The Morality of Awakened Ones

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

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.

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]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.