Detect Good and Evil spells don't work since Detect Good has nothing to find and Detect Evil pings everything

>Detect Good and Evil spells don't work since Detect Good has nothing to find and Detect Evil pings everything

The greatest argument against Moral Relativism is that almost all of its proponents are raging dick-bags who want to flaunt their so-called mental superiority.

They do so whilst ignoring the subtle aching in their chest that calls out for them to do good. You know, like a massive fucking faggot.

sorta funny how people assume that moral relativism means that morality can't exist

This would be an amazing story premise.

The two spells that are banned from schools and locked away are Detect Good and Evil.

Well, the problem with absolute morality starts when you understand that even now there are cultures that see good/bad not like we do. Some muslims think it's Good to send their children to suicide bomb a bunch of infidels and Evil to paint human faces.

Back in the day, we call them Orcs.

What if we use that? Detect good and evil brings result based on what god user actually serve. And reflect not the user believe but rather his god. God of war show weapons, armor, banners, soldiers, commanders and healers as good and traps, cowards, poisons and generally dishonorable warfare as evil.

>dishonorable warfare as evil
honorable, dishonorable; it's warfare so why would he care if there is war anyway. he is the god of war, not the god of the war as some people think it should be.

Hey, that's a really nice idea! Definitely stealing it.

Plz don't. Or we'll have another round of "Paladin and baby-orcs" shit.

He's a god. He probably have his opinion on how war should be waged. So this will be his followers definition of good and evil.

We should round them up and torture them to death, slowly.
For the greater good.

>god of war cares about honor

"How does it work, is everything an undead, a cleric with an evil aura, an evil outsider or an evil creature with more than 6 hit dice ?

DM, have you read the spell description ?"

That is why they are evil and we must kill them all.
Including the children.
ESPECIALLY the children.

The greatest argument agains moral absolutism is the fact that it's clearly, objectively idiotic and wrong as long as you embrace scientific perspective on world and realize that morality, like every other human behavioral traits, has it's roots in evolution.

Moral absolutism makes perfect sense as a tool to enforce more effectively particular moral guidelines on a particular society at particular time, and I have no problem with this being commonly used as a pragmatic mean, but it has absolutely no place in an actual discussion about the nature of morality itself.

That said, there is an actual point that could be made for a concept of "absolute evil" being a tangible, scientifically valid concept. That said, it would only cover only an extremely small portion of the domain of acts we regularly identify as evil - and even then it would still be very debatable. "Absolute good", on the other hand, is a literal oxymoron.

>it would only cover only an extremely small portion of the domain of acts

Yeah, so you agree that absolute evil exists. Jesus fuck was it that hard?

It is simple.
WE are good.
THEY are evil.
Therefore, we must kill them all in the name of good for being evil.
Simple.

When we meet other sentient life with vastly different biological functions then we can talk about moral absolutism not existing.

Yeah, she does.

>humans are infallible in their morality

Just because absolute morality exists doesn't mean we all live by it 100%

When that happens, we must kill them all.
This universe belongs to humanity, and anything else is an abomination that must be purged.

>hurr durr this one does

>Yeah, so you agree that absolute evil exists.
I point out that there is a case for identifying a very small set of acts as "evil" under all context. I'm not personally entirely convinced by the case, but it does raise some reasonably valid points. But again, it still only applies to an extremely fringe set of cases, and as such is not a sufficient argument for any form of moral absolutism.

Not a very sound long term strategy, to be honest.

...

>moral absolutism needs to cover EVERY POSSIBLE ACTION

We absolutely don't need to wait for that? What the hell, what gave you this impression. I literally can't follow the damn argument.

I do agree with this sentiment though. There will be plenty of time to study their elaborate moral systems from the ruins of their culture after the purge.

Arachne

Well, it should cover at least the majority of them. The argument for absolute evil really only covers acts of absurd sadism or destructive thoughts, such as some of the cases of highschool shootings, or some forms of torture that people were subjected in concentration camps.

It does not, however, cover the issue of the decision to make concentration camps already. It does not cover absolute majority of existing crimes or things that are considered condemnable in regular life.
I'd expect any kind of moral absolutism to be at least a LITTLE useful to our societal organization in order to be defendable.

>morality, like every other human behavioral traits, has it's roots in evolutio

We come up with morals based on our own lives and biological functions. A system of absolute morals will be based on that.

Universal absolute morals cannot exist in a universe with sentient life of drastically different biological systems.

Your foul heresy shall not be tolerated!

>Well, it should cover at least the majority of them.

Why?

>I'd expect any kind of moral absolutism to be at least a LITTLE useful to our societal organization in order to be defendable.

It is useful. People are getting all fired up over little shit that isn't evil instead of focusing on the actual evil. Boom, use.

So, you suggest committing an evil act? Edgy.

>moral absolutism is the fact that it's clearly, objectively idiotic and wrong as long as you embrace scientific perspective
Yep, but a simple example is just an easier way to show the problem.
>a concept of "absolute evil" being a tangible, scientifically valid concept
Um, exactly what would they be? Rape-torture-pillge and shit? I can imagine a culture, that is ok with it - vikings.

But how do you know it's your morality is the one that is absolute, not theirs?

>But how do you know it's your morality is the one that is absolute, not theirs?

Because I've thought about it logically and minimize usage of "cuz I say so"

Brought it on herself. In the versions of the myth that actually specify the nature of the things she wove tend to mention any depiction of the gods she did were rather unflattering to say the least.

Except that's the fucking definition.

Yes, like most war gods irl.

There's several ethico-moral systems that offer a much more consistent philosophy than any religion and can be easily adapted cross culture. Sure, they aren't perfect and bring their own dilemmas, but going "Religions see things different, so there can be no absolute good or evil" is dumb. It's going for the low hanging fruit to try and discredit the whole tree.

Nice, cherry pick the stories that support your argument. Sound reasoning.

>most

You got the data to back that up? There are a lot of cultures in human history.

The big ones I know about have asshole war gods.

You see, if you set your moral code as absolute, that doesn't make it so. Even more - it shows that morality is hella relative and what you see as absolute is shit for someone else.

Alright, you tell me then, what version of the tale expicitly states that this was not the case? Some change the reason for attacking Athene's ire to her hubris, but none say anything other than what I've presented. At most they simply omit the detail.

Did you? What if others logically thought about it and reached different conclusions?

>your moral code that you claim is absolute is actually relative
>no I don't know what the code is

No, moral relativism only implies that different cultures have different morals.
As long as your living in monocultural society, or in a society where one culture beat all other cultures into submission, morals are still valid

Why do you rule out the possibility that the detail was added in later stories?

His point stands.

>We come up with morals based on our own lives and biological functions.
Yes, that is what I said. It's rooted in evolution.

>A system of absolute morals will be based on that.
That is LITERALLY impossible, because evolution necessitates plurality of possible adaptative strategies to accommodate for plurality of possible environmental pressures. That is the problem. The same strategies will not be equally efficient across all possible scenarios. The plurality itself is a massive adaptative asset.

We absolutely do not need to wait for an encounter with a dramatically different alien life-form to figure this out. It's completely obvious right now, and it also explains why plurality of moral systems exist across many societies.

>Why?
Are you seriously asking me why a moral system should help solve problems were moral judgement needs to be involved?

If your moral system offers little or no help judging what is the right or wrong thing to do, it's not much of a moral system, don't you think?

>People are getting all fired up over little shit that isn't evil instead of focusing on the actual evil
What? No, that is not how it works, you moron. The notion of "absolute" evil here does not mean "the only real evil". It means "something that is evil under ALL CONDITIONS AND VIEWS". There is still a FUCKTON of shit that is still dangerous and needs to be identified as evil under specific conditions, even though it could be tolerable under other.

The absolute evil argument assets, for an example, that murder is only an absolute evil if it is committed intentionally knowing that it will result only disadvantage for everyone else, including the murderer.
Does that mean that no other murder is evil? The fuck kind of logic is that?

Then they would reach the same conclusions I have.

>The big ones I know about have asshole war gods
Honourable does not imply in good.
Slaughtering a entire city because their king said you're a coward is 100% honourable.

>That is LITERALLY impossible, because evolution necessitates plurality of possible adaptative strategies to accommodate for plurality of possible environmental pressures

Not sure if you noticed, but the human body has a lot of standard rules.

YHou know who else things their moral code is absolute? Muslims. Christians. Jews. You know who doesn't? Shinto. Buddhism. Taoism. you know who doesn't have blood on their hands?

None of the above.

>Um, exactly what would they be?
See above. It's an argument brought forward by Jordan Peterson (long before the controversy). As examples, he brings Columbine Shooting and some forms of really fucked up torture commited to already death-sentenced prisoners in Auschwitz. He makes an argument that there are moments when people are driven by motivation to be purely destructive, in such a way that yields NO advantage to yourself or anyone else, in fact it actually detracts from your own fitness, so to speak.

As I said, I don't actually find the argument entirely convincing, but there is something to it. At least it's interesting and relevant from a psychoanalytical side of view.

Are you god?
Can I pray to you?

Yeah, the only real evil is the evil that is always evil under all conditions and rules.

>The absolute evil argument assets, for an example, that murder is only an absolute evil if it is committed intentionally knowing that it will result only disadvantage for everyone else, including the murderer.

...are you strawmanning me?

>So, you suggest committing an evil act? Edgy.
Killing those that are evil is not evil.
Therefore it is good.

...

Oh, so you admit that they aren't honorable. Got it.

>Not sure if you noticed, but the human body has a lot of standard rules.
Which are slightly different around the globe.
Buddhism are moral absolutists.
More than any other group in your post

>Not sure if you noticed, but the human body has a lot of standard rules.
What? What the hell are you trying to say here?

Some can be bent. Others, broken.

Yeah, our world is built on a lot of blood and death due to flaws in our design. However we are improving and moving forward.

That's not an honor thing, that's a petty revenge thing.

Because it doesn't fit with the Greek moral principles. If the original reason was the hubris to declare oneself as better than the gods at anything, which going off other myths would actually be worse, there would be no need to change it. Therefore I deduce it was added it was charged after the fact to drive the lesson of the story home and make Ariadne seem less of a victim. We perceive her as more of a victim today and Athene as the douchebag in the situation because our moral systems have changed.

You need to study more.

Read my post again.
Honour never had anything to do with goodness

You are free to do whatever you want.

The greatest argument for Moral Relativism is that almost all of its detractors are raging hypocrites that also think we shouldn't judge people from the past by today's standards.

No shit they are slightly different. So a system of absolute morals wouldn't care about those differences, would it?

Not flaws. Death and violence is what effectively make us evolve.

>Yeah, the only real evil is the evil that is always evil under all conditions and rules.
So a murder to gain a benefit of some kind is not evil?

Oh, the surreality of a moral absolutist actually saying shit like this... No, real evil is anything that your society under current conditions finds as a threat to it's well being. That is still completely real evil, even if it would not be seen as such by a different society, contesting with different problems and challenges.

>...are you strawmanning me?
No, I'm simply applying YOUR logic to real-world scenario.

...

Revenge and honour are synonymous.

>hurr durr splittin hairz

>"Religions see things different, so there can be no absolute good or evil
That's not really the point. Point was that there are plenty of views on what is Good and Bad. So boldly declare that there is only one and it is Absolute is ok in some setting

Depends on time period. A lot of progress that grew from violence could have also grown from peace.

It has not yet been proven that Moral Absolutes do not to exist.
Anyone pretending that it has or that they cannot exist exposes themselves as a fool.

>But how do you know it's your morality is the one that is absolute, not theirs?
Until you prove it, you can't.
So Faith and/or Arrogance.

Not really.

Stop speaking like a nigger

What's your point? That you can be deluded and claim that you know the Truth? You sure can.

>Yeah, our world is built on a lot of blood and death due to flaws in our design.
There is something incredibly fucked up and terrifying about this - quite wide-spread - "we are above evolution" attitude. It's actually mind-boggingly arrogant, and has always, ALWAYS lead to nothing but the worst cases of crimes against humanity in the past, and yet people still desperately cling to it and even consider themselves morally superior for such beliefs.

>So a murder to gain a benefit of some kind is not evil?

Nice strawman.

>No, I'm simply applying YOUR logic to real-world scenario.

No, you are strawmanning. You are coming up with a weak argument and then claiming that it is my argument.

>Just because absolute morality exists doesn't mean we all live by it 100%
If absolute morality exists, there's pretty persuasive evidence that nobody lives by it 100% and the vast majority of people don't even manage 1% or 2%. Speaking from the PoV of someone raised christian in an overwhelmingly christian community, the number of people that actually live that morality, walk in Jesus's footsteps and so on, is staggeringly low. 1/1000 is probably generous. Most people can manage the really the baseline stuff like "don't stab your neighbor" and "don't bang your neighbor's wife", most of the time, but stuff like charity and love and all that are super thin on the ground.

I mean, unless it turns out that the correct absolute morality revolves around being a self-absorbed dickhead, in which case we're probably fine.

Depends on setting.

It has, and the arguments are available in this very thread, actually.

>Revenge and honour are synonymous.
spoken like a masterless ronin who knows nothing of honor

>if someone thinks they know the truth they must be delusional

Perharps, but the possibility of death is a much better contributor to development than whatever peace can offer(like comfort).

When did anyone say humans are above evolution?

We sure can. But they definitely didn't

Also, if you accept the existence of an absolute evil and that things exist that are not the worst evil, than you are are either accepting the existence of a sliding scale of evil, which necessarily has absolute good (or absolute least evil) at the opposing end, or the silly idea that everything is either the worst evil possible or neither good nor evil at all.