AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Eh. I think I'm going with consequentialism. Xavi's not exactly law-abiding and, while there are some things she thinks are outright wrong and could never condone, she'll often forgive or gloss over something negative if the end result is good. However, she's more likely to hold her own actions to higher standards than those of other people.

Everyone mixes the two to some extent, but my cleric of Tyr very much leans towards deontologist. Her motto could be fiat justitia, ruat coelum: "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."

Of course, she is not a stone, and sometimes when the rubber meets the road she finds it difficult to live up to that philosophy.

(As a stereotype I tend to assume that Chatoic characters I run into will be usually be played as consequentialists and Lawful characters as deontologists, although of course you play them either way.)

Could you re-word that for us simpletons?

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Could you re-word that for us simpletons?

The question is, "What makes an act good?" Random example, using two people named Deo and Connie. (Not all Deontologists and Consequentialists would agree with these two people: they're just examples in an attempt to show the different ways of thinking.)

Deo says that torture is always evil. Deo says that thieves should always be punished regardless of the consequences.

Connie says that torture can be good if it saves lives. Connie says that a thief should be shown mercy if putting him in jail would cause his family to starve.

(Of course if you're not concerned with doing what is right, the question of "What makes an action right?" isn't very important to you.)

My answer is neither.

The "blessing" (or in his opinion the "curse") of Favoured Souldom drives Jack to carry out his deity's acts but unlike the others it is by selfish motive opposed to selflessness. He despises helping people and doesn't hold people's gratitude to much value but combined with the divine drive of Favoured Souldom, he helps people only to sooth his own inner scars. If the ward in his duty of care dies, its no skin off his back: there's always another soul to take its place.

There should be a "8008135" option! Many more than one main character, and you should let the evil people see the votes too.

Last edited by Pony on Wed, Nov 06 2019, 12:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Del is if any a consequentialist. She does not believe in being good by duty. If you do it for a God or if you do it because you feel it is your obligation, it is self control not goodness.

The others will have different point of view, but she is my main char.

Ame's the second, Jhae's the first.

Galenson wrote:

My answer is neither.

The "blessing" (or in his opinion the "curse") of Favoured Souldom drives Jack to carry out his deity's acts but unlike the others it is by selfish motive opposed to selflessness. He despises helping people and doesn't hold people's gratitude to much value but combined with the divine drive of Favoured Souldom, he helps people only to sooth his own inner scars. If the ward in his duty of care dies, its no skin off his back: there's always another soul to take its place.

Heh, I enjoyed your IC post about Jack beating the crap out of wounded people during the evacuation of the Salandran Temple. It was so random.

Eh. Kalliniel has principles, a devotion to a duty. However, he also has 8 wisdom, so he does have some difficulties comprehending the categorical imperative. :oops:

He usually does not calculate the benefits when it comes to defending his People, nor does he worry about the consequences if he thinks it's right to go kill some drow. But then, he can be pretty ruthless when it comes to dealing with other races.

I don't try to portray my characters as representatives of any specific direction of formative ethics, but I'd say teleological/virtue ethics in the vein of Aristotle or (more recently) Alasdair McIntyre has influenced Kalliniel the most.

To illustrate the difference between deontology and consequantialism with an example less controversial and more to-the-point than the thievery example:

If you obey the law and donate to charity because it is right and a universal duty, you are a deontologist. If you do it because it leads to stability and happiness (either for yourself or for everyone), you are a consequentialist. A deontologist will obey the law and donate to charity if he thinks it is universally good even if the consequences in this particular case will be bad.

Concequentialists and deontologists may act pretty much identically in society and have the same answers to moral dilemmas, but their reasons for those choices are different. Kant is pretty extreme about this: according to him, you are not doing good if you save a life out of pity. Granted, you're not breaking the categorical imperative either, but your action is morally irrelevant because it's affected by feeling and therefore, your will is not free. Only if you save a life because your free will tells you it must be done, with no regard for pity or possible benefits, is your action truly moral.

Too much difficult words for me, rephrase the OP.

hendrack wrote:

Too much difficult words for me, rephrase the OP. :D

Top: End Justifies the Means
Middle: Does Not!
Bottom: Somewhere in Between

Last edited by Pony on Wed, Nov 06 2019, 12:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yurell wrote:

hendrack wrote:

Too much difficult words for me, rephrase the OP.

Top: End Justifies the Means
Middle: Does Not!
Bottom: Somewhere in Between

While that's true, I think "Ends Justify the Means" has an oddly negative connotation in our culture. It certainly does not mean you will kill a person to save ten. (Well, it might, but probably most consequentialists wouldn't.) As Simone de Beauvoir put it, both action and goal interact and give meaning to eachother. If you seek to achieve right by doing wrong, the right you have achieved is tainted. And indeed, your action has more consequences than just your goal. If you would break the law to do a good thing, it is not an isolated event but encourages a general disregard for law in yourself and others, which is ultimately bad.

Just to clarify for others. Basically, the ends justify the means for consequentialists, but it doesn't mean they'll do anything to achieve their goal: the means are also ends of their own.

Consequentialism is pretty broad, anyhow. Utilitarism, egoism, hedonism, rule consequentialism, even existentialism and teleology in a way, are all consequentialistic theories.

With Taelar, it depends on what the overall situation is. There are some means he would not use to meet any end no matter how good, on the other hand as a demonblood raised by a less than mental stable human women he has a skewed perspective sometimes on what constitutes good or bad actions. As a result, I'd say he sort of falls in between these two categories.

I'd say that Bree is a mix between the two. She follows the code set forth by Lolth pretty strictly... but... that code is built in with a "you only get in trouble if you get caught" loophole.... so, it's kinda a tightrope between the two depending on the exact situation.

Niya... Well...

Erm.. How to define her.

On her good days she may follow the law, on her bad days will she actively trick out the law, do loopholes and other things.

She generally will trick her way out of situations by wording the things so that she can stil lfollow the given laws and rules but still be as free as she wants to.

Sort of like the 'Don't get caught, don't getr punished' loophole by lolth.

So, in the middle I'd say.

Then again, she often had no idea (Or did she?) regarding things and tried to get herself involved in it.
So, perhaps the first more.

What if our characters abide by neither of these things? I guess you did only say good main characters.

to which box does 'end justifies means' belong?

Willow has deontological ethics for sure. She's willing to do anything and everything to ensure the preservation of the balance of nature, especially wild nature. And though it's blunt, it's very true in her case. Her view isn't about it being "good" or "evil" though, it's more about it being truly "right" or "wrong". Moral absolutism if you will.

Tu'jol is a bit of a mix of both. But I would say she leans more toward consequentialism. She obeys the dogma of Eilistraee and has a deontological outlook in that. She has her set of protected values. But outside of that, shes a consequentialist for sure. Given that Eilisraee isn't very strict on a lot of things, she leans toward consequentialism a lot more.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Could you re-word that for us simpletons?

The question is, "What makes an act good?" Random example, using two people named Deo and Connie. (Not all Deontologists and Consequentialists would agree with these two people: they're just examples in an attempt to show the different ways of thinking.)

Deo says that torture is always evil. Deo says that thieves should always be punished regardless of the consequences.

Connie says that torture can be good if it saves lives. Connie says that a thief should be shown mercy if putting him in jail would cause his family to starve.

Ah.

Xal was nither. He tended to be rather someone who's view shifted depending on whatever reason he could justify his actions to others. Which generally led to him being up to do a lot of things, and not feel morally or inherently evil or good. As long as he could justify the reasons for his actions to others, it mattered little the real reasons. In his mind, he did it because he could, and never thought about if it was evil or good.

Calin on the other hand was certainly a consquentialist. He'd justify his actions based on the outcome. Which worked well in his serving of the Red Knight. As the tactically sound outcome was the outcome that got the best results, which to him was those that produced a good outcome. Though extreme lose of life certainly something to be wept about, if it produced the best outcome, it was the right choice.

Kroann is just an ass. Pure and simple. There is no moral or inherent reason behind his actions. He doesn't think about them. He just does them cause they need doing, or because he wants to. His belief in the gods is almost purely based on what others tell him. Which to him means he leans to whatever his other brothers lean to. Though he's never ever going to be a fanatic.

maughter wrote:

to which box does 'end justifies means' belong?

Consquentialist. You can justify your actions morally, by the outcome of said actions.

(Sorry for the double post)

Dwagin wrote:

What if our characters abide by neither of these things? I guess you did only say good main characters.

I wrote this for you:

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Of course if you're not concerned with doing what is right, the question of "What makes an action right?" isn't very important to you.

I read an excellent quotation a while ago. I can't find it at the moment, but it goes along the lines of: "In fiction darkness and evil is interesting and provocative, while good is boring and bland. And in the real world it's just the opposite."

Um... torin is Chaotic Good.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Dwagin wrote:

What if our characters abide by neither of these things? I guess you did only say good main characters.

I wrote this for you: ;)

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Of course if you're not concerned with doing what is right, the question of "What makes an action right?" isn't very important to you.

I read an excellent quotation a while ago. I can't find it at the moment, but it goes along the lines of: "In fiction darkness and evil is interesting and provocative, while good is boring and bland. And in the real world it's just the opposite."

"Those who fear the dark haven't seen what the light can do"

A fashion designing pirate who is just straight enough to not be gay... on most occasions.

Both my mains would say that they follow deontological ethics, but in truth their moral stances are fully justified by premises from consequentialism; they just give an insane amount of weight to long-term consequences when they jugde the moral validity of an action. (and I would argue that this distinction holds true not just for my characters but for all who would claim to subscribe to deontological ethics).

Last edited by Galenson on Fri, Jun 12 2009, 9:15 AM, edited 1 time in total.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Heh, I enjoyed your IC post about Jack beating the crap out of wounded people during the evacuation of the Salandran Temple. It was so random.

It was actually beating up the family members of wounded people coz they complained too much and pulled a knife on him

I wasn't in a sober state of mind when I posted that either, I must have watched a show on the tele and thought "hey wow that's a cool thought."

Never post when drunk people.

Oops, time has dimmed my memory of the details. Either way, I enjoyed it!

Kjetta wrote:

Both my mains would say that they follow deontological ethics, but in truth their moral stances are fully justified by premises from consequentialism; they just give an insane amount of weight to long-term consequences when they jugde the moral validity of an action. (and I would argue that this distinction holds true not just for my characters but for all who would claim to subscribe to deontological ethics).

Indeed true. The deontologist point view is in the eye of the beholder I would argue. I would think most of them feel that their actions -do- have positive outcomes. It's more of a... I dunno... it's a stance you would place on yourself or someone else if what they do doesn't agree to the general consensus of a "happy ending", if you will. Willow would fall under that category. She feels she's doing the right thing, though it may not be seen as such by the general public. But that usually is the case with Druids

. Although there are certain things she feels need to be done that she's not necessarily very happy about doing. Moral absolutism is a better term to use for people like that. Unbending people who feel they're doing the right thing even if most feel they're wrong.

Kjetta wrote:

Both my mains would say that they follow deontological ethics, but in truth their moral stances are fully justified by premises from consequentialism; they just give an insane amount of weight to long-term consequences when they jugde the moral validity of an action. (and I would argue that this distinction holds true not just for my characters but for all who would claim to subscribe to deontological ethics).

I was about to say exactly this last night, but I figured few people would read my post even as is, and making it longer would scare even more of them.

I seriously doubt many, if any, purely deontological people exist. There are many who claim to adhere to duty and do the inherently right thing without regard for consequences, but they misunderstand or overestimate themselves. You can see it in this topic, too: not one of the example characters labelled deontological are really that in the actual sense of the word.

Kant phrased the categorical imperative in a very clear and simple manner. (OK, clear compared to many other theories of ethics.) I doubt anyone can sincerely say they represent the free-willed moral agent he sketches in Critique of Practical Reason. Well, I doubt anyone here even subscribes to the definition of free will he introduces in Groundwork. It's very abstract, which makes for fun reading and thinking about it, but not for an authentic and viable explanation of human morality.

IronAngel wrote:

I seriously doubt many, if any, purely deontological people exist.

I'm fairly sure that nearly all real people fall between the two platonic ideals. There are some acts that most people would never commit. (Like in those, "would you do (tasteless and horrible thing) if aliens would destroy the world if you didn't?" questions.)

But saying, "Which camp are you closest to?" remains a valid question, in my opinion. Note that the poll is whether you are more of a deontologist or more of a consequentialist, not whether you are the living ideal of either.

What is your main character?

Who is online