AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Claymore

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-07-27, 02:44   Link #21
astrallionheart
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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.
astrallionheart is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 02:52   Link #22
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by khryoleoz View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 03:19   Link #23
khryoleoz
Power of 9 SoShi-ist
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'd just go find another non-sapient chicken to eat.
LOL! But why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
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.
khryoleoz is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 03:26   Link #24
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by khryoleoz View Post
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 03:39   Link #25
khryoleoz
Power of 9 SoShi-ist
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: USA
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.
khryoleoz is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 03:55   Link #26
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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?"
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 06:59   Link #27
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Min
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.

Lol, I've just come out of another heated debate on morality in another forum to see another debate on morality here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by khyroleoz
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.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 08:41   Link #28
Nightbat®
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
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
__________________
Nightbat® is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 08:59   Link #29
Defiled one
Priscilla`s inner voice
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iberian Peninsule...
Age: 25
In before Clare wasn´t food.... If you know what I mean


She was a Punching Bag... Yeah....A Punching Bag.
Defiled one is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 09:24   Link #30
khryoleoz
Power of 9 SoShi-ist
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: USA
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.

Last edited by khryoleoz; 2007-07-27 at 09:51.
khryoleoz is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 10:00   Link #31
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 11:18   Link #32
Defiled one
Priscilla`s inner voice
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iberian Peninsule...
Age: 25
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...
Defiled one is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 14:15   Link #33
Kinematics
Let's play a game!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
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
Kinematics is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 14:37   Link #34
houkoholic
seiyuu maniac
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
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.
__________________
My twitter - not really seiyuu-centred so follow at your own risk
Celebrities I've talked to in person
Mizuki Nana, Chiba Saeko, Shimizu Ai, Shimokawa Mikuni, Chihara Minori, Tamura Yukari, Nakahara Mai, Sakai Kanako
houkoholic is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 14:41   Link #35
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-27, 20:55   Link #36
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinematics
'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.

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.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-28, 01:21   Link #37
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
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.


Quote:
"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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kira_Naruto View Post
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-28, 02:59   Link #38
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh Min
Prove it. Prove that what you call "morality" exists.
You pose a very big challenge. How do you prove an 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:
Quote:
"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."
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-28, 03:18   Link #39
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
You pose a very big challenge. How do you prove an 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-28, 03:28   Link #40
khryoleoz
Power of 9 SoShi-ist
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: USA
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.
khryoleoz is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.