The truth about Orcs

The vast majority of people tacitly support massive systems of organized theft spanning entire countries.

Fucking hell you're one of those.

On the other hand, it could be argued that private property is inherently theft.

I'm far to zonked to do this right now. Can I get a rain check you want to drag political economics into our discussion on morality? I understand that you are being intentionally obtuse and I'd be wasting time with someone who has no actual interest in the arguement and is just trying to fuck with me and therefore cannot be convinced, and normally I'd be okay with that, but not today. Can we reconvene in a bait thread of your choosing on the morrow?

>theft is not at immoral action? Nor murder? Nor rape?

I'd say it's an action that deals damage to society. But I would also say personally that it also isn't objectively evil in the sense that it is measurable and provable. With so many humans and societies around almost anything can be argued to be immoral or utterly moral and if there was no humans at all I could say objectively gravity would exist. But I could not say objectively murder would exist.

Basically my viewpoint is that shit that is bad for society exists and can be measured with drops in the productivity of society. But exactly what is considered immoral depends on the time and place you are born.

Which is part of the reason dungeons and dragons style objective morality is a pretty horrifying concept. Because that would mean say indian style bride burnings could be an objective good there. Because the Gods and a force says it is and it's measurable with detect good and evil. It would also mean say the old testament style stoning laws could objectively be proven to be the correct way to live and anything that goes against that is objectively evil. And proven with a single detect evil spell.

The main point I'm trying to make is there's no such thing as objective morality except relative to and only once you've established moral axioms, which, regardless of zeitgeist, are ultimately subjective. Theft is immoral *if* . . . . Murder is immoral *if* . . . and so on.

I'm not at all unaware of the point you are trying to make. I've had this debate before many times over my life, and norally I'd be all for it, but I really am just not up for it tonight. I just wanted to pop in and see if any interesting wold building ideas would come out of this thread, I really wasn't looking to get bogged down in an ideological arguement.

The only thing that makes orcs deep is that they are predisposed towards violence and know no other way of life. If you are unable to accept that some people are beyond saving, you'll drown with them.

Depends on said programming. How complex is it? The Orks have narrative potential without deviating from it.

Why did you pick theft and murder as examples of immoral acts? Because morality isn't subjective, scum.

orcs are only violent because of the privilege culture and the absurd social standards of elves

Murder is totally moral if you are doing it for an approved group like a government.

Or if you do it in self defense!

curvesandtusks.tumblr.com/

Subjectivity is literally the greatest evil ever devised. Most likely created by a butthurt caveman mad that he had objectively shit taste in rocks.

Which is obviously false given that they haven't murdered themselves into extinction.

How is theft objectively immoral? Murder isn't. Cannibalism and rape aren't. How can theft be?

Just because people have different morals, it doesn't mean that morals are subjective.
It would otherwise mean that any morals you hold lack Truth or any sort of reality. Moral
subjectivity is a cancer of society that only serves to provide excuses for the immoral
>self defense=murder
you're retarded

Punishment is not self-defense, no matter how you slice it. Self-defense is only that for as long as you're under attack. As soon as the perpetrator tries to leave you, any further aggression on your part is not in any way, shape, or form considered defense.

But taking defensive action which kills the perpetrator isn't murder, which your initial statement doesn't clarify.

>rape
>not objectively immoral

You're going to have to explain that one. Without using some extremely niche hypothetical, preferably.

this

for example, chineese don't consider boiling and flaying living dogs immoral, but we do
it just depends on the culture

in medieval warfare it was quite normal for solders to rape the women and girls of conquered towns
and I bet some islamists don't consider it immoral

In medieval warfare it was perfectly normal to kill people but you still hanged by the neck if you killed outside of it.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality depends completely on the culture and the time period. As said, rape used to be a tool of war, a way of displaying dominance.
And there have certainly been cultures that haven't seen rape as being immoral or wrong.
Sure, from a modern Western point of view, rape is very much immoral, but that doesn't mean it's objectively wrong.

>moralfag talk

Oh, come on, Veeky Forums, you're so much better than this.

Didn't we do this thing like ten years ago?

Under what circumstances? Sometimes it's a good idea to murder a serial killer in their sleep.

I agree, thats why all of my characters are one dimensional murder hobos

why dont you post something about the thread question then?
is it maybe because you are not even interested in the topic and just passed by to state your superiority on an anonymous image board?
or am I implying too much?

>aw yuss this gon be goo-
>first pic is of a green landwhale
rest of it ain't so bad, but still...

and since multiple different societies can and in fact do coexist you would have to agree that morale is very inconsistent.

>Sure, from a modern Western point of view, rape is very much immoral
It is too simplistic to say that every individual, especially in a modern society, has the same understanding of morale.

My argument would be that it is too subjective to have any weight at all.

All crimes are theft. Theft of property, theft of life, theft of innocence. Sin is to take from one other instead of freely giving to your brother and God.

If murder is theft of life, does that mean murderers have a bunch of extra lives?

It means they took it away, depriving the rightful owner of it.

>don't even get to keep the shit you take
Worst version of theft ever

>rightful owner
by what meassure?
your own?
I fully understand the point you are trying to convey but honestly cant see it working without some kind of objective morale, everything else would be ridiculous.

You have it backwards. The only way saying that a person has no right to their own life is if you subscribe to radical self-interest where every position is subjective; even things like Stalinism acknowledged a right to life, which might be rescinded for the good of the Soviet.

I am sorry if i misunderstood you as english is not my native language.
By radical self-interest you mean to live in a way that would only benefit yourself?
If this is what you meant i would argue that because humans are group animals acting in a way that is positive for the group you live in is still very self-interested.

>why dont you post something about the thread question then?
There was a question?

>By radical self-interest you mean to live in a way that would only benefit yourself?

Yes. As soon as you include other people in your morality, you assign a value to their life and assume they are the owners. The only way around that is to go to tyranny, and declare that all lives belong to you. And nobody else is going to subscribe to that morality, because you deny their basic right to existence and instincts. Even in historical societies with god-kings and human sacrifice, humans still had a right to their own life; the only people who could deny that right were their rulers, and if they abused that power they were thrown out of power (and additionally, other powerful people had de facto inalienable right to their own life).

Every system of morality that acknowledges that other people exist (i.e. everything but solipsism) has as it's basis the concept that people have certain rights, and the one constant right is that under most situations they have the right to their own life.

it may not seem like it to you but you are implying multiple things that i have a hard time to accept.

>acting in a way that is positive for the group you live in is still very self-interested.
with this i wanted to show the importance of biology for our perception of right(s) and wrong.
As humans are more complicated biologically it is somewhat harder to see but simple rules of life still apply.
It is "natural" for a human to work towards the betterment of humankind or more specifically the group he is a part of.
"morality" is not as big of a word as one might think.

You said you don't speak English natively, so I'm wondering if you're having trouble with the metaphysical ideas of subjective and objective (which are used differently in philosophy than they are in regular English), and how they apply to the right to life.

It doesn't matter if the prime mover behind the objective reason people have a right to life is God, karma, or the biological imperative to work co-cooperatively. They are still universal truths that apply to all humans, modified by the relative moral restrictions of time and culture. (It gets into a whole different discussion about how those modifications don't affect it's objective status, but a quick summary is that it's like health: what is healthy for a baby and for a 70-year-old man are different, but they both have objective states of 'healthy' and 'not healthy').

If you say that there is only a subjective right to life, that means that the cause comes from the individual's psyche. Not the group's ideals, not evolutionary psychology, nothing. There is no universal right to anything. The only way that holds is if you discount what you want to prove (the importance of biology for our perception of right and wrong) and instead say that all morality is ultimately and only decided by the individual through thought.

If you believe that 'simple rules of life still apply', then you believe in objective morality. There are no fundamental rules without taking an objective stance to it and acknowledging that those rules are there whether or not you yourself are there to judge the situation.

>has as it's basis the concept that people have certain rights
Certain people in your tribe group. Outsiders need not rights. It's okay to kill and steal from them, certain cultures rely on that even. Other people are not people, or at the very least not allotted the same right to life

By definition murder in unlawful therefor it cannot exist in a form approved by society.

Rights stem from the tribal division of spoils, which in turn is founded on the fraternity created by people sharing a goal.

Rights are not universal. Arguably they cannot be, because dissolving the tribe/nontribe divide dissolves the common culture, terminating the process of political upkeep.

Then the system rots. This brief flourish of decadence is when "equal" rights can exist.

I would say in moderns times the tribe group is just extending to include the whole species, so people started applying rights to everyone in a way that was never common before.

Then you have those sick fucks that support animal rights.

>Rights are not universal. Arguably they cannot be, because dissolving the tribe/nontribe divide dissolves the common culture, terminating the process of political upkeep.

>I would say in moderns times the tribe group is just extending to include the whole species, so people started applying rights to everyone in a way that was never common before.

Building off that, there's the extension of certain rights but not others, as tribes come together in coalitions but still seek to maintain certain privileges. Thus 'cultural appropriation'.

You know I always found it interesting how a lot of ancient cultures used a word for themselves that basically meant "people", while their word for foreigners was more or less "other". Not "other people" (though some cultures did have that), just...other

I did not mean to say that everyone has a right to their life because of some "biological imperative".
Almost exactly the opposite was the case: In our role as humans there are "rules" that we play by, biological or otherwise. To break these rules down you could say that whatever we do is reactionary. to say whatever we do is reactionary is to eliminate the importance of things.
Maybe "rules of life" was less fitting than "rules of existing".

>people have different morals based on their own subjective interpretations of morality
>morals aren't subjective

Afghans rape boys all the time. When questioned, they simply say—"if not boys, who will the men fuck?" They don't consider themselves immoral for doing so, no matter how much it offends the sensibilities of the corn-fed American walking in on the act.
>inb4 /pol/

>prime mover
Oh, you're one of those.
Neither God nor karma exist and biological impulses are hardly a good basis for morality. Rights are a polite fiction that we use because it works. There's no inherent truth to them, so they're subjective.

If you can imagine yourself in the shoes of the other person and decide you probably wouldn't want be done what you're currently doing to them, then it's probably immoral regardless of how ingrained it might be into somebody's culture.

I wouldn't want to get choked while fucking someone but some people would love it

ITT: Veeky Forums can't admit that warcraft did orcs best

You spelled elder scrolls wrong

>implying me and this other fella who happens to be of the wrong [race/religion/in-group] could possibly be considered on equal footing
There's no objective law of the world which compels me to think in such terms. If I take as an axiom that all people are not created equal, then the Golden Rule holds no meaning for me.

Elder scrolls is also good, there's only a few differences between them and warcraft

>If I take as an axiom that all people are not created equal, then the Golden Rule holds no meaning for me.
But then doesn't that mean that you acknowledge that anyone else is allowed to treat you like shit, too?

Naw, I'm special.

Except that's exactly what morality is. What is immoral is entirely subjective, too.

You have no idea of the shitstorm you've just started.

what do you mean you "take it as an axiom"?
dont you need some kind of not neccesarily logical but at least understandable basis to your axioms?

Also, while the golden rule is not perfect to live by it incorporates the concept of empathy and holds true to some extend, otherwise it would not have appeared in so many different societies and so many different forms.

>prime mover

And there's your problem. You assume everyone believes in some final authority that decides on morality.

The only truth is death.

>dont you need some kind of not neccesarily logical but at least understandable basis to your axioms?
Sure. I look at the world and see that some people are born smarter and some people are born dumber and conclude that not everyone should sit at the same metaphorical table.
>Also, while the golden rule is not perfect to live by it incorporates the concept of empathy and holds true to some extend, otherwise it would not have appeared in so many different societies and so many different forms.
It may have merit, sure. All I'm arguing is it's not objective.

Not all orcs

it certainly isnt objective.

i do however not understand how you can choose intelligence as a meassure of worth.
you did nothing for your intelligence and neither did other people do something for their stupidity.

>you did nothing for your intelligence and neither did other people do something for their stupidity.
It's just an example. I could easily say "Yes, and?" because I haven't accepted your proposition that bases for determination of worth must necessarily be earned.

It's almost as if what is and is not moral is determined entirely by the whims of whomever is in charge!

>accepted your proposition that bases for determination of worth must necessarily be earned.
just to clarify, my last post was my first and i never even implied such a thing.

out of curiosity, would you say there is something by which you can meassure the worth of a living being and if so what would it be?

i meant this was my first post.

I'd say there are plenty of ways by which you can measure the worth of a living being and that these measures only have as much worth to anyone as they themselves are willing to ascribe or as much as can be imposed by those in power

>morality is subjective so I can act as I want to
Enlightment was a mistake.

This thread's a bit pointless, isn't it?

>prime mover

Hey Achmed, shouldn't you be planning some terrorist attack?

>I'd say there are plenty of ways by which you can measure the worth of a living being

but as you stated they all have no meaning as they all are subjective.

your spoiler however suggest a new attribute: power
what kind of power doesnt matter but you said, if you wanted or not, that in the end power is what decides whether we are judges or judged.

Does this sound like something you see as true or right?

>Does this sound like something you see as true or right?
Sounds pretty subjective to me as well.

I see it as "what is". It *happens* to be true; it's not *inherently* true, nor right.

...

the problem with objectivity is that it still needs to be acknowledged by an individual.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with your post, however you cant just talk about something "inherently" true and not explain what you are talking about.

That's actually literally true according to Tolkien lore

Orcs are just elves who got kidnapped by Morgoth and tortured for generations in his rape dungeons

Also, Tolkien, being a Christian did not subscribe to the concept of "irredeemable" so in theory he figured orcs would be capable of being not-assholes.

Why?

Principal of Equal Consideration of Interests says you're wrong.

>only once you've established moral axioms, which, regardless of zeitgeist, are ultimately subjective

Morality's axiom is biological suffering.

The only problem arises whence one brings together two radically different species.

And even that's not a problem because Mad Pain and Martian Pain are bullshit because Mad Pain isn't even pain, and Martian pain can be explained by ultratranslation.

Faerun invented good Orcs.
They're just swoll sexy Hobbits.

you don't even need two species.
You just need a masochist to exist to throw off morality.

Also, Orcs could theoretically sail to the Undying Lands.

Much love.

I heard that Tolkien never really settled on a definitive origin for the orcs.