Atton Rand & miscellaneous names (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
suitably_heroic) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2023-09-12 08:26 am
suitably_heroic) wrote in fandomhigh2023-09-12 08:26 am
Entry tags:
Philosophies of Good and Evil, Tuesday
"Welcome back, everybody," Lana said. "Now that we've gotten the pesky good-and-evil thing out in the open, we can talk a bit about what it means and how you might approach it. For one thing, not every philosophy does deal in good and evil. And those that do, often distinguish as some of you did, between the good a person is and the good they do.
"There's an Earth philosophy called Virtue ethics that says that what a person is, is most important. It also lists out a number of moral virtues that it declares are absolute. I'm partial to the one that sees knowledge as the only virtue, but honestly that's a bit simplistic. Generally, there is a list of virtues, and they fall in a median state between two extremes. For instance, between rashness and cowardice is courage."
She shrugged. "So, according to this, you should strive to act in a way that falls in line with these particular virtues, and that involves both reasoning through them, and knowing intrinsically what's right. It goes without saying that everybody thinks the same thing is right," she added wryly. That was definitely the case, right?
"Other approaches argue that an event or a deed can be good or evil regardless of the person behind it. That what a person is, is irrelevant in the face of what they do. What their effect on the world was. An act is good or evil based on its outcome, not the intent causing it. And again, naturally that outcome is something universally recognized as good or evil." They'd probably get to those assumptions later.
"So, is killing one person wrong? What if that person is a murderer? What if they are genocidal? What if causing genocide saves the lives of others? Does it depend upon the people you're killing, or the people you're saving? Is it a purely mathematical calculation?"
“Or as they like to say, killing one person’s self defense, killing a million is statistics, and anything in between is probably murder,” Atton said merrily. Sort of. In as much as one could seem merry, leaning back in a seat, feet on the desk, looking bored. “Last week, you guys talked a big game about intent, and then walked it back a little when questioned. I heard the phrase ‘someone might think they’re doing good, but actually they’re misguided’ more than once, which seems like a lot.”
He sat up. “Here’s the thing, though: who decides what ‘misguided’ is?” he said. “If you’re Aristotle, of virtue ethics fame, it seems pretty easy. Are you acting from some intrinsic wisdom and courage? Then you’re probably all right. If you’re acting out of cowardice, mm, you’re probably evil. Except ol’ Aristotle probably had some ideas about what wisdom means that don’t fit what the next girl thinks. So suddenly it’s his word against hers.”
He tossed Lana a casual look. “Today, we’re going to lead you through a purely hypothetical exercise,” he said, sarcasm in his voice. “Four scenarios. Evil or good? That’s your call.”
"There's an Earth philosophy called Virtue ethics that says that what a person is, is most important. It also lists out a number of moral virtues that it declares are absolute. I'm partial to the one that sees knowledge as the only virtue, but honestly that's a bit simplistic. Generally, there is a list of virtues, and they fall in a median state between two extremes. For instance, between rashness and cowardice is courage."
She shrugged. "So, according to this, you should strive to act in a way that falls in line with these particular virtues, and that involves both reasoning through them, and knowing intrinsically what's right. It goes without saying that everybody thinks the same thing is right," she added wryly. That was definitely the case, right?
"Other approaches argue that an event or a deed can be good or evil regardless of the person behind it. That what a person is, is irrelevant in the face of what they do. What their effect on the world was. An act is good or evil based on its outcome, not the intent causing it. And again, naturally that outcome is something universally recognized as good or evil." They'd probably get to those assumptions later.
"So, is killing one person wrong? What if that person is a murderer? What if they are genocidal? What if causing genocide saves the lives of others? Does it depend upon the people you're killing, or the people you're saving? Is it a purely mathematical calculation?"
“Or as they like to say, killing one person’s self defense, killing a million is statistics, and anything in between is probably murder,” Atton said merrily. Sort of. In as much as one could seem merry, leaning back in a seat, feet on the desk, looking bored. “Last week, you guys talked a big game about intent, and then walked it back a little when questioned. I heard the phrase ‘someone might think they’re doing good, but actually they’re misguided’ more than once, which seems like a lot.”
He sat up. “Here’s the thing, though: who decides what ‘misguided’ is?” he said. “If you’re Aristotle, of virtue ethics fame, it seems pretty easy. Are you acting from some intrinsic wisdom and courage? Then you’re probably all right. If you’re acting out of cowardice, mm, you’re probably evil. Except ol’ Aristotle probably had some ideas about what wisdom means that don’t fit what the next girl thinks. So suddenly it’s his word against hers.”
He tossed Lana a casual look. “Today, we’re going to lead you through a purely hypothetical exercise,” he said, sarcasm in his voice. “Four scenarios. Evil or good? That’s your call.”
Page 1 of 3