
Your intuition isn't an argument. By the way, I have no idea what you mean by "this point".

I think that just as mathematics is a codification of natural phenomenon,
It may have started that way. It may have gone beyond that since then.

morals is a codification of certain truths about human behavior that can be grasped by the human mind. We didn't create the truth to which morals point to no more than we did what the multiplication table points to.
Fine. What of Euclid's Fifth Axiom?

It evolves as cultures progress, just as we ended up needing calculus to solve more complex problems, but as I've tried to demonstrate before the evolution of morals don't seem to produce opposite kinds of morality, just slight variations depending upon different social values.
Oh? So, would you say that following the Muslim religion, in some rather fundamentalist form, is necessary to being moral? Some societies today seem to think so.

Or maybe you'd prefer fundamentalist Christianism? It's quite popular in some quarters.

Or, oh, what about all those people who think religion doesn't matter one bit?

What's your opinion of capital punishment? Of abortion? Of alcohol? Or marijuana?

Those aren't exactly "cultural details" you can sweep under the rug, you know?

It is simply the logical conclusion to all divergent views of the idea that we must not kill men without reason however they may differ in what makes for reasons that are valid.
It's an incredibly weak statement. It means "Even if you kill billions of people, please leave a few alive." How you reached that conclusion and why you thought it worth mentioning, I don't know.



Neither does our denying absolutes eradicate it, especially when our rational thinking tends to verify that it is there.
Agreed. Now, show me the rational thinking that verifies the existence of Absolute Morality.


No. But my question isn't what had become of uncooperative societies. Cooperative societies being more successful at sticking around longer is hardly an answer to why we should value sticking around over not being around anymore.

I don't see where you're going with that. Self-preservation is a widespread goal. It's one of those consensuses I spoke about earlier. Now, you can reject it if you want, but that makes this whole discussion rather pointless.

So yes, when we say cooperation is "better", in that context, it means it's beneficial to both the societies and the individuals that comprise them. That it'll help them reach the goals of self-preservation, which we just assume they have. Because not doing so would be silly.

We don't mean that it's better in any absolute moral sense.

[Kinematics]

why should societies interefere when someone is trying to kill another who wants to live?

Continuing the cooperative theme: Person A attempting to kill Person B is a selfish behavior. Person A presumably gets something from the action (revenge, emotional release, money, removal of a rival, etc), however the society as a whole loses the value of what Person B contributes. The vast majority of the time, the value of what Person B could contribute to the society over the course of the rest of their life will outweigh whatever value Person A gains from the murder. Thus it is in the best interest of the society to either prevent the act, or to punish Person A for the act (since doing so acts as a disincentive for other people to mimic the behavior).

It's also in the best interests of any particular individual to discourage such behavior since it reduces the risk that they themselves will be the victim of it. Thus the individuals of the society cooperate in various ways to prevent and/or punish murderous actions.

And note, you just mentioned "murderer", which in itself implies a moral judgement on your part with respect to the killer.

Just a note: "murder" (as used above) is used to denote intential killing for personal benefit, rather than accidental, or acting on behalf of a legal authority (executioner).

Suppose you have a society whose law encourages the killing of human beings. What do you tell those who are about to be killed? "Too bad chump, you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time"?

Such a society (assuming it is a human society) would eventually disintegrate, or have that law changed. It encourages a non-cooperative behavior for personal benefit that will continually reduce the value gained by the society from its individual members. Any other nearby society without such a law would eventually outcompete it.


Quick summary:

Society will form because cooperative behavior generates greater total benefit than selfish individual behavior. 'Society' can be considered as a collective entity composed of at least 2 individuals.
Murder will be considered "wrong" because it reduces the total value of the society. Also, preventing it reduces personal risk, and is thus a net gain for selfish individual behavior as well.
Secondary (not addressed in my posts above): Multiple societies will form because environmental specialization and locational isolation make cooperation more costly than its benefits. Also, competitive elements allow the 'better' societies to develop, and provide a basis for further society creation.

From this point of view (which is, of course, only one of many), ethical frameworks are developed to support the existance of society. Morality in turn is that grouping of actions and behaviors that are either beneficial or detrimental to society. 'Good' actions are those which provide the greatest value for the society as a whole. 'Evil' actions are those that rob the society of net value.

Further, killing individuals of competing societies (eg: wars, Claymore assignments, etc.) can, to a limited extent, be considered a means of reducing the net value of those other societies, and thus increasing the relative value of your own society. However, again, cooperative behavior will usually provide a greater net benefit. The issue with yomas eating humans makes that rather difficult to declare for the Claymore world, however.


Returning to Riful, her actions can be viewed from the perspective of the ethical frameworks of: human society as a whole (where her behavior is considered evil); Claymore society (which mirrors human society, but may view things slightly differently as a whole); yoma society as a whole (where her actions are considered natural and/or good); and the localized society she is a part of (pretty much just her and Dauf at this point, but hoping to recruit others), where her behavior is intended to provide a benefit, but the actuality is at this point uncertain.

Her actions with respect to Isley are that of a competitive society, and should be actions which should improve the value and survival of her own society. Just rolling over and accepting defeat reduces the value of her own society, and would thus be considered a detrimental/evil action. Therefore the 'good' thing for her to do is develop a strategy to improve the long-term survivability and growth of her society. The plan she has (currently) decided on is to recruit new Awakened Ones that will act in a cooperative manner with her in order to strengthen her society. Her reasoning is flawed, however, in thinking that raw strength alone is necessary, and her killing of Katia (who, by awakening, became a member of her society) is evil, in that is reduced the net value of her society.

[Side note: Killing Katia is also necessary from the raw plot perspective in order to not complicate the fight that follows. As such I cannot put the entirety of the blame on Riful, though it was still wrong of her to do so.]

Thus I would say that her planning is considered 'good' for her society, but she is not perfect and still takes evil actions. She herself, however, is not someone I would declare to be inherently evil.

Oh, and followup: This also indicates that I do not believe that yoma/AOs are incapable of distinguishing good from evil. I just think that what is 'good' and 'evil' for them differs from human society in a few points.

[khryoleoz]

That is, indeed, weak reasoning. There doesn't need to an objective truth about the worth of reality TV. There only needs to be points of commonality between our subjectivities.
Then I should have first asked whether you make your judgement upon its quality as a form of entertainment or as an indicator of the state of our moral values today. I maintain my assertion if the latter.

Fine, nitpicker. What if everybody around me decides to kill all the Jews?Evil as it certainly was, they nonetheless justified it. So it wasn't without reason, however bogus and just wicked.


Your intuition isn't an argument. By the way, I have no idea what you mean by "this point".
Sorry, I rephrased the sentence.


Fine. What of Euclid's Fifth Axiom?
I don't know what to do with it. I can't compute how we can have two parallel lines intersected by a line segment yet its two interior angels sum to less than two right angles.

Oh? So, would you say that following the Muslim religion, in some rather fundamentalist form, is necessary to being moral? Some societies today seem to think so.No, but I'll say that we know of no society that says it can thrive without being moral.

Or maybe you'd prefer fundamentalist Christianism? It's quite popular in some quarters.Well, not fundamentalists, but I get along with Christians who are generally nice people even though they hold radical views.

Or, oh, what about all those people who think religion doesn't matter one bit?But many of them hold life sacred and humanity to high esteem as do many Christians. The difference is that one identifies that esteem to be instrinsic, the other extrinsic.

What's your opinion of capital punishment? Of abortion? Of alcohol? Or marijuana?
Captial punishment kills the convicted guilty. Abortion kills the unplanned. But both get rid of some undesired element. Alcohol and MJ are substances to be used at the consumer's discretion and expense with certain consequences whatever they may be from country to country. Aren't the commonalities between different value sets profound?

It's an incredibly weak statement. It means "Even if you kill billions of people, please leave a few alive." How you reached that conclusion and why you thought it worth mentioning, I don't know.I haven't shown that the conclusion MUST by necessity mean that, although it can as you've spotted. But it just goes to show how even something so simple as "we must not kill other men without reason" is by itself deficient as a moral value when any reason can be given to any count of men. I bring it up because it is still a valid statement and the end conclusion of the belief you espouse (or at least how you expressed it), which however different from another's has as its common denominator that some value is placed upon the lives of those who are not to be killed. I wanted to preempt where there is a point of commonality that exists between yours and other divergent views, in the event we did have to contrast differing societal views about life/death issues.


Agreed. Now, show me the rational thinking that verifies the existence of Absolute Morality.
I can't. So I've been exposed. I've been holding back in that I don't believe absolute morality is something that can be verified only by reasoning and pure logic. It is a question of fact, not an argument based upon axiomatic propositions. Unfortunately, I'll bow out of the daunting task of proving it by factual accounts, which I'm ill-prepared to undertake.


I don't see where you're going with that. Self-preservation is a widespread goal. It's one of those consensuses I spoke about earlier. Now, you can reject it if you want, but that makes this whole discussion rather pointless.

So yes, when we say cooperation is "better", in that context, it means it's beneficial to both the societies and the individuals that comprise them. That it'll help them reach the goals of self-preservation, which we just assume they have. Because not doing so would be silly.

We don't mean that it's better in any absolute moral sense.Far from making any concession, I'll just say okay. I've understood where you're coming from.

[TinyRedLeaf]

morals is a codification of certain truths about human behavior that can be grasped by the human mind. We didn't create the truth to which morals point to no more than we did what the multiplication table points to.

Fine. What of Euclid's Fifth Axiom?

I find that to be a pessimistic way of looking at reality. We arrive at the rational conclusion that any given theory/postulate/axiom is "true" by majority consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always true.

You seem to suggest that because there is a possibility, however slim, that a theory/postulate/axiom can be false, we should avoid making such assumptions in the first place. Because making universal assumptions are intellectually arrogant?

Following this line of logic, wouldn't that make any kind of rational thinking "arrogant"? Because to think rationally, we necessarily have to make some assumptions in the first place.

@Kinematics
I am familiar with game theory when applied to co-operative behaviour. In summary, what you have essentially shown is that it is possible to validate one set of ethical behaviour, ie, co-operative behaviour. Consequently, it follows, from game theory, that un-cooperative behaviour is invalid, from a logical/objective perspective. You've gone on to show that this test can be applied to Claymore, youma and Awakened Beings societies as well.

Talking from a purely relative standpoint, why should the results of such a test matter? You revealed the brute fact that is more efficient to co-operate for long-term survival. The philosophical question then follows, "So what?" Why should efficiency matter more than non-efficiency?

I believe that the efficiency of co-operation matters because it is both logical and desirable. We've arrived at the same conclusion, but I've made one more assumption than you. Is it necessary for co-operation to be desirable? Nope. But I do believe that it is easier to convince someone that co-operation is "good", rather than to make him see that it is logical.

It is even possible that we will need to appeal to either logic and morality, if not both, to convince rational beings to behave in a certain way. After all, it is an observable fact that some rational people can behave irrationally, so logic alone doesn't work all the time.

=========

Ultimately, all this discussion about whether absolute morality exists rather obfuscates my key concern as a rational being. What is the usefulness in knowing that different values and opinions exist? That is valid knowledge, certainly, but what good is that knowledge if I subsequently find myself unable to act on it, because of the opinion that any action I take -- based on my assumptions -- is "arrogant"?

Anyways, my apologies for butting in again even though I said I wouldn't. While there certainly seems to be enough material for a new thread, I suggest that we don't create one, because from Episode 18 onwards, we Claymore fans would be discussing other stuff already. :p

[stormy001_M1A2]

Wow this anime is good enough to provoke such debate.

[Davidj]

But they don't even have to have a choice to not be evil. They must simply apprehend what it is and act accordingly, even if evil is all that they are inclined to do. Riful doesn't show she doesn't apprehend it, only that she places no value upon human life aside from dinner.

She also places no value upon AO and yoma life or suffering apart from the utility and amusement value that her pawns possess to her. And her idea of amusement is usually watching them suffer.

[Kinematics]

I must say, this is a fun discussion. :)

I believe that the efficiency of co-operation matters because it is both logical and desirable. We've arrived at the same conclusion, but I've made one more assumption than you. Is it necessary for co-operation to be desirable? Nope. But I do believe that it is easier to convince someone that co-operation is "good", rather than to make him see that it is logical.

A bit of a redundant reply since you already stated that you're making one additional assumption, but: I don't think the cooperation itself needs to be desirable, because the results of cooperation are desirable (ie: they fulfill the desires of the self-interested parties involved). Usually when I see someone getting convinced to cooperate, the motivation used is the benefits that they will gain from cooperating, rather than trying to convince them that the cooperation itself is 'good'.

It is even possible that we will need to appeal to either logic and morality, if not both, to convince rational beings to behave in a certain way. After all, it is an observable fact that some rational people can behave irrationally, so logic alone doesn't work all the time.

Quite so. The position that cooperation is more efficient is just a mathematical description of the results, maximizing the benefit of each individual involved. To understand that reasoning, you need to understand the mathematics for it, and most people today wouldn't understand that math. Almost no one in a medieval setting would. So instead people construct 'moral' guidelines that are the result of experiential data ("It worked for my granddad and it worked for my dad, so it'll work for me.") and inductive reasoning.

Non-cooperative behavior exists because of the limited ability of any individual to see all the results of their behavior, who instead rely only on the immediate here-and-now benefit of the action. This also helps explain the need for an ethical rule system, to make sure everyone understands the types of behavior that are best for the entire society, rather than having to continually re-discover those results.


My overall view on morality: The morals we have are due to who and what we are, and the natural laws that govern our existance. There is no truly absolute, intrinsic morality in the universe the way that, say, math is absolutely intrinsic. However, for a given type of society there does exist some set of optimal behaviors which may generally be considered an absolute set of moral rules (dependant, however, on everyone always acting rationally, which cannot be assumed). There are also some subsets of ethics which are likely to be nearly universal (as far as I can imagine for variations on the existance of life) since they are in some ways describable as mathematical optimizations.

However I do remember one sci-fi short story that described a world in which non-cooperative behavior was the norm due to an overabundance of natural resources in an Eden-like environment. With no scarcity of food, and no need for shelter from the elements, along with the resultant massive overpopulation, there was never a need for the native inhabitants to cooperate to achieve anything, and thus no need for 'society' to develop. While the author never really explored the aspect of the ethics of murder within that species, from my sketchy memory of the story, one member of the species killing another was considered inconsequential.


In any case...

Riful is part of a fairly new society - Awakened Ones - which doesn't have a strong enough history to truly know what will be most beneficial for it as a whole in the long run. Its moral requirements are different from humans', and yomas don't appear to have developed a strong enough cooperative society to disseminate any such system. As such she has to come up with her own rationalizations based on what she has experienced and knows about the relative positions of each of the groups involved in their respective roles. Those conclusions are what she explains to Jean in their little dialogue.

She understands the value of cooperation, but only among those within a specifically defined set: strong Awakened Ones. That is because her goal (the benefit she will gain from said cooperation) is fighting a war against a competitive society (Isley). Because of the limited scope of her goal, the 'value' of her actions is not as universally applicable, and detrimental to associated societies (Claymores and humans), which leads to an overall conclusion that her actions are evil.

In addition, up until this point she has had no need to examine the overall benefits of cooperation with a society comprised of food, or a society that is inherently antagonistic towards her. If you're an immortal being with godlike power, what is there, really, for you to desire? What can possibly be done that would add value (health, wealth, survivability) to your existance? As she admitted, up until now she has done very little besides eat and sleep. In order for her to value a cooperative relationship, there has to be something that she desires. At the moment, we have seen possible evidence of two such things: something to keep her from being bored, and friends.

Of course, gaining cooperation with the other societies would require them to overlook the whole "eating humans" thing (an 'evil' (detrimental) behavior for those societies). The only ones she can expect to act in a cooperative manner within her society are other Awakened Ones. Thus her "recruitment".


Overall conclusion: Riful's actions are currently more evil than good due to the limited scope of her goals and (not entirely her fault) the unlikeliness of cooperation being given by alternate societies. That does not, however, make her inherently evil, or incapable of developing more cooperative, 'good' behavior.

[khryoleoz]

I'll take that overall conclusion of yours as a satisfactory response to that provocative idea that "this whole 'evil' thing is nonsense".

That said, while the action scenes outperformed the manga, it is a bitter disappointment that much of the more substantive insights provided by Riful were watered down or even omitted. She didn't give an account of her routine activities and what roused her to take up the fight. She didn't complain about the actions of Easley and "that thing". Even Priscilla was reduced to that "one-horned woman". With no mention of Priscilla's rampage wherein she ignored little girls, Clare's reaction seemed dumbed down as a result.

Jean's awakened form was...beautiful however. And wearing Clare's cloak not wearing anything...um, down there, was quite suggestive if not provocative. Hot! I'd have to rate the episode a 9.

[Anh_Minh]

Then I should have first asked whether you make your judgement upon its quality as a form of entertainment or as an indicator of the state of our moral values today. I maintain my assertion if the latter.
I don't see how that's relevant.

Evil as it certainly was, they nonetheless justified it. So it wasn't without reason, however bogus and just wicked.Not my point. My point was that "everyone is doing it, so I'll do it too", isn't entirely rational. Unless you consider genocide to be rational, I suppose, which I don't.

And now that I think of it, massive collective suicides aren't unheard of, either.

I don't know what to do with it. I can't compute how we can have two parallel lines intersected by a line segment yet its two interior angels sum to less than two right angles. The point is, there isn't an "Absolute Mathematics" derived directly from reality. You're going to have to make some choices. It's the same with morality, except that choices are generally less conscious.


No, but I'll say that we know of no society that says it can thrive without being moral.

Well, not fundamentalists, but I get along with Christians who are generally nice people even though they hold radical views.

But many of them hold life sacred and humanity to high esteem as do many Christians. The difference is that one identifies that esteem to be instrinsic, the other extrinsic.


Captial punishment kills the convicted guilty. Abortion kills the unplanned. But both get rid of some undesired element. Alcohol and MJ are substances to be used at the consumer's discretion and expense with certain consequences whatever they may be from country to country. Aren't the commonalities between different value sets profound?Not my point. You said moral systems, while having cultural differences, aren't contradictory. I disagreed.


I haven't shown that the conclusion MUST by necessity mean that, although it can as you've spotted. But it just goes to show how even something so simple as "we must not kill other men without reason" is by itself deficient as a moral value when any reason can be given to any count of men. I bring it up because it is still a valid statement and the end conclusion of the belief you espouse (or at least how you expressed it), which however different from another's has as its common denominator that some value is placed upon the lives of those who are not to be killed. I wanted to preempt where there is a point of commonality that exists between yours and other divergent views, in the event we did have to contrast differing societal views about life/death issues.I have more exacting standards when it comes to "reasons". For me, you can't just call anything a "reason".

And I never said that creed was the whole of my morality, either. But, whatever. It doesn't matter.

So, yes, there is the common point among maybe all moral systems that there is some value in some human lives. Hardly a big statement. Or surprising, considering the fact that morals were evolved by human beings living in human societies.


I can't. So I've been exposed. I've been holding back in that I don't believe absolute morality is something that can be verified only by reasoning and pure logic. It is a question of fact, not an argument based upon axiomatic propositions. Unfortunately, I'll bow out of the daunting task of proving it by factual accounts, which I'm ill-prepared to undertake.I've never heard of a "fact" proving the existence of Absolute Morality. Or Absolute Beauty. Or Absolute Holiness...


I find that to be a pessimistic way of looking at reality. We arrive at the rational conclusion that any given theory/postulate/axiom is "true" by majority consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is always true.

You seem to suggest that because there is a possibility, however slim, that a theory/postulate/axiom can be false, we should avoid making such assumptions in the first place. Because making universal assumptions are intellectually arrogant?

Following this line of logic, wouldn't that make any kind of rational thinking "arrogant"? Because to think rationally, we necessarily have to make some assumptions in the first place.


It's ok to make assumptions, as long as you remember they're assumptions. It's also ok to not be entirely rational, just like, well, everybody.



Kinematics: Maybe having Duph hit new AB isn't completely gratuitous. Rites of passages aren't rare, so they must provide something. I guess they get rid of those who are unable to pull their own weight, or unwilling to make sacrifices for the tribe.

Also, maybe AB have an instinct to follow those who've beaten them. And that would be what she counts on to make them her "friends", despite the torture thing.

But I agree that she's placed the bar too high. At this rate, gaining new members is going to be difficult.

[Gavrielo]

The long morality debates are getting on my nerves now -.-, sorry but please request for a morality thread instead of posting it here, I just want to read opinions about the episode not your opinions if AOs are good or evil or comparing Claymore to RL.
Since Riful didn't even say anything about AOs being good or evil in the episode I'm treating it as offtopic.

[Tempest35]

Che, I think that the Morality issue in Claymore deserves its own thread by now as well, seeing the vigorous debates that go on about it are turning away some other people from commenting on the episode itself. Although the stuff about 'absolute morality' and such can be turned down. Since few people believe that an absolute morality exists in the RL, how can one be applied to an anime world, much less Claymore...

And people love Riful for being what she is - an 80+ year old, cute-as-anything loli Awakened with an IQ of 180 who can turn into a tentacle monster. :D
So what's with the discussion about her morality issues? SHE'S BORED AND EASLEY'S PICKING A FIGHT SO SHE WANTS TO FIGHT/PLAY TOO!! Duff's obviously not enough so she wants more people on her side whom she can trust and become friends with. She's a being ruled by desires now - no morals apply to her now. If they did, she wouldn't have killed Awakened Katea back in ep 15.

Morality is a belief system and as such, all aspects of a particular belief system cannot be rationally explained. It's an ideal - a code to live by - a way of life. Can anyone here explain what a belief is? Then anyone can see that even though a fact can be absolute (Murder is wrong/bad/evil), there are just some people who don't believe that. Does that mean that it is no longer an absolute just because a bunch of ignorants choose not to abide by it?
There is an absolute morality in the world. Don't ask me to prove it to you because I'm not doing your work for you. You can make all the conjectures and assumptions you want but an absolute doesn't have to prove itself - it just is. Whether you believe it or not - that's your problem - not its problem.

Discover the absolute morality that you can believe in for yourself. If someone can show you a better path and 'prove' through actions and words that are acceptable to you, that doesn't make you stupid for believing such in the first place. Convert - learn - grow - become better - that's what makes a human a human. Don't be afraid of being 'disproven' - being 'ignorant' might be bad, but it is better than being both 'ignorant' and 'stubborn'.

NSW and to any other mods, if the above needs to be edited/cut in any way, go ahead and do so. I don't care if I incur any points for this one, but some aspects of the morality issue/discussion were getting ridiculous in my opinion. :eyebrow:

Anyway, congrats to Clare and Jean are in order, Jean espcially. I still can't really believe that she held on for so freaking long. I'd love to see her backstory and how did she achieve such a strong willpower. That and she looks sooo much better in the anime than in the manga. :heh:

[IMSabbel]

Wow this anime is good enough to provoke such debate.

Or the viewers are sociopatic enough. All in the eye of the beholder.

(nothing against anybody in person, but justifying the actions of the awakend beings is the textbook definition of being a sociopath. Have a nice day).

[FlareKnight]

True with debaters going on this strongly it could hold its own thread. Though at them moment this is more of a morality thread than about episode 17 specifically.

Have to agree that Jean showed an incredible amount of will power. Such a strong desire not to awaken that it was amazing to see. Even after her body had given in and awakened her mind refused to let go. Well at least with her traveling with Clare we might get some insights onto exactly how she came to have such an iron will.

[xVxObliVioNxVx]

Che, I think that the Morality issue in Claymore deserves its own thread by now as well, seeing the vigorous debates that go on about it are turning away some other people from commenting on the episode itself.

I am with you on this one, for seeing these debates on Morality in this thread has been a rather turn off for me. Every now and then I would check this thread and hope that the discussion has shifted to something besides the endless debate on Morality in Claymore.

[justinstrife]

Just today? And you've gotten as far as episode 17 in a single day? Man, the power of Claymore is surely awesome!

I watched episode 5-17 last night(started at 10pm after I got off the phone with my g/f). Yes I was hooked. :heh:

[KiNA]

WOW.. I surrendered reading this thread =.=

Somebody request a separate thread already?

Oh hi Justin.. You still using the archer sig O_O.. I'm honored !

[TinyRedLeaf]

I regret that I was part of what made this thread necessary, especially considering that a greater part of the discussion had already been resolved privately.

In summary, the conclusions are:

(1)
We don't actually know if absolute morality exists, but the idea of it certainly does. The counter-argument is that such knowledge is not useful -- I can think that the Earth is flat, but no amount of thinking would make that real.

(2)
I can demonstrate that some rational beings act morally, but not all. Precisely because it is possible to show that not all rational beings act morally, therefore it is impossible to say that moral laws are absolute.

To which, the counter-argument would be that moral laws are empirically derived from subjective viewpoints, so it is not surprising that they do not match absolute morality exactly. However, referring again to point (1), you can say, "So what? You just demonstrated that absolute morality isn't necessary."

So, in terms of usefulness, morality is useful only insofar as you believe that it is useful (yup, circular logic). If you don't believe that it is, then it isn't. Applying Occam's Razor, we should not assume more than is necessary to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, from a purely rational point of view, morality isn't necessary to explain the existence of relative moralities.

(3)
As a matter of philosophy: Awakened Beings may or may not be evil. It doesn't matter whether you apply logic or morality -- both relative views arrive at the same conclusion, but using different assumptions.

As a matter of practicality:

Let's kill them before they kill us.

[Tempest35]

Meh, it was bound to happen. With all the college age people who frequent here... :D

As for my views on it...TRL, you should have my PM to leaf through. :D

[TinyRedLeaf]

Well, since this thread exists, there isn't a need to keep the comments in PMs anymore. In any case, what needs to be said is already said -- believe or don't believe.

The case against absolute morality is that it isn't necessary.

If it isn't necessary, then we have the reality of an existence that is based entirely on logical deductions influenced by environmental and biological factors. This results in infinite sets of behaviours that happen only to be defined "right" or "wrong" by a dispassionate observer.

.
.
.
.
.
.

And yet, in a reality driven only by rationalism, altruism exists.

Explain altruism.

[Anh_Minh]

Didn't I say already? Human beings aren't entirely rational. We certainly don't spend inordinate amounts of time rationally figuring out every aspect of our lives. After all, that would be irrational.

Just because absolute morality doesn't exist doesn't mean that people won't try to behave according to certain standards that may appear to run contrary to their interests.

Besides, altruism is an evolutionary advantage.

[TinyRedLeaf]

So irrational behaviour exists even though we are rational. Then, how do you motivate irrational behaviour?

Evolution works on the assumption of strict self-interest. Is it in the strict self-interest of an entity to act against its self-interest?

.
.
.
.
.

Obviously we will only go around in circles if we continue further. Again, to repeat Tempest35, believe or don't believe. Just as much as you can say we are clueless about absolute morality, I can also say you are clueless about absolute logic. You don't know reality any better than I do to discount the possibility of absolute morality.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Depending on your starting viewpoint, you'd choose an answer, and all the observations that follow will conform to your original answer.

[Kinematics]

And yet, in a reality driven only by rationalism, altruism exists.

Explain altruism.

Altruism is the ultimate extension of cooperative behavior.

[TinyRedLeaf]

You are subverting the definition of altruism. Strictly speaking, altruism arises, if and only if, you choose to ignore self-interest. Co-operative behaviour, as per game theory, assumes that every independent agent acts purely on self-interest. It then ultimately gives the appearance that co-operative behaviour is "good" (insofar as you can define "good" behaviour).

=========

(1)
Logic isn't "necessary" to explain irrational behaviour in rational beings.

(2
Logic applies, if and only if, you want to behave rationally.

(3)
Paradoxically, it takes a rational being to perceive the difference between rational and irrational behaviour.

An irrational being perceives only chaos.

=> It takes a rational being to behave rationally. (Circular logic)

(4)
Strictly speaking, we are clueless about everything. The reality we exist in is ultimately meaningless. And yet, even though we can rationally see that to be true, at the same time, we desire meaning.

That is the human condition, which derives from the reality of being rational in the first place.

[Goofus Maximus]

My personal belief on rationality is that it is a tool we have, like a lever, which we employ to our own advantage. Motivation comes from the deep dark urges within us, on the other hand. It's like "Good Kirk/Bad Kirk" in that episode of Star Trek! :D

[Tempest35]

Well, at least I'm learning words here...:heh:

So do Youma fall under this same category? From the looks of it, they are nothing more than predators with human-level intelligence, able to fool and beguile with uncanny mimicry, and possessing superhuman strength and speed. So does a youma wonder why it exists? They don't seem to care about that yet they appear to operate logically if not irrationally from a human stand-point.

Awakeneds seem to take this a step further and put a human consciousness and rational thought pattern into the irrational mindset of a youma. And what you get is Riful. ^^ She plays 'Devil's Advocate' very nicely.

And I shall restrain myself from bringing the PM discussion over here...I shall have to greatly restrain myself from such...:heh: I'll sleep on it then maybe kick back up in the morning. :D For now, eat then sleep. Much more satisfying.

edit: Just for you Goofus. :D It's true - rational thought can be turned good or bad. Rationalizing a particular negaitve behavior pattern (when one already knows the difference between what is considered 'good' vs 'bad', and 'righteous' vs 'evil') doesn't make it a positive one - it just makes a reason that's acceptable to the mind that's thinking of it.
And it is a curious thing that many people don't need to rationalize anything about positive behavior (if taught well beforehand) - they just do it. If someone falls, most people will ask if they're alright and help them up. If someone laughs and makes fun of them, depending on the situation, they get ignored at best or punched in the face.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Basically, the whole argument against absolute morality stems from the assumption that "faith is bad", when it seems very clear to me that we need both faith and reason.

To paraphrase a famous quote:

"Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is empty."

[Tempest35]

Good ol' Yin-Yang. Subsitiute Yin for Faith and Yang for Reason and carry on. As portrayed - Lots of Faith needs a bit of Reason and Lots of Reason needs a bit of Faith in order for any side to work. Using just pure one or the other is detrimental to a human being because it makes them appear truely 'one-sided'. We are duality creatures - left side, right side. Most people are right-handed but we still need the left hand. Just because one side is dominant doesn't mean we don't need the other. :heh:

Random Claymore musings : I really find fault with the church although I know why they shun the Claymore girls. Youma are of the devil and the silver-eyed witches are half devil, half human. If I was one of the bishops, I'd have to put the idea to my collueges that yes, they may be mixed with the evil youma but that was not their choice. Men did that to them - men who could very well be demons themselves for thinking of such a solution. They are trying to help us (despite the exhorberant fee) so why should we shun the ones who are forced to go through so much trials and hardships to fight against youma? I'd say, greet them, invite them into your homes (its not like they eat much anyway, well, except for Helen). Treat them as humans for they are still such. The church of Rabona is missing a very excellent opprotunity here...*sigh*

[Anh_Minh]

So irrational behaviour exists even though we are rational.
We are? Don't be so full of yourself, human. Rationality is an imperfectly learnt skill.

Then, how do you motivate irrational behaviour?How do you motivate people to act irrationally, you mean? I don't, and they just do. It's a fact I've learnt to live with.

How do you make people with irrational traits do anything? Just because they're, well, people, with people's flaws, doesn't mean there aren't any levers to motivate them.

I get the feeling you're creating a false dilemma between
- being perfectly rational, with a better computation abilities than a super-computer and absolutely no emotions,
- having the intellectual capacities of a gnat.

In case you don't know, we're somewhere in the middle.

Evolution works on the assumption of strict self-interest.No, it doesn't. For one thing, don't expect most things that evolve, humans included, to know what their best interest is. They evolve anyway.

When I speak of evolutionary advantage, I remember one thing: we're part of a process called "Life", and the agenda of Evolution (if you'll pardon that personification) is quite different from our own individual agendas. Even if it's irrational, even if it's against our own interests, evolution would push us to spread our genes.

And for societies, it's not merely genes, but ideas and ways of life that strive to thrive.


Is it in the strict self-interest of an entity to act against its self-interest?Let's look at a simple, if extreme example. Imagine a society faced with a threat of extinction. To beat that threat, the only way if for one of its childless members to die. Now, you might think that being daft enough to volunteer for that would be an evolutionary weakness. And you'd be wrong. Because, sure, that guy's going to die. But the society in which he lived will survive. His siblings, his cousins... They'll live to have kids. And even if he had no blood relatives, the environment in which he was raised, the ideas - which propagate by means other than genetic - will continue on.

Let's look at a less extreme example. Imagine a tribe of hunter gatherers. heck, I don't know if you can call them that - they're really just a bunch of proto-apes.

Imagine one of its hunters got hurt or sick... Anyway, he won't be able to effectively hunt for a while. Now, you can steal his mate and let him starve. Or you can pick up his slack, feed him and his family till he gets better.

The tribe that chooses option B will be stronger than the tribe that chooses option A. They'll lose fewer people, hunters will live to learn from their mistakes, and so on.

Now, how does Evolution motivates us to choose option B? Well, advanced intellectual capacities and a sense of values that favor long term benefits would do it. So would altruism.

The former would probably be better, but it's too complicated. We can't have it yet. Altruism, on the other hand, works almost as well, and it's available now. So that's what we get. And that's why today, we're saddled with altruism, which gave us, not only cooperation with each other, but with other species. Ain't that grand?

Obviously we will only go around in circles if we continue further. Again, to repeat Tempest35, believe or don't believe. Just as much as you can say we are clueless about absolute morality, I can also say you are clueless about absolute logic. You don't know reality any better than I do to discount the possibility of absolute morality.I didn't say I discounted it, I said I didn't like it. All other things being equal - and so far, you've done jack to show they aren't -, I'd rather believe that it doesn't exist, even though I know the possibility's there.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Depending on your starting viewpoint, you'd choose an answer, and all the observations that follow will conform to your original answer.The egg. There have been eggs for far longer than there have been chicken or even birds.


You are subverting the definition of altruism. Strictly speaking, altruism arises, if and only if, you choose to ignore self-interest. Co-operative behaviour, as per game theory, assumes that every independent agent acts purely on self-interest. It then ultimately gives the appearance that co-operative behaviour is "good" (insofar as you can define "good" behaviour).

=========

(1)
Logic isn't "necessary" to explain irrational behaviour in rational beings.
A certain amount of logic - though not in the mathematical sense of the word - is used to explain everything, even what we'd call irrationality.

(2
Logic applies, if and only if, you want to behave rationally.

(3)
Paradoxically, it takes a rational being to perceive the difference between rational and irrational behaviour.

An irrational being perceives only chaos.False dilemma again.
Basically, the whole argument against absolute morality stems from the assumption that "faith is bad", when it seems very clear to me that we need both faith and reason.

To paraphrase a famous quote:

"Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is empty."
You can have faith in whatever you want, including pink elephants. What you can't do is bring your faith to the table and demand people to take your word for it, going contrary to their own faiths. And you can't try to present it as a rational argument, either.

[Davidj]

But that's what I don't get. Why is it in her best interest if there is no morality? If there is only what is, then there are no states in which there is a better or worse.

Not at all. When I say that it would be stupid of me to stick a fork into a plugged in toaster that is not a moral judgement. Stupid is not the the same thing as wicked.

[Davidj]

So irrational behaviour exists even though we are rational. Then, how do you motivate irrational behaviour?

Evolution works on the assumption of strict self-interest.


No, it most certainly does not. For a strong K-Strategy species, it is inherent in our reproductive pattern that we must in fact have a widespread interest in the welfare of our relatives, otherwise our offspring will never make it to maturity. And in the end, we are all related (although the strong K-Strategy requires us in general to have a higher interest in the welfare of our "close" relatives).

[Varis]

why are we discussing rationality and morality itself? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how it applies to awakened beings?

We are also not talking about societies moral standard or some kind of norm, but morality itself. I have them, you have them an I'm pretty sure Riful has morals as well.

As long as she sticks to them, she follows her own morals regardless if some see those as good or evil.


For example, Riful does not have her dungeon packed with humans she tortures. She only uses torture as a means to speed up the awakening all claymores are destined to. While they do loose their humanity, she does save their lives.

Now if she took girls, turned them into half yoma and THEN tortured them until they awoke, I would see that as immoral. In reality though only Claire was willing to take the demon flesh while the others where forced and given a doomed and thankless future by the organization.

so yeah, while quite alien to us, I think Riful is as moral as the next. If she is immoral for feeding on humans, I am immoral for feeding on cattle.

[Seska]

Its funny, we are guessing into the Dark. Because we don't have enough background Infos...

Why turned Riful into an AB? Did she found out the truth about the Org? (White Awaken). She gain lust on Human Guts? She dosent Lose to an Youma? (Black Awaken. Aka Pricilla)

Same with Ishley, why did he Awaken? And Why he stays in the North? he was the First ever that going as a Lord. Or was they other and older ones, and he manage to surpass them all? and he bring peace unter the AB as a Lord (White Awaken).... He don't wanna lose to someone. His mind turned evil, and he wants to rule the World, Ok begging with the northern side of the land... (Dark Awaken)

And Rafaella's sister, was more an failed "experiment" that turns her into an AB Lord... is she to blame for that? or the Org? (Unknown awaken)

See. With out some persons History, this discussion is "picking in the Darkness"...

[Davidj]

For example, Riful does not have her dungeon packed with humans she tortures. She only uses torture as a means to speed up the awakening all claymores are destined to. While they do loose their humanity, she does save their lives.

.

If she thinks they're strong enough to be useful. Otherwise she kills them.

[half_awake]

Anh Minh -

I write this post with both hesitation and a genuinely benign intent.

You're obviously a passionate and intelligent person. But why is there a sense of dismissive negativity in your posts? It seems that most of the posts that are quoted in your replies are trying to present their arguments without the aggression - you respond as if they're a personal attack.

What you can't do is bring your faith to the table and demand people to take your word for it, going contrary to their own faiths. And you can't try to present it as a rational argument, either.

Couldn't that description be applied to your arguments? Can anyone establish (i.e. prove) that their belief in what's rational/irrational or moral/immoral isn't a form of faith in itself?

Finally, if you're as confident and comfortable with your arguments/beliefs as you present yourself, why the borderline reactionary responses? Is yours an attempt at 'intellectual self-preservation' or a 'forced evolution' of those who disagree with your paradigm?

A apologize for any offense: this topic is, inherently, an inflammatory one. Perhaps it'd be a good thing to step back and take the thread down a notch.

EDIT: after posting, I noticed that several other's had replied with Riful based notes. I think this is a perfect route to take for the thread - back to the task at hand, so to speak.

[TinyRedLeaf]

[sarcasm on]Good Almighty God! What blasphemy do we see here?! All of you deserve to burn in Hell![/sarcasm off]

why are we discussing rationality and morality itself? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how it applies to awakened beings?


Because any philosophical discussion ultimately becomes an examination of the underlying assumptions used to build the discussion. Otherwise, all we'd have is dogma. Contrary to appearances, I'm no more fond of dogmatic assertions than those I've been arguing against.

I might have been more easily persuaded had the tone and language been a little bit more civil. After all, I'm an emotional creature too, try as much as I want to be logical. Luckily, I can rationalise that I learnt something, so on balance, it is not so bad.

In any case, the original conclusions of the private discussions, in respect to the morality of Awakened Beings, still stand:

- As a matter of philosophy, Awakened Beings may or may not be evil. It doesn't matter whether you apply logic or morality -- we get the same conclusion. (But it can be shown that some assumptions are not necessary to arrive at the conclusion.)

- As a matter of practicality, let's kill them before they kill us.

[Anh_Minh]

Anh Minh -

I write this post with both hesitation and a genuinely benign intent.

You're obviously a passionate and intelligent person. But why is there a sense of dismissive negativity in your posts? It seems that most of the posts that are quoted in your replies are trying to present their arguments without the aggression - you respond as if they're a personal attack.
It's just the way I write. I don't see any personal attack, and I'm not trying to make any, either.



Couldn't that description be applied to your arguments? Nope. I generally try to present the reasonings, assumptions, and facts behind my claims. When they're unclear, I try to define the words I use.

I never try anything along the lines of "I believe so, therefore you should too" or "I feel it's true, therefore it's true".

Now, if after we've argued back and forth a bit, you want to reject my basic assumptions, feel free. I take plenty of stuff on faith, like everyone, and I'm not asking for you to believe exactly the same things. But at least we'll both know why we disagree.

Can anyone establish (i.e. prove) that their belief in what's rational/irrational or moral/immoral isn't a form of faith in itself?Yes and no. Every belief system is based partly on reasoning, partly on assumptions - conscious and unconscious. What one can do is present the reasonings and ferret out the assumptions. After that, the others can decide whether they agree with them or not. Is the reasoning faulty? (That's generally pretty objective.) Are the assumptions acceptable? (That's generally pretty subjective.)


Finally, if you're as confident and comfortable with your arguments/beliefs as you present yourself, why the borderline reactionary responses? Is yours an attempt at 'intellectual self-preservation' or a 'forced evolution' of those who disagree with your paradigm?I think faith and reason have their proper places, and strongly dislike faith trying to pass off as reason.

A apologize for any offense: this topic is, inherently, an inflammatory one. Perhaps it'd be a good thing to step back and take the thread down a notch.I'm not offended.

EDIT: after posting, I noticed that several other's had replied with Riful based notes. I think this is a perfect route to take for the thread - back to the task at hand, so to speak.Hm. I feel we've pretty much exhausted the subject on Riful.

Whether we tag her "evil" or not is, ultimately, a matter of point of view. Depending on your own morals, you can see her as a criminal, or as no worse than a man-eating crocodile. Heck, maybe you think crocodiles are evil, too.

And it has no bearing on what practical response we should make if we were faced with something like her.

[Varis]

[sarcasm on]Good Almighty God! What blasphemy do we see here?! All of you deserve to burn in Hell![/sarcasm off]



Because any philosophical discussion ultimately becomes an examination of the underlying assumptions used to build the discussion. Otherwise, all we'd have is dogma. Contrary to appearances, I'm no more fond of dogmatic assertions than those I've been arguing against.

I might have been more easily persuaded had the tone and language been a little bit more civil. After all, I'm an emotional creature too, try as much as I want to be logical. Luckily, I can rationalise that I learnt something, so on balance, it is not so bad.

In any case, the original conclusions of the private discussions, in respect to the morality of Awakened Beings, still stand:

- As a matter of philosophy, Awakened Beings may or may not be evil. It doesn't matter whether you apply logic or morality -- we get the same conclusion. (But it can be shown that some assumptions are not necessary to arrive at the conclusion.)

- As a matter of practicality, let's kill them before they kill us.

yes well by agreeing that be it by logic or morality, an awakened being may or may not be evil puts them at the same level as humans.

In other words, we are to judge Riful for her actions, not for her race as she is neighter immoral or evil necessarly.


From the human perspective she may seem evil as her diet is guts (of course if she ever tries to eat the PERSON Guts, she will be doomed he he). On the other hands, what's a lady to eat? lol

She kills claymores but then again... the organization is at war with her. In fact they went after her, not the other way around.

Torture is bad. Then again this is the only way to turn her enemies into potential allies so why the hell not?



If I were Riful's advisor I would be even more aggressive in building up forces and use yoma to infiltrate human settlements and sow discontent to the organization. They are already being charged more then they can afford to kill a single yoma so that should not be too hard.
Heck, I would see it as my duty to destroy the organization and so stop the continuous flow of potential awakened beings created.

... hmm now that I think about it, we humans are far more messed up and evil LOL

[Yorae_paladin1]

yes well by agreeing that be it by logic or morality, an awakened being may or may not be evil puts them at the same level as humans.

In other words, we are to judge Riful for her actions, not for her race as she is neighter immoral or evil necessarly.


From the human perspective she may seem evil as her diet is guts (of course if she ever tries to eat the PERSON Guts, she will be doomed he he). On the other hands, what's a lady to eat? lol

She kills claymores but then again... the organization is at war with her. In fact they went after her, not the other way around.

Torture is bad. Then again this is the only way to turn her enemies into potential allies so why the hell not?



If I were Riful's advisor I would be even more aggressive in building up forces and use yoma to infiltrate human settlements and sow discontent to the organization. They are already being charged more then they can afford to kill a single yoma so that should not be too hard.
Heck, I would see it as my duty to destroy the organization and so stop the continuous flow of potential awakened beings created.

... hmm now that I think about it, we humans are far more messed up and evil LOL

You know that strategy would a good one to sow discontent among the orgs human clients by telling them a few truths about the org being as riful was the first female claymore she should know some secrets which would make humans distrust the org completely. the org are playing the no choice scenario cards with humans almost to the point of extortion you either pay us or yoma kills you that does not sound like a noble wish of protection to me. Note those cards only last so long

As for the morality issue your right its all a matter of point of view however not all humans are you hurt me I hurt you some understand natural needs like an article where a woman had a big chunk of her arm bitten off by a crocdile and she was asked if she holds any grudge against the croc she said no that she was simply there at the wrong place at the wrong time

[Anh_Minh]

yes well by agreeing that be it by logic or morality, an awakened being may or may not be evil puts them at the same level as humans.


Uh... No. I'm not sure now how TRL understood it, but when I wrote that Riful may or may not be evil, I meant that maybe she is, maybe she's not. The matter is open to discussion.

I didn't mean there was a possibility for her to be not-evil the way a human being can be not-evil.

[Kinematics]

You are subverting the definition of altruism. Strictly speaking, altruism arises, if and only if, you choose to ignore self-interest. Co-operative behaviour, as per game theory, assumes that every independent agent acts purely on self-interest.

Not quite. Cooperative behavior arises in game theory when each agent is acting in self-interest. Cooperative behavior itself, however, is not predicated on all agents acting in self-interest. Rather, it is a balance between selfish and selfless behavior that is optimized to deal with generic entities that have unknown levels of selfish/selfless behaviors, and thus my description of altruism as an extreme point in cooperative behavior.

Further, as cooperative behavior includes an element of selfless behavior, and in fact can be described as a sliding scale between selfish and selfless behavior, you could say that Selfish and Altruistic behavior are just idealized cases of the limits of cooperative behavior. Truly perfect Altruistic behavior is not possible to achieve in a practical sense, even if the only selfish things you do are eat and sleep. What we call altruistic behavior is just behavior that approaches that ideal, and similarly for selfish behavior.

In any case, if -all- other entities practice altruistic behavior, then selecting altruistic behavior is the most beneficial for the society as a whole (and thus, on average, the most beneficial for each individual), while purely selfish behavior is the most beneficial for the specific individual. The specific individual must decide whether his interest is better served by aiming for the greatest average value, or the greatest personal value (which in turn depends on what exactly he values).

A purely rational being would understand that behaving altruisticly would likely produce the greatest net average gain (which is beneficial as a factor of self-interest). An irrational being (or rational being with limited scope of knowledge) would place the priority on their immediate gain (ie: behave selfishly), without seeing that by doing so the end result is a society with lower overall value. Eventually someone is going to decide on the personal value and choose to act in a selfish manner, which will generally result a cascade change that eventually leads back to a balanced cooperative behavior.


Basically, the whole argument against absolute morality stems from the assumption that "faith is bad"

No, it stems from "blind faith is bad", to use your other quote. Critically examining your own beliefs, and digging in to discover the truth about reality, are crucial for the development of a rational being (assuming you believe that such development is a good thing). If you base your decisions on knowingly bad data, or questionable principles which you are unwilling to examine, can you still be considered to be acting rationally?

[Davidj]

yes well by agreeing that be it by logic or morality, an awakened being may or may not be evil puts them at the same level as humans.

In other words, we are to judge Riful for her actions, not for her race as she is neighter immoral or evil necessarly.


From the human perspective she may seem evil as her diet is guts (of course if she ever tries to eat the PERSON Guts, she will be doomed he he). On the other hands, what's a lady to eat? lol



As I keep saying, her peculiar dietary compulsions strike me as secondary on the moral level to the way she treats her own kind.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Uh... No. I'm not sure now how TRL understood it, but when I wrote that Riful may or may not be evil, I meant that maybe she is, maybe she's not. The matter is open to discussion.

I didn't mean there was a possibility for her to be not-evil the way a human being can be not-evil.

I arrived at the conclusion on a mistaken assumption. But still, in the context of the topic "Are Awakened Beings good or evil?", the conclusion is still useful, insofar as you believe in my original assumptions.

To re-state what I had proposed originally: (1) Rational beings are subject to morality. (2) Riful is rational. (3) Therefore Riful is subject to morality. However, postulate (1) is not strictly necessary. At the very least, it has not been proven absolutely.

Instead of questioning postulate (1) however, I questioned (2). It is not entirely clear to me whether Riful makes rational choices, or is slave to her irrational biological urges. The logic used to question (2) however, was circular, so not entirely useful. :p

[Anh_Minh]

Even if you accept (1), as an Awakened Being, Riful may be subject to entirely different rules from ours.

[PastPrime]

I have been considering this world, not from a morality standpoint, but a natualal order standpoint. If you have too many preditors they kill all their prey, then they die. If there are too few preditors then the prey population gets so large that they eat all the food then they, and the preditors die. It seems to me that the purpose of the organization is to keep the number of Yuma in check. And the smarter awakened ones like Riful realize this and thus tolerate the organization as long as it leaves them alone. It seems that, because of Pricilla, Ishley has lost sight of this and has become a threat to destroy everything. I could see Riful, not joining with the organization in their fight with Ishley, but assisting them if the opportunity and need arose.

[BladeStone]

There hasn't been enough evidence shown in the series (the anime, at least) to show that Aweakened Ones are 'good' or 'evil'. Seeing how humans are now their food, you can't hold killing humans against them -- as it's just part of their survival. As for killing Claymores, I opt that any of this can be considered defense (personally or of their kind).

From what I've seen so far, there hasn't been any Awakened vs. Awakened combat, and all of the awakeneds seem to be just as aware of what they're doing and intelligent as a Claymore/Human. This seems to show that Awakeneds do have morales. For example, Ophelia has a somewhat of a suicidal tendency once she figures out that she, herself, is an awakened.

[throrine]

I'm not sure if this is a spoiler or not so i'm through it all in a spoiler tag let me know if it isnt.

I hope i make this understandable.. My post is about Y awakened beings are so different from normal yoma, due to power and former concepts of right and wrong from who they once were. please give me your opinions or thoughts about my ideas.

My opinion on awakened beings is that once being humans themselvs, they view themselvs as something above Yoma. Also viewing themselvs as above humans and claymores. Obviously a rush of energy or chemical powers inside of your body can certaintly make you feel strong.

they assurt characterist human emotions and do things powerful humans normaly do in a fantasy setting and in real life respecfully ( i.e. gather minions/tribes, assimilate lesser tribes into their owns -normal yoma bands - display emotional and sexual interests amongst one another and other species/races)

We have seen no such display amongst normal yoma, dispate the fact that in many episodes there are entire towns that have adleast a dozen yoma present and one epsisode where there could have easily been a hundread if not more yoma amongst them. These yoma may not neccasarily be trying to do anything else than what a wolf pack might do, gather in numbers to ensure safety. Or could this be a hint that yoma are more like humans that is let on? And that the story simply hasnt covered such things yet. As far as the anime is concerned adleast.

Awakened beings born from the transformation often seem very open about slight hints/open declaration at sexuality or relationships. Something most claymores dont comment on non insultingly or jokingly. such as when The claymores met with clare and asked her if raki was her toy in her off time.

normal yoma so far have displade no disire for intamacy of any kind. Unless you considered the yoma who abused clare when she was a child, some sort of sick pleasure being gained from our perspective but to him/them perhaps its normal. Or the time when a "seemingly" and possibly the only female yoma so far flirted with raki in a attempt to deceave him before eating him.

( though considering ther mimicry abilities of true yoma, AB's and normal claymore it could ahve been a male yoma)

Perhaps this is due to their rigarous training while become claymores, like that of nuns. they are taught to ignore or not think about such things. but when awakened they see no reason to ( or perhaps cannt hold back ) such urges any longer.

The Awakened beings that have been introduced to us so far all display human characteristics. Obviously because they were once clayemores and normal humans, their yoma side is mixed in with the human mind creating a whole new species, which the yoma fear just as much as humans fear normal yoma. Normal yoma have as of yet displayed any such characteristic. Besides the two mention events above which may not even be good examples.

i guess my point is.. Awakened beings are truly not yoma, they have their physical resemblance and same food requirements, but normal yoma do not seem any more inclided to like them any more than those they eat or fight. They are simply a strong species that enforces their will upon others with their various abilities, just as society has done for all time in various civilizations and cultures everywhere.

On a side note. If there are no femal yoma.. where do yoma come from? I dont like the idea of A sexual reproduction. there is no magic in this series so far and i also do not like the idea of interdemensional summoning/conjuration, which leads me to think that the original yoma are infact a human evolutionary "mutation".

A agressive carniverous version of human beings, Physical superiour and if given enough effort adleast equal in mental capacity. And with that in mind, the first "yoma" was a creature born from two human parents at random, and from him/her gave brith to normal yoma. After a turn of events this lead to the creation of claymores which inturn leads to a nontrue version of the original yoma.

[Davidj]

Even if you accept (1), as an Awakened Being, Riful may be subject to entirely different rules from ours.

I see no indication that Riful has rules beyond her self-interest.

[4Tran]

The morality of Awakened Beings is quite straightforward - as Davidj said, there's so far no indication that any of them follow any sort of moral code whatsoever, and that their actions are undeniably selfish. This pretty much makes them automatically amoral. There's two possible interpretations of this:

1. Awakened Beings aren't human, so there's no reason for human concepts of morality to apply to them. Regardless of the strength of this line of logic, this would mean that they are on the same level, morally speaking, as the small pox virus.

2. Since Awakened Beings can reason, human concepts like morality can apply equally to them. Since they don't conform to moral codes, then they'd be properly considered to be sociopaths.

From what I can gather, it seems that one of the immediate effects of Awakening is that the subject loses any inhibitions that morality normally imposes and gains an impulse to kill Claymores. Of the Awakening scenes that have been shown in the anime so far, it's quite clear that that's exactly what happened to Priscilla, and that all of those close to Awakening are threatened with losing control.

[throrine]

i know this issue has been talked on over and over, but one more time from my point of view.

It doesnt really matter weather or not ritful was a AB or a normal human with troops at her command. She is a person seeking power in a time of struggle. Yoma and AB's are mearly another fantasy species with adleast human level intelegence. just because their dietary reguirements are differnet doesnt make them evil. it makes them normal for their race.

Those yoma/Abings who would seek to not be normal (by perhaps not eating sentient creatures not of their race.. or perhaps sustaining themselvs on their own yoki energy somehow? ) are abnormal. One thing i would like to point out is that so far, i've yet to see ritful eat someone. Or her man for that matter. How do we know all ABings need to eat guts? Certaintly some seem to revel in it. The very first Male we encountered made it clear that flesh with yoki in it taste bad. A genetic way of preventing cannibalism?

After the northern war the male awakened beings make comments about fresh meat for once, when they take out clarices party. My thinking is that failures perhaps taste just fine or they dont mind eating dead claymores, perhaps yoki fades away rather than haging around the body it is associated with.

But it could be said i am a bit insane when it comes to peacan pie. I'll do anything to have a pieace.. even push people outta my way in a public buffey setting, not knowing if the cooking whenches will put any more out while i remain in the establishment that day.

It is not made 100 percent clear that yoma or awakened beings need to eat human guts. Animals are mammals to. Perhaps it is our emotions that provide some sort of flavoring that these Creatures find not only tasty but iron chef good? They obviously completely prefer it though. Not showing any sign of seeking other means of food adleast not yet in the story line.

However we already know that claymores dont need to eat a whole lot over a long period of time compared to humans. Perhaps Awakened beings can go even longer without. Though going back to the male awakened in the norther territorys after the war, they mention wanting fresh meat. Can they eat things such as vegitables barried under the snow or perhaps they really can survive on jerkys made from humans or other such things. however it is not made clear that Awakened beings plan this far ahead in such matter. But it would make since, seeing as they were once human themselvs.
though it is also a argument that animals have emotions on certaint levels. But since this is a fantasy world who knows what the actual ruling on this matter is.

Perhaps it is truely different from each individual to the next.

example's

For manga readers.
I've yet to see priscilla or isley devour a human being, though the town raki meats them in could have been their dinner. They also seem rather human in many of their thoughts and emotions. They simply view themslevs are humans with more power and a taste for dominance. This could be attributed to arrogance from life experience with isleys battle with prisc. Though they do not seem to have a relationship beyond companions in a stuggle to conquer. in fact prisc seems more interested in raki. maybe she likes to play with her food. i dunno.
Also when isley battles the southern queen she reverts to human form.
Saying that she cannot even retain her awakend bodies form. perhaps human form is a natural form even for awakened beings. Or it is their most weakened/vulerable state. Maybe those who stay in awakened form are perhaps filled with yoki more so, but suffer from less rational/more creature like thougths, while those such as isley and prsicilla stay in human form often and act and talk more human like.

For animers. Many of the male awakened beings comment on wanting to eat guts or use the claymores for other things. this shows emotions and needs of any human in medeval times from a society that values strength in arms/power as he conquers his foes taking slaves or subjugating survivors into his servatute. England and Rome both did this in mass, huns and mongols probably did it but i dont know their history that well.

[Davidj]

i know this issue has been talked on over and over, but one more time from my point of view.

It doesnt really matter weather or not ritful was a AB or a normal human with troops at her command. She is a person seeking power in a time of struggle. Yoma and AB's are mearly another fantasy species with adleast human level intelegence. just because their dietary reguirements are differnet doesnt make them evil. it makes them normal for their race.

.

Why can't the norm for their race be an evil one?

[parrywrinkle]

I think ABs are interesting. They don't age, and they can regenerate lost limbs. It's like a limited form of immortality, except that they can be killed and they need some form of nourishment. Despite what may be perceived as monstrous appearance, they are in essence approaching "Godhood".

To ask the question about the morality of ABs, is really to ask the morality of someone who one day wakes up and realises that he is beyond human. Superhuman perhaps. Even Godlike. If you are beyond Man, are you still restricted by the moral code of Man?

If you are a god, must you follow the codes of Man?

[Yorae_paladin1]

I think ABs are interesting. They don't age, and they can regenerate lost limbs. It's like a limited form of immortality, except that they can be killed and they need some form of nourishment. Despite what may be perceived as monstrous appearance, they are in essence approaching "Godhood".

To ask the question about the morality of ABs, is really to ask the morality of someone who one day wakes up and realises that he is beyond human. Superhuman perhaps. Even Godlike. If you are beyond Man, are you still restricted by the moral code of Man?

If you are a god, must you follow the codes of Man?

Eh awakened are not gods plus they do not think themselves as such they are not as arrogant for that way of thinking. But they do think themselves a higher level species but that is it. As for not following the code of man well that is kinda the only choice they got cause if they do not make peace extinction is there other option

[parrywrinkle]

If you are right that Awakens do not think themselves as gods, then Awakens are just as human as normal humans - ergo they think themselves as possessing equivalents to the human soul albeit physically superior in the Superman type of way.

Superman knew that he is superior physically to normal humans around himself, but did not regard himself as superior and therefore regard himself as having a "human soul". Superman did not regard himself as a god, in that he lacked that arrogance which you mentioned, and therefore restricted himself in the moral codes of man (*NB the earliest versions of Superman did not abide by the moral codes of man but that has since changed).

In other words, so far as Awakens do not regard themselves as superior to man in the sense of being gods (ie possessing the required arrogance as pointed out), then they must regard themselves as subjects to the moral codes of man even if they are physically superior. Their destruction of man however can be equated to Galactus' consumption of planets for his own survival in that it is an order of nature and a necessity, therefore beyond morals.

*Pardon the references to Marvel Comics and such, but those characters do illustrate the points I'm trying to make rather well.

[Anh_Minh]

Semi-relevant article on morality and brain damage. (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=when_morality_is_hard_to_like&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss)


If you are right that Awakens do not think themselves as gods, then Awakens are just as human as normal humans - ergo they think themselves as possessing equivalents to the human soul albeit physically superior in the Superman type of way.
I wouldn't say they're human either. And they don't seem particularly worried about souls.

[parrywrinkle]

Pardon me if I wasn't clear. I'm making the reference to souls in the sense of philosophical understanding of a human consciousness that differentiates us from mere animals as oppose to the religious connotations of an immortal soul subject to judgement after death.

That is I'm trying to say that Awakens see themselves as possessing the necessary qualities that separates them from mere animals to the level and extent to which normal human beings see themselves as possessing those same qualities to separate themselves from mere animals, but not possessing further qualities to separate and raise themselves above human beings. They therefore see themselves in the same category as humans with respects to the moral code because they lack the arrogance that was pointed out to raise themselves to a higher level of existence.

[Anh_Minh]

But they don't. They don't see themselves as animals, but they don't see themselves as humans, either.

In the real world, there may not be any alternatives, but in the Claymore world? AB are distinct from both animals and humans.

[parrywrinkle]

The argument I am trying to make is not whether they see themselves as animals or whether they see themselves as humans. Clearly they are distinct from mere animals and humans, and clearly superior physically to both humans and animals, thus they must already feel superior in some sense.

The argument I am trying to make is whether they hold themselves as superior to humans. Yorae points out that they seem to lack the requisite arrogance, to which I agree that arrogance may suggest a sense of superiority. However a lack of display of arrogance does not equate to a lack of sense of superiority. Indeed certain religions point towards compassion from a higher being as his superiority towards humans. Even so, we may still argue that Riful's display of indifference towards the battle between Duff and the Claymores is an example of such arrogance.

The question which I wish to address is if whether they hold themselves superior to humans and perhaps the other Claymores, in the sense that they have, as if being enlightened through awakening, attained a higher level of existence - a suitable comparison would be that of Dr Doom realising his powers and deciding to be evil villain instead of a hero. A statement of mind that holds oneself beyond others because of an inherent superiority and therefore beyond the moral codes that restrict lesser beings.

[Davidj]

I think ABs are interesting. They don't age, and they can regenerate lost limbs. It's like a limited form of immortality, except that they can be killed and they need some form of nourishment. Despite what may be perceived as monstrous appearance, they are in essence approaching "Godhood".

To ask the question about the morality of ABs, is really to ask the morality of someone who one day wakes up and realises that he is beyond human. Superhuman perhaps. Even Godlike. If you are beyond Man, are you still restricted by the moral code of Man?

If you are a god, must you follow the codes of Man?

Do I think gods can be evil? Darn skippy. And it's not about following a "code" or not following one. If you are usually cruel and at best uncaring about the pain of living creatures, then you are evil. That's not a "code" and it isn't dependant on superiority or inferiority. Someone doesn't get a blank cheque because they have more power or think they do.

[parrywrinkle]

Do I think gods can be evil? Darn skippy. And it's not about following a "code" or not following one. If you are usually cruel and at best uncaring about the pain of living creatures, then you are evil. That's not a "code" and it isn't dependant on superiority or inferiority. Someone doesn't get a blank cheque because they have more power or think they do.

I do not agree.

The example given is an extreme example of self-gratification through suffering of others, which we can readily identify as evil because it is selfish. But having the action reduced to the emotion of "selfishness" we can then qualify it as being morally abhorrent because we deem "selfishness" to be bad. Or rather let me ask the question whether we deem "selfishness" to be bad as of itself, or is it because we deem generosity and self-sacrifice to be worthy attributes?

That is a moral question. Is it bad because it is bad, or is it bad because it is not good? A world view of black and white categorisation of good and evil simply does not work. I prefer the world view in another anime to which it qualifies actions as not a question of good and evil, but by how much good that action serves - ergo all actions are good, the question is then how much good does it serve.

To wit, selfishness is to serve the good of oneself, but self-sacrifice can serve the needs of many. Therefore self-sacrifice can be a greater good than selfishness and therefore we deem it more worthy. It does not mean however that selfishness served no good whatsoever, but just that it does so on a lesser level.

To bring back my point, morality is a code that is dependent on the ego. If your ego holds you beyond others, then you judge yourself based on your own morals rather than the morals others hold you to. Your statement presumes that your own moral standards is the ONLY moral standards to which all other standards must be judged. I am sorry to say that that is a very myopic view of the world - no flame intended.

The reason why we would hold ourselves to the moral codes of others is because we require others to get through our daily lives; it is through necessity that we allow others to judge us by their codes and consequently communal moral codes. By being so much superior physically, Awaken Beings possess the unique opportunity to be beyond moral standards set by others. However if they hold their ego to be that of a human and nonetheless wish for companionship of regular humans, then they must subject themselves to the same moral standards of regular humans.

I think the ego of Awaken Beings can be likened to that of the Greek gods of yore. The Greek gods were characteristically human with lust, greed and all manners of other vices, but they were judged by men by man's own moral codes in stories. And furthermore since ABs used to be humans, they should be relying on moral codes of regular humans. Unless they think themselves as gods (ie that they hold their ego to be beyond humans), they would probably judge themselves the same way we do to ourselves.

[Anh_Minh]

I don't think it ever occurs to AB to judge themselves.

Riful did justify herself a bit, but it was to bring Jean to her side, not because she considered that eating humans might be wrong.

And Greek gods didn't have the same morals as humans. For starters, they seemed to have no problem with incest. They also did various stuff (adultery, curses, rape,...) and I'm not sure they ever felt bad about it.

[Davidj]

[QUOTE]I do not agree.

The example given is an extreme example of self-gratification through suffering of others, which we can readily identify as evil because it is selfish.

Not me. I identify it as evil because it's a personality trait makes the person possessing it a menace to everyone around her. It is my selfishness that causes me to define that as "evil". Well, that and it's basically the dictionary definition.

"Having bad qualities of a natural kind; having qualities which tend to injury, or produce mischief; injurious; pernicious; michievious..."

Now you may argue that we should never call anything "evil". But if we do deign to use the word "evil", Riful is what the word describes. And since if she was in the vicinity the only options anyone would have are to run or try to drop a nuke on her, ideally both, I have no problem using the word "evil". Even if she wasn't fictional it wouldn't traumatise the poor dear.

[throrine]

my own opinion says that good and evil is based on personal belieaf. Even in the world of claymore there are a wide variety of humans just as in the real world of today. We view certain people as terrorist, facist, racist, whatever they may be as that because society has placed such words and thought trains into our minds. We think along established paths that will keep our various societies and cultures in a type of thinking that is liked by our leaders, forefathers, and us.

You cannot tell a carnavor to not be a carnavor. Yoma and abings eat people. they taste good. IRON CHEF GOOD. I think the conversation might be a bit mute when considering weather or not these sentient beings may or may not be evil or good based on a code of morality when they are not from the same society / have removed themselvs from our society due to their lives changing due to their awakening.

They cannot help but want what their bodies want. Some humans are the same way, some arnt, some exert limited to total control over their bodies with their minds. Its not always the same. For all we know some of the awakend beings out their may force themselvs to eat non-human / non-sentient creatures to survive. Or only prey upon the "filth" of human society, bandits, murders and the like in a attempt to resist their "non-human" urges, or hold onto their belieafs of what is right and wrong, and good and evil based on their life as a claymore.

I LOVE PEACON PIE. AND ID STILL EAT IT IF IT SAID NO PLEASE DONT EAT ME.

Reguardless of what we all may think. We are all thinking in established thought trains made from our various cultures and environments we grow up in/ evolve over time in. So the terms of good and evil are ever changing due to the fact that we, as a people, are ever changing.

I mean look at england today and then look at it in the past. They had crusades and slavery and many many other very bad things. But they also had many very good things. Literature, poetry... well i'm sure theres others

If i were a human in the world of claymore.. and a yoma wanted to eat me.. I'd think.. that the thing was evil. Duh wouldnt you? I mean common we dont have natural predators in our world so we dont have any monsters other than ourselvs of which to lable evil and good with.

I mean people are mawed by bears, eatin by lions, poison by snakes ect. but largly our society doesnt reguard these creatures as evil because we largely belieave they are nonsentient creatures, simply doing what they deem neccesary to survive from one day to the next. We all do it, its just easier than it was a 1000 years ago today.

Is a bear evil because its river was damned up so it eat a hiker or two? only if you knew those hikers personaly, and wanted revenge. Is a snake evil because it is a sneaky and cunning creature naturaly? In some cultures snakes are labled as representing bad spirits manafested into the world. Is a deer evil because it pees in the river you drink from downstream? Yeah if you relize it afterward.

i'm not sure if i've made a point or just stated my thoughts here but there it is.

[Davidj]

my own opinion says that good and evil is based on personal belieaf. Even in the world of claymore there are a wide variety of humans just as in the real world of today. We view certain people as terrorist, facist, racist, whatever they may be as that because society has placed such words and thought trains into our minds. We think along established paths that will keep our various societies and cultures in a type of thinking that is liked by our leaders, forefathers, and us.

You cannot tell a carnavor to not be a carnavor. Yoma and abings eat people. they taste good.

Why do people keep talking as if Riful's only unsavoury quality was her (possible) taste for anthropophagy?

[throrine]

because shes... hot in a sadistic evil lady kinda way?

[4Tran]

Why do people keep talking as if Riful's only unsavoury quality was her (possible) taste for anthropophagy?
Exactly. So far, Riful's worst behavior has been:

1. Her torture of the Claymores. While she is doing it for a specific purpose, it's ethically equivalent to a "rape them until they start liking it" justification.

2. Her treatment of other Awakened Beings: to be slaughtered if they aren't powerful enough for her purposes.

3. Her treatment of Duff. As long as he doesn't die, she doesn't seem to give a damn about how much he suffers.

While I think that Riful is very interesting, and that she's likeable in some ways; morally speaking, she serves as a lesson on how not to behave.

[NoSanninWa]

I have to disagree. Only one of those three behaviors was morally indefensible. The rest are quite acceptable and even laudable

1. Her torture of the Claymores. While she is doing it for a specific purpose, it's ethically equivalent to a "rape them until they start liking it" justification.Wrong. It is ethically equivalent to involuntary medical treatment. Once she is done, Claymores will become healthier both physically and mentally as Awakened Ones. The reason that she doesn't ask them for permission to treat them is the same reason you don't ask a psychiatric patient for permission to heal their mind. They simply aren't yet competent to realize they need help.

(Obviously I am judging the her treatment as helping Claymores by the standards of Riful and how the Claymore will feel after being awakened.)

2. Her treatment of other Awakened Beings: to be slaughtered if they aren't powerful enough for her purposes.That one was outright dirty. I cannot say anything favorable about the way she callously murdered one of her own kind.

3. Her treatment of Duff. As long as he doesn't die, she doesn't seem to give a damn about how much he suffers.You're completely wrong about this. Duff wanted to fight. That was his own desire even though it was a lot harder than he expected. It was a bit mean the way she mocked his complaints about the pain; perhaps she thought it served him right. Riful merely allowed Duff to do his own thing and then she saved him when he got in too far over his own head. She was pretty much just being a good girlfriend to him. I'm sure you can imagine your own girlfriend making fun of you if you complined the way that Duff did? But she helped him out anyway.

[4Tran]

Wrong. It is ethically equivalent to involuntary medical treatment. Once she is done, Claymores will become healthier both physically and mentally as Awakened Ones. The reason that she doesn't ask them for permission to treat them is the same reason you don't ask a psychiatric patient for permission to heal their mind. They simply aren't yet competent to realize they need help.
That comparison relies on the incompetence of the "patient". Since Claymores are quite capable of reasoning and determining what they do and do not want, I'm not sure that it's a fair one. It's almost never moral to inflict pain on someone else

(Obviously I am judging the her treatment as helping Claymores by the standards of Riful and how the Claymore will feel after being awakened.)
The "how the Claymore will feel after being awakened" part isn't all that different from my comparison, and I don't think that there's any validity to Riful's standards (such as they are), since they largely revolve around what will benefit herself.

You're completely wrong about this. Duff wanted to fight. That was his own desire even though it was a lot harder than he expected. It was a bit mean the way she mocked his complaints about the pain; perhaps she thought it served him right. Riful merely allowed Duff to do his own thing and then she saved him when he got in too far over his own head. She was pretty much just being a good girlfriend to him. I'm sure you can imagine your own girlfriend making fun of you if you complined the way that Duff did? But she helped him out anyway.
There may be more going on in Riful's head, but it seemed as if she was indifferent to his pain. The way I see it, losing a hand (among other things) qualifies as quite a bit of suffering. Sure Duff can regrow it; but humans can recover from broken bones as well, and it doesn't really excuse Riful's behavior. Even if Duff was partially at fault, Riful's lack of compassion is still quite telling.

[Davidj]

[QUOTE]I have to disagree. Only one of those three behaviors was morally indefensible. The rest are quite acceptable and even laudable

Wrong. It is ethically equivalent to involuntary medical treatment. Once she is done, Claymores will become healthier both physically and mentally as Awakened Ones.

Something that played no role whatsoever in her decision making process. She regarded them as nothing more than tools who could be made into more useful tools. Duff is just a tool too. He simply is one that's useful enough to keep.

[parrywrinkle]

I don't think it ever occurs to AB to judge themselves.



I cannot agree.

We have to proceed in the discussion of the morality of Awakened Ones on the presumption that Awaken Ones have a level of self-consciousness which necessarily dictates that they reflect, at some level of consciousness, the morality of their actions. Otherwise any discussion in this thread is moot because we would be discussing the morality of the actions of beings that do not reflect on their actions. That is to say that we are imposing standards of morality on actions of mere animals, which is a pointless endeavor.

If we were to say that Awaken Ones do not reflect on their actions - ergo do not judge themselves - then it is to say that Awaken Ones behave as mere animals do. They simply act, and perhaps even strategise as some animals do, but do not reason metaphysically on values or the rightness or wrongness of their actions. All the discussions henceforth and from the beginning would be meaningless, since it would be tantamount to a discussion of whether a man who killed another during an epileptic fit is morally responsible for his actions. Where there is no culpability for the action, there cannot be a discussion on the morality of the action. It is simply an act which no self-conscious being can be made responsible for. But we believe that Awakened Ones are self-conscious, having had been once humans. And through the application of our standards of morality on the actions of the Awakened Ones, we determine the morality of the Awaken Ones.

What I wish to point out is that in the discussion of the morality of the Awakened Ones, we are imposing on them our standards of morality. In other words we are judging them as if they would judge themselves on our standards and that they would hold themselves to our standards. My initial post to point out that Awakened Ones approach immortality is to spark a discussion on whether such superior beings out hold themselves to our standards when they are so much superior. It is liken to why would a man bound himself by the rules of a colony of ants when he is so much more? Why would a god bound himself by the rules of man?

If we were to discuss the morality of Awakened Ones on the standards of human morality, we must either make the presumption that Awaken Ones despite superior physiology are still human and therefore bound by morals of humans, or that morality - as a concept - is timeless and eternal, and is applicable even to one such as a god. For certain religions that believe in an omnipotent god, they cannot accept second presumption - how can an omnipotent being be bound by a moral code? Surely if a god is omnipotent, he is not bound by any laws, rules or codes. Thus the more acceptable presumption we must make (in view of religious tolerance) must be that Awakened Ones, despite physical superiority are still in essence human, and therefore bound by morals of humans.

**Re throrine: the answer to your predicament is that bears and snakes and rivers cannot be culpable for their actions, whereas man is. The discussion is then whether Awakened Ones can be culpable for their actions, and if so at whose standards?

[Davidj]

[QUOTE]I cannot agree.

We have to proceed in the discussion of the morality of Awakened Ones on the presumption that Awaken Ones have a level of self-consciousness which necessarily dictates that they reflect, at some level of consciousness, the morality of their actions. Otherwise any discussion in this thread is moot because we would be discussing the morality of the actions of beings that do not reflect on their actions. That is to say that we are imposing standards of morality on actions of mere animals, which is a pointless endeavor.


No animals just aren't all that smart. (Fully) Awakened Ones on the other hand are every bit as smart as a human being. They are simply devoid of empathy, and guilt. Hence moral codes mean nothing to them. How can a being that can't feel guilt be moved by moral considerations? How can a being that feels no empathy have any mercy? They can reflect on their actions but they lack the emotions that make such reflections more than an academic exercise.

[parrywrinkle]

No animals just aren't all that smart. (Fully) Awakened Ones on the other hand are every bit as smart as a human being. They are simply devoid of empathy, and guilt. Hence moral codes mean nothing to them. How can a being that can't feel guilt be moved by moral considerations? How can a being that feels no empathy have any mercy? They can reflect on their actions but they lack the emotions that make such reflections more than an academic exercise.

That is a baseless presumption that they are free from empathy and guilt.

What is empathy and guilt? Empathy is to feel and understand the feelings of another, and guilt is the remorse of having done something to which offends the conscience. But I wish to elaborate further.

The ability to empathize is the result of the self-conscious mind putting oneself in the shoes of another. It is beyond feeling the feelings of another; it is the capacity to perceive beyond our point of view that allows empathy. To say that Awakened Ones are devoid of empathy is to say that either they lack the capacity to perceive beyond their point of view (and therefore putting themselves in the shoes of another), or that they do possess this capacity but simply do not exercise it.

I disagree that it is the former. If we are to accept that Awakened Ones to be as intelligent as humans, then the human trait to perceive from different angles a concept must persist into Awakened Ones, otherwise they would not be as intelligent as humans. It is through tackling problems from different angles that allow us humans to solve complicated problems. The argument you wish to make may be that they do possess the capacity but do not wish to use it to perceive specifically the feelings of another, but that is just a variant of the argument under the second point that they do not exercise their capacity. But that they do not exercise such an ability, does not detract from the point that they do possess such capacity of empathy. And so long as they possess the capacity of empathy, we can apply moral judgement unto them, regardless of whether they exercise it or not.

Guilt on the other hand is remorse. But remorse necessarily suggests reflection. Reflection is the result of self-consciousness. Because Awakened Ones possess self-consciousness, they thus possess the capacity to reflect on their actions and therefore have the potential to feel remorse. It is inconsequential whether or not they actually feel guilt, so long as they possess the capacity it is sufficient.

To illustrate the point, suppose a terrorist devoid of empathy for your countrymen and has no guilt for the actions he is about to bring (perhaps having being in a religious fervor) blows up and kills a lot of your fellowmen. Does his lack of empathy for your fellowmen and lack of remorse detract from his capacity to feel such things? The answer is no. Even if he does not feel it, so long as he has the capacity, we judge him morally wrong and hold him culpable for his acts.

The presumption that Awakened Ones do not have such emotions of empathy and guilt cannot hold. It is a different matter to say that they do not express it and quite another to say that they do not possess the capacity for it.

[Davidj]

That is a baseless presumption that they are free from empathy and guilt.

What is empathy and guilt? Empathy is to feel and understand the feelings of another, and guilt is the remorse of having done something to which offends the conscience. But I wish to elaborate further.

The ability to empathize is the result of the self-conscious mind putting oneself in the shoes of another. It is beyond feeling the feelings of another; it is the capacity to perceive beyond our point of view that allows empathy. To say that Awakened Ones are devoid of empathy is to say that either they lack the capacity to perceive beyond their point of view (and therefore putting themselves in the shoes of another), or that they do possess this capacity but simply do not exercise it.


To illustrate the point, suppose a terrorist devoid of empathy for your countrymen and has no guilt for the actions he is about to bring (perhaps having being in a religious fervor) blows up and kills a lot of your fellowmen. Does his lack of empathy for your fellowmen and lack of remorse detract from his capacity to feel such things? The answer is no. Even if he does not feel it, so long as he has the capacity, we judge him morally wrong and hold him culpable for his acts.


The analogy I had in mind was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

Psychopathy, or sociopathy, is currently defined in psychiatry and clinical psychology as a condition characterized by lack of empathy [1] [2] or conscience, and poor impulse control [3] [4] or manipulative behaviors.[5]

The terrorist isn't usually devoid of empathy or guilt. He's doesn't feel it toward my countrymen because he hates my countryman. But Riful doesn't hate anyone so far as I can tell. She doesn't hate the Claymores she tortures and manipulates. She doesn't hate the Awakened Ones she kills for being insufficiently useful. She doesn't even hate Isley and Priscilla. She just thinks fighting them might be amusing and she's maybe a tiny bit worried that they're going to kill her.

[parrywrinkle]

Indeed.

But that does not detract from that we still use our conventional morals to judge Awakened Ones, which may or may not be the right approach, depending on whether you view Awakened Ones are still human despite physical superiority.

Again my point: why should such superior beings conform to us? I've already argued that morality cannot be a universal truth (since some religions believe their god to be omnipotent). The majority approach taken thus far seems to deem them as humans and judge their actions based on our conventions, rather than an investigation as to what moral codes Awakened Ones have (although NoSanninWa did allude to the latter in his last post).

[Anh_Minh]

There may be more going on in Riful's head, but it seemed as if she was indifferent to his pain. The way I see it, losing a hand (among other things) qualifies as quite a bit of suffering.
Not necessarily that much. That male Awakened Being in the Slashers didn't seem that discommoded from losing five arms.
When Rosemarie had one of her hands torn off, she didn't even feel it. Theresa asked if AB don't feel pain any more.

So, even if Duph is abnormally sensitive, Riful may have trouble relating to it because, to her, losing a hand isn't any more painful than a papercut would be to me.


I cannot agree.

We have to proceed in the discussion of the morality of Awakened Ones on the presumption that Awaken Ones have a level of self-consciousness which necessarily dictates that they reflect, at some level of consciousness, the morality of their actions. Otherwise any discussion in this thread is moot because we would be discussing the morality of the actions of beings that do not reflect on their actions. That is to say that we are imposing standards of morality on actions of mere animals, which is a pointless endeavor.
That's actually the question that started this whole mess. Are AB moral creatures or not? If so, what set of morals are they subject to?

I linked to an article on brain damage and its consequences on morals. It is my position that AB are so "brain damaged" that their morals are even more deeply affected. That they, in fact, disappear completely.

And that would, indeed, make them as "evil" as man-eating crocodiles. They're smarter, more self-aware. They're able to think about the long-term consequences of their actions. But they aren't moral creatures the way humans are.

But we believe that Awakened Ones are self-conscious, having had been once humans. And through the application of our standards of morality on the actions of the Awakened Ones, we determine the morality of the Awaken Ones.
That's another question. Even if AB are moral creatures, can our standards apply? They were humans once, but they aren't any more. Can we judge such different creatures as if they were the same as us?

What I wish to point out is that in the discussion of the morality of the Awakened Ones, we are imposing on them our standards of morality. In other words we are judging them as if they would judge themselves on our standards and that they would hold themselves to our standards.
I don't. And others, whose position is different from mine, don't either. "Moral" doesn't necessarily mean "moral by the standards of humanity", at least in the Claymore world. (And it's not like there's a unified standard even among this world's humanity.)

My initial post to point out that Awakened Ones approach immortality is to spark a discussion on whether such superior beings out hold themselves to our standards when they are so much superior. It is liken to why would a man bound himself by the rules of a colony of ants when he is so much more? Why would a god bound himself by the rules of man?
Yeah. I don't like that thought. I don't think mere physical difference means you're subject to different moral rules.

Psychological differences, OTOH, are different. What if someone was smart enough to accurately predict the future? Couldn't he be justified to steal a bit here and there to avert economical disasters? To kidnap a baby so he won't turn into a new Hitler? What about harming innocents to save even more people?

AB are psychologically different. So maybe we should cut them some slack in the moral department and say that they're acting morally - by the standards of their kind - when they kill and torture, as we wouldn't if humans were to do it.

And if their morals are incompatible with ours, which state that It's Not OK to Eat People, then we'll clash. But that's nothing new.

[Davidj]

Indeed.

But that does not detract from that we still use our conventional morals to judge Awakened Ones, which may or may not be the right approach, depending on whether you view Awakened Ones are still human despite physical superiority.

Again my point: why should such superior beings conform to us?


If simply having more power makes a being superior to us, then there are humans right here and now who are similarly beyond our judgement.

I've already argued that morality cannot be a universal truth (since some religions believe their god to be omnipotent). The majority approach taken thus far seems to deem them as humans and judge their actions based on our conventions,

To judge them as _people_

rather than an investigation as to what moral codes Awakened Ones have (although NoSanninWa did allude to the latter in his last post).


In order to investigate their moral code, wouldn't they have to have one?

[4Tran]

I disagree that it is the former. If we are to accept that Awakened Ones to be as intelligent as humans, then the human trait to perceive from different angles a concept must persist into Awakened Ones, otherwise they would not be as intelligent as humans.
That isn't necessarily bourne out by what we see of the Awakened Beings. Logically speaking, it might make more sense that they have such traits, there's absolutely no evidence in the anime that they do so. In fact, every Awakened Being we've seen so far acts purely based on their whims - the well-being of others doesn't seem to be of the slightest concern.

So, even if Duph is abnormally sensitive, Riful may have trouble relating to it because, to her, losing a hand isn't any more painful than a papercut would be to me.
It shouldn't really matter whether one can or cannot feel the same kind of pain. Compassion is about one's reaction to the suffering of another, and it's rather lacking in Riful.

Psychological differences, OTOH, are different. What if someone was smart enough to accurately predict the future? Couldn't he be justified to steal a bit here and there to avert economical disasters? To kidnap a baby so he won't turn into a new Hitler? What about harming innocents to save even more people?
This depends partially on what moral system you're going by. Morality should determine what the best course of action is based on a given situation, so some cases can be justified, while others cannot be. In general, the more power one has, the more responsibility one has to use it morally.

AB are psychologically different. So maybe we should cut them some slack in the moral department
Why?

[Anh_Minh]

It shouldn't really matter whether one can or cannot feel the same kind of pain. Compassion is about one's reaction to the suffering of another, and it's rather lacking in Riful.
I suppose. But if you saw a big guy stubbing his toe and making a big deal of it, acting like his foot was broken or something... Would you feel that sympathetic?


Why?
Because we generally don't waste our time calling animals "evil"? Though I suppose we do it for madmen, so maybe we should do it for AB too. *shrug*

[4Tran]

I suppose. But if you saw a big guy stubbing his toe and making a big deal of it, acting like his foot was broken or something... Would you feel that sympathetic?
Depending on the amount of suffering said stubbed toe caused; sure, why not? In our example, Duff had his limbs maimed - as far as I can tell, the only differences between it happening to him and a normal human being are that there's no shock and that he can (eventually) regenerate them. Note also, because of shock, human beings often don't feel any pain immediately after receiving a major wound - it still doesn't exactly mean that they're not deserving of compassion.

Because we generally don't waste our time calling animals "evil"? Though I suppose we do it for madmen, so maybe we should do it for AB too. *shrug*
The rationale behind why we don't ponder the morality of animals is because morality is largely a decision-making tool. Since animals lack the capacity to reason, it's quite obvious that morality doesn't apply to them (note that the line gets a little blurred when we're dealing with Great Apes). Awakened Beings are perfectly capable of reasoning, so this logic doesn't apply to them.

[Anh_Minh]

But whatever it is that enables us to use "moral" as a compass, it seems the Awakened Beings don't possess it. They certainly don't feel guilty about eating people.

[4Tran]

But whatever it is that enables us to use "moral" as a compass, it seems the Awakened Beings don't possess it. They certainly don't feel guilty about eating people.
It's called "logic".

[Anh_Minh]

What's so logic about moral?

Also, it feels like I had this debate quite recently. In this very thread...

[4Tran]

In the valid moral systems, just about everything has to be logically justified (that's sort of the reason why they're valid to begin with). Morality is a decision-making tool, so without a logical reason for making said decisions, it'd be a pretty poor one.

[Anh_Minh]

I can see why some internal consistency would be appreciated, and how there's a tendency to justify moral positions by deducing them from a few basic principles.

But I don't see why accepting those principles is "logical".

And I think there's a strong emotional component to any moral decision.

[Davidj]

It's called "logic".

No, not really. Morals are usually instilled in children without reference to any logic more sophisticated than "Because mother will be mad at you if you don't".

[4Tran]

And I think there's a strong emotional component to any moral decision.
While emotions are often invoked in making moral decisions, it certainly doesn't have to be so. And indeed, it often gets in the way of making proper choices since an emotional response is often not a reasoned one.

No, not really. Morals are usually instilled in children without reference to any logic more sophisticated than "Because mother will be mad at you if you don't".]
There are really three different paths towards developing one's sense of morality:
1. Biological/Evolutionary influences. This is the instinctual form of morality that most humans have; and it's been shown to be relatively independent of cultural influences. This is the one that Awakened Beings don't seem to have.
2. Fiat. This is where one is simply told to behave in certain ways, whether the source is one's parents, religion, or what have you. Cultural influences have the greatest effect here.
3. Moral Philosophy. This is driven almost purely by logic; and it's relatively focused on decision-making.

While you're correct that most children learn by rote, that doesn't mean that it's the only type of morality out there. Note that non-logical moral systems often lead to inconsistent results - generally being less applicable the further one is removed from the original source.

[Anh_Minh]

OK, let's take a look at the logical part.

What makes a choice "moral"? I'd have to say, the consequences. They have to be desirable, "from a moral standpoint". But what does it mean? What ends do they serve? Those ends, even if they're just self-preservation, have to be accepted... illogically.

Besides, I refuse to believe that self-preservation is the only basis for morality. That would mean that the sin isn't theft and murder, it's getting caught.

It would also mean that Riful's most immoral act is probably letting Galatea go. Scolding Duph? She could easily afford it. Duph is whipped, and not leaving. Torturing Claymores? It's to get allies, which would increase her chances of survival. Killing weak Awakened Beings? Well, it makes sense if she's so useless she just isn't worth the trouble of keeping around. Saves the trouble of feeding her, anyway.

[Varis]

While emotions are often invoked in making moral decisions, it certainly doesn't have to be so. And indeed, it often gets in the way of making proper choices since an emotional response is often not a reasoned one.


There are really three different paths towards developing one's sense of morality:
1. Biological/Evolutionary influences. This is the instinctual form of morality that most humans have; and it's been shown to be relatively independent of cultural influences. This is the one that Awakened Beings don't seem to have.
2. Fiat. This is where one is simply told to behave in certain ways, whether the source is one's parents, religion, or what have you. Cultural influences have the greatest effect here.
3. Moral Philosophy. This is driven almost purely by logic; and it's relatively focused on decision-making.

While you're correct that most children learn by rote, that doesn't mean that it's the only type of morality out there. Note that non-logical moral systems often lead to inconsistent results - generally being less applicable the further one is removed from the original source.


Well by your own analogy you support AB's morality...

You can't compare human instinctual morality to those of AB's. Two different species, just like you don't expect a lion to adhere to your moral code....
There are no cultural influences in play with AB yet really so we can leave the "was raised that way" out of it.

As for Moral Philosophy, I think it works pretty well.
No mass butchering of humans because they are food.
A claymore is a enemy to Riful. They are either killed or if they turn out to be powerful enough awakened beings, she will recruit them to defend her realm.
Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

I also don't think that she was being cruel to Douph. He was seriously underperforming in combat and as her "man" or second in command he needed to shape up fast. She was always there to make sure he would not be killed.
(we may see loosing a hand a bad thing but for awakened beings? Just a matter of regeneration or reattachment.)


Just to keep it in perspective, I don't think twice when I step on a bug, poisen ants, rats, etc. There are PLENTY of reasons not to do that. (Interrupts ecological balance, danger to the kids, etc)
Also, humans are capable of FAR worse then we have seen so far from awakened beings. Even if Riful turns out to be a sadistic, evil, immoral bitch, we can't judge all AB's based on that.

[Davidj]

[QUOTE]Well by your own analogy you support AB's morality...

You can't compare human instinctual morality to those of AB's. Two different species, just like you don't expect a lion to adhere to your moral code....



Lions do adhere to my "moral code". within the limits of their understanding.



Also, humans are capable of FAR worse then we have seen so far from awakened beings. Even if Riful turns out to be a sadistic, evil, immoral bitch, we can't judge all AB's based on that.


Yes, all the others we've seen seem so nice.

[Varis]

[QUOTE=Varis;1087691]

Lions do adhere to my "moral code". within the limits of their understanding.


heh explain that one...

[Davidj]

[QUOTE=Davidj;1087704]

heh explain that one...

Lions demonstrate interpersonal attachment and concern for each other.

[4Tran]

What makes a choice "moral"? I'd have to say, the consequences. They have to be desirable, "from a moral standpoint". But what does it mean? What ends do they serve? Those ends, even if they're just self-preservation, have to be accepted... illogically.
Most moral philosophies rely on three assumptions:
1. That the well-being of the individual is desirable.
2. That the well-being of the local group is desirable.
3. That the well-being of other groups is desirable.

The degree to which importance is placed on each is mostly what seperates the different philosophies. However, a moral system that ignores 2 and 3, and only considers 1 important is the very essence of selfishness. Logically speaking, such a system cannot be justified either.

You can't compare human instinctual morality to those of AB's. Two different species, just like you don't expect a lion to adhere to your moral code....
There are no cultural influences in play with AB yet really so we can leave the "was raised that way" out of it.
That still makes little difference. In the case of Riful, there's a very large gap between the way she could have behaved compared to the way she did; and this gap can't be entirely explained by the fact that she eats humans. Among other Awakened Beings, there isn't the slightest evidence that they do things for any reason other than their whims. By human terms, they would all be considered sociopaths - the difference is that it seems that being a sociopath isn't really a pathology for Awakened Beings.

Awakened Beings can reason, while lions only operate on instinct; so a justification for the latter doesn't necessarily work for the former. If we assume that Awakened Beings function solely be instinct, then it'd be obvious to classify them the same way we classify something like smallpox, and not consider them as intelligent beings.

A claymore is a enemy to Riful. They are either killed or if they turn out to be powerful enough awakened beings, she will recruit them to defend her realm.
Pretty straightforward if you ask me.
How's this different from my "rape them until they start liking it" analogy?

[Grey]

Most moral philosophies rely on three assumptions:
1. That the well-being of the individual is desirable.
2. That the well-being of the local group is desirable.
3. That the well-being of other groups is desirable.

The degree to which importance is placed on each is mostly what seperates the different philosophies. However, a moral system that ignores 2 and 3, and only considers 1 important is the very essence of selfishness. Logically speaking, such a system cannot be justified either.You say that the aforementioned system is logically unjustified. Are you implying that the system is flawed because the importance of 2 and 3 follow from placing the importance of 1?

Offhand, it strikes me that the wellbeing of human groups may be important to AOs to the same degree that the wellbeing of plantlife is important to humans. The AOs need to maintain a food supply, certainly. But the guidelines for conduct that follow from 1, 2, and 3 are highly lenient, and how AOs act don't necessarily violate those guidelines. At worst their conduct may be sub-optimal. To sum up: I don't see that AOs would be immoral according to a system that follows from these assumptions.

[4Tran]

You say that the aforementioned system is logically unjustified. Are you implying that the system is flawed because the importance of 2 and 3 follow from placing the importance of 1?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's quite natural for my order to be decreasingly important, and I'm not really making any value judgements on that fact. However, Awakened Beings don't seem to even acknowledge the existence of 2 and 3; and this is what makes them entirely selfish creatures.

Offhand, it strikes me that the wellbeing of human groups may be important to AOs to the same degree that the wellbeing of plantlife is important to humans.
A much better comparison would be the way human hunter-gatherer societies who hunt monkeys as food. An implicit facet of this argument is that even when we have to kill, it's much better to do so while causing as little pain and suffering as possible.

The AOs need to maintain a food supply, certainly. But the guidelines for conduct that follow from 1, 2, and 3 are highly lenient, and how AOs act don't necessarily violate those guidelines. At worst their conduct may be sub-optimal. To sum up: I don't see that AOs would be immoral according to a system that follows from these assumptions.
Most of my points have been about how Awakened Beings treat one another.

[Anh_Minh]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's quite natural for my order to be decreasingly important, and I'm not really making any value judgements on that fact. However, Awakened Beings don't seem to even acknowledge the existence of 2 and 3; and this is what makes them entirely selfish creatures.

What makes selfishness logically immoral?

[4Tran]

What makes selfishness logically immoral?
Nothing; I didn't mean to imply that selfishness was automatically immoral. However, Awakened Beings are selfish to the exclusion of other considerations. And that is pretty much the essence of amorality.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, yes. They're a-moral. Without morality. That's what I've been saying.

My point was, just because you have the tool of "logic" doesn't mean you have the tool of "moral". The latter isn't derived purely from the former.

And a system of values with only 1) isn't any more illogical than one where 1), 2), and 3) are closer to what we'd recognize as a healthy balance.

[4Tran]

Well, yes. They're a-moral. Without morality. That's what I've been saying.
That's a finer point that you may realize. It's generally actions that are classified as immoral. And an amoral person has a much higher tendency to perform immoral acts.

My point was, just because you have the tool of "logic" doesn't mean you have the tool of "moral". The latter isn't derived purely from the former.
My point is that any creature that has the capacity to reason also has the capacity to exercise morality. Animals don't have the former, which is why they're excused from not having the latter.

And a system of values with only 1) isn't any more illogical than one where 1), 2), and 3) are closer to what we'd recognize as a healthy balance.
While a certain amount of selfishness is an evolutionary advantage, an utter lack of selflessness produces the very opposite effect.

[Anh_Minh]

My point is that any creature that has the capacity to reason also has the capacity to exercise morality. Animals don't have the former, which is why they're excused from not having the latter.
Yes, but why would they use what we humans call morality? We do for the reasons you cited above, but I don't think they really apply to them. That's why I don't blame them more than I would an animal, or a highly advanced robot who, despite a AI able of reasoning, is not programmed to act "morally".


While a certain amount of selfishness is an evolutionary advantage, an utter lack of selflessness produces the very opposite effect.Evolution is neither all important nor all powerful. Especially for AB. They're a relatively recent creation, and from the point of view of evolution, they're not even a separate species. (Since they come from humans and youmas, and don't reproduce.)

Evolutionary pressures are pretty mild, and if I were them, I'd worry more about overgrazing than about Claymores. Well, that may change with the Organisation's new policy, but that's an even more recent phenomenon.

So, even if cooperative behaviour was better for the "species" as a whole, and so far, the most salient example of cooperative behaviour we've seen got about 30 AB slaughtered, they'd need to desire the welfare of the species. You can't get that through pure logic.

[4Tran]

Yes, but why would they use what we humans call morality? We do for the reasons you cited above, but I don't think they really apply to them. That's why I don't blame them more than I would an animal, or a highly advanced robot who, despite a AI able of reasoning, is not programmed to act "morally".
Why any nonhuman would decide to abide by morality is besides the point. When it comes to matters of morality, the question is whether they have the capacity to abide by a moral system, and whether they do so. I think that it's fairly obvious that the Awakened Beings would answer affirmative to the former and negative to the latter.

Evolution is neither all important nor all powerful. Especially for AB. They're a relatively recent creation, and from the point of view of evolution, they're not even a separate species. (Since they come from humans and youmas, and don't reproduce.)
I'm not really trying to argue that Awakened Beings necessarily work under an evolutionary framework. Instead, I brought that up to illustrate how a nonhuman could figure out the benefits of selflessness through observation and logic alone.

[Davidj]

Yes, but why would they use what we humans call morality? We do for the reasons you cited above, but I don't think they really apply to them. That's why I don't blame them more than I would an animal, or a highly advanced robot who, despite a AI able of reasoning, is not programmed to act "morally".



Well it is true that the fact that their evil is innate and automatic means that there's no problem with going ahead and whacking them without trying to reason with, much less rehabilitate them.