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 2007-07-29, 13:08   Link #81
IMSabbel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy001_M1A2 View Post
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).
IMSabbel is offline  
Old 2007-07-29, 13:42   Link #82
FlareKnight
User of the "Fast Draw"
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to FlareKnight Send a message via MSN to 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.
__________________
FlareKnight is online now  
Old 2007-07-29, 20:08   Link #83
xVxObliVioNxVx
Game Developer
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Orlando, FL.
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest35 View Post
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.
__________________
The Farthest Land - A 2D Fighting game I am making (inspired by Claymore of course ^_^)
xVxObliVioNxVx is offline  
Old 2007-07-29, 22:17   Link #84
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
Quote:
Originally Posted by khryoleoz View Post
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.
__________________
justinstrife is offline  
Old 2007-07-29, 23:19   Link #85
KiNA
Kira_Naruto, the ecchi
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: http://www.exciting-tits.com/
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 !
__________________
“This be the realest shit I ever wrote.” ~Tupac
So very dead right now.. but still breathing thank you.
Top 4 Manga Waifu
>> Tsukiumi
>> Saeko Busujima
>> Himuka
>> Yui Kotegawa


KiNA is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 06:38   Link #86
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
Let's kill them before they kill us.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 15:44   Link #87
Tempest35
Awe of She
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orlando
Meh, it was bound to happen. With all the college age people who frequent here...

As for my views on it...TRL, you should have my PM to leaf through.
Tempest35 is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 17:18   Link #88
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
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.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 17:31   Link #89
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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.

Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2007-07-30 at 17:46.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 17:52   Link #90
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
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.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 18:49   Link #91
Kinematics
Let's play a game!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
And yet, in a reality driven only by rationalism, altruism exists.

Explain altruism.
Altruism is the ultimate extension of cooperative behavior.
Kinematics is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 20:09   Link #92
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
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.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 20:28   Link #93
Goofus Maximus
Senile Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Across the Mississippi from St. Louis, MO
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!
Goofus Maximus is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 20:36   Link #94
Tempest35
Awe of She
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orlando
Well, at least I'm learning words here...

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... I'll sleep on it then maybe kick back up in the morning. For now, eat then sleep. Much more satisfying.

edit: Just for you Goofus. 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.
Tempest35 is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 21:04   Link #95
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
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."
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2007-07-30, 21:27   Link #96
Tempest35
Awe of She
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orlando
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.

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*
Tempest35 is offline  
Old 2007-07-31, 02:48   Link #97
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
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.

Quote:
(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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
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.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2007-07-31, 09:18   Link #98
Davidj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by khryoleoz View Post
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.

Last edited by Davidj; 2007-07-31 at 11:02.
Davidj is offline  
Old 2007-07-31, 09:27   Link #99
Davidj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
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).
Davidj is offline  
Old 2007-07-31, 09:45   Link #100
Varis
Composed Eccentric
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Switzerland
Age: 35
Send a message via AIM to Varis Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
Varis 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 15:21.


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