View unanswered posts | View active topics * FAQ    * Search
* Login 




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 
TheBlackHand
 
PostPosted: Thu, Aug 07 2014, 2:11 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 02 Aug 2014

On Morality
A Philosopher’s Guide
By: Karzin Gregain – Inquisitor of The Black Hand


“Morality is not a question for the intellectual or the studious, for we occupy our minds in the practice of breaking things down and gleaning our knowledge from the wreckage of well-formed principles. No, morality is a priestly pursuit. Only a man of faith can have the single-minded focus it would take to delve into such an impossible subject.” – Karad Mutan, Red Wizard.

Within the heart of every mortal soul lies the question of morality. It plagues our minds when we set out to make a choice, or after the consequences of our actions are made plain to us. If one considers all mortal beings in a single category, our similarities would lie singly within the power to entangle ourselves and attempt to conquer this singular question; “Am I good?”

This question has led me to extensive thought on the matter of morality, its different forms, and the whole of its effects upon the mortal soul. Thusly do I sit down and place pen
to parchment in an effort to disentangle the truth from the mystery of the mortal soul….

First off, allow me to begin with a simple statement, so as to avoid confusion and allow the reader of these texts to better glean what he may from the words within. The nature of morality exists in all sentient creatures, in one form or another, and it is my firm belief that the presence of a mortal soul is of no consequence to the nature of said morality. This dissertation is only written with the intention of exploring the nature of morality in mortal beings, that is to say, creatures with fixed lifespans and the free will possessed of a mind beyond the basic instincts of an animal or monster. While I may indeed touch upon subjects pertaining to creatures or beings outside of this classification, herein the term “Mortal” shall be used to signify what I have described.

Chapter I
The Faces of Morality

If you bring yourself before a man or woman of simple means, one who spends their life in one home, one land, or one city, and you ask this man to define the nature of morality, barring the strange looks and pushing past the practically-oriented mind of the common man you will have placed before you the simple answer of “Right and Wrong.” These words, in this connotation, have been placed into the minds of each and every mortal soul since time immemorial. That is not to say that the concept of right and wrong is without its truth. Truly, right and wrong is without a doubt the purest sense of morality which a man can possess. The fundamental flaw in this, the most basic sense of morality, is that the concept of right and wrong is unique to each mortal mind. If one is a believer in preordained destiny, then one might suggest that each mind is set upon its path with this ingrained sense of right and wrong. It is my belief that experience teaches the mind, shaping its sense of this simple morality into the unique structure which possesses each person.

In its uniqueness though, lies the flaw from which is born each an ever more complex definition of morality. The Drow are a prime example of the great rift in mortal creature’s sense of right and wrong. To the Dark Elf murder, deception, and the many evils which they commit are in their minds morally “right”. This is because the life and experiences of the Drow are such. When all one sees is the madness which Dark Elven society begets from the moment of their birth into the world, then such behavior becomes, to the individual, considerably normal. And in respect, life and society upon the surface world must, to the average Drow, seem utterly wrong. It is in this discrepancy which we find the truth of the simple, instinctual moral compass. Right and wrong are truly malleable concepts, morphed by our influence and experience to become whatever they must to suit our needs, or justify our actions.

Thankfully, such is only the base of more complex moral standings. From this simple and instinctual vision, mortals have built up the grandiose concepts which define us today. We, in our hubris, have even deigned to categorize our many deities within the confines of our mortal bindings, placing them within the chains which we similarly bound ourselves. Truly, the scope implied by the constraints of the mortal notions of “Good and Evil” are so miniscule in size and possibility, that to consider them for too long leaves one greatly dissatisfied. Just as right and wrong become flexible terms within the mind of the individual, good and evil become such within the mind of the collective. The man believes that his actions are within the realm of right, but only the collective acceptance of those actions can justify them as good. And in reverse, the collective decision often then determines
the individual opinion regarding the morality of an issue.

Such is the progression of society and community. Though, once in a while we are surprised by a truly remarkable act, where the morality of the individual supersedes the morality of the collective. We mortals have developed a term for this surprising turn of events, we call it Revolution. Revolution, as a term, comes with a clearly defined negative connotation when it is unsuccessful. The collective determines that revolution is wholly evil, and therefore by the laws previously stated should the individual find it wrong. This is not always the case, as we have seen many a time in society. In this instance, the individual’s sense of right and wrong takes precedence over the collective’s sense of good and evil and in that moment the individual becomes the collective, and the collective falls away to make way for a change of individuals. Such is the nature of the organism of society.
A mortal soul can decide for itself what is right or wrong, though this decision only affects the soul in question. Others may come together and agree with the individual’s perception, but all mortals differ in their visions of morality. Despite these ideals, it is only when the individual’s perception of right and wrong is accepted or changed by the collective that he may be classified as good or evil. Necessity demands of each mortal soul differently, and those who become tyrants often see their own truths and morality as easily as those who are crushed underfoot.

Finally, there comes the deciding entry into the morality of every soul. We have discussed right and wrong as per the perspective of the individual, as well as the concepts of good and evil within the mind of the collective. The final piece of the moral puzzle lies in the perceptions of both, as it is the binding which tethers the two, collective and individual. This is the concept of Delusion and Acceptance.

I will begin by explaining this principle when applied to the morality of the individual, that is to say, right and wrong. The average soul, when confronted with a choice which allows for the contemplation of one’s path before progressing into action, will oft find it a simple matter to discern which of the possibilities most accurately fits within the constraints of their morality. From there, they can make their choice without unexpected consequence. It lies within the realm of the unexpected choice or reaction left behind from a decision that the individual is forced to find the true core of their morality within themselves, or deny its existence.
The delusion as a concept of morality is most often seen within the archetype which I have taken to calling the “Good Intentions” individuals. Those who believe that their visions of right and wrong afford them the judgment required to decide for themselves that their choices not only fit within their concept of morality, but also lie securely within the realm of Good as seen (Or should be seen, as is often the opinion) by the collective. This most often translates in a blurring of the moral concepts of right and wrong for the individual, leaving every action and choice made justifiable within their delusion of morality.

For the collective, the concept of delusion works in reverse. In order to affect the individual, the collective must not only create, but believe in the delusion of righteousness. In these instances, I have taken to calling the concept the “For the Greater Good” collective. The Church which wages holy war falls into this category. My own order is known to proceed in this manner. Within this concept, the ends are made to justify the means by which they are attained, thus granting the collective to commit any number of acts normally considered evil or wrong to the individual, provided the outcome is acceptable.

Acceptance is wholly another matter, and in my own experience is far rarer within the mortal soul. For the sake of the individual, I will need to make use of a special example to accurately convey the concept of accepting morality. The first is I. I am a priestly man, pious and devout in my study and contemplation of my Lord. That said, the doctrine of my master demands of me an acceptance of my nature. I have known nothing but my faith since I was of the age to think, leaving my moral compass to deviate toward the teachings of my deity. It fills me with joy to serve my Lord in my endeavors, and there has never been a time where I have not thoroughly enjoyed my duties. Within the morality defined by myself as an individual, my actions are righteous. Beyond this, I am well aware that my beliefs and the actions that stem from them are considered undeniably wrong by the collective. This fact does not bother me, and I spend neither time nor effort deluding myself or others into believing that my choices, and therefore my morality, are good. I know I am evil when sized against the collective mind, and I choose to accept that designation, rather than change it.
In conclusion, to accurately determine the nature of a mortal soul, one must first consider their actions against their own psyche. Then may they determine the collective opinion regarding such. And finally does the need to find either the delusion, or the acceptance, of the morality of the individual arise. Only in this fashion can one truly understand another.

It occurs to me now, as I reach the end that the discussion of the concept of neutrality needs to be undertaken. It is a concept which I find some interest in, and perhaps I shall devote my efforts into another volume dedicated solely to that. For now though, we have reached the conclusion of this work. I thank you, reader, for selecting this tome and sharing in the knowledge which I have thusly conveyed unto you….


 
      
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group