| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Divinity
Seeker
USA
53 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Dec 2020 : 17:58:16
|
If this has been talked about, can someone point me to where I can find it?
I'm curious about the general, overall feeling that most people (NPCs) in the Realms would have towards eating intelligent creatures, like worgs, winter wolves, manticores, sphinxes, and other magical beasts - things that are generally intelligent enough to speak.
I read where THO, mentioned that Ed had previously written an unpublished article called "Dragon Soup" which was about recipes that used monsters for food for adventurers, but it was killed because the Dragon editor had moral qualms about eating intelligent creatures. So I assume it at least included some of the types of creatures I'd be curious about.
If there are other articles talking about this, or someone has information regarding it, I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say. Thanks!
|
- Craig Vincent
My Faerūn Continent Map |
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2020 : 18:17:18
|
| The way we humans view eating others is based on empathy and objectification. This is why some people happily eat meat that is a chop packed in styrofoam and plastic, but wouldn't feel alright killing it themselves. Basically it's not the intelligence that stops us from eating other creatures. It's the killing. If we can distance ourselves from the killing, like have someone else kill the animal and prepare the meat, it is a lot easier for us humans to cook and eat it. I don't think anyone would disagree that all animals are intelligent, no matter if we understand their language or not. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
 |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2020 : 21:05:03
|
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
Hungry humans are quite capable of killing anything and eating anything if there's nothing else to eat. Those humans capable of surviving, anyhow. The rest will either waste away or will themselves become food for "intelligent" monsters like orcs and trolls and worgs and dragons.
I suppose it's much like elves viewing living trees as sacred things, killing trees as defiling nature, wooden structures as akin to mausoleums ... yet they will still use wooden furniture, wooden tool handles, wooden bows, wooden harps, etc ... as long as they don't have to personally involve themselves in the process of killing. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2020 : 22:33:27
|
There's also the angle of how someone perceives themselves, as compared to the intelligent critter on the menu. Sticking with just fantasy settings, some dragons like hanging out with humans, to the point of getting horizontal with them -- while others don't have an issue eating a couple elves as a midnight snack.
And even with similar levels of regard, there's also cultural aspects to consider -- in some cultures, it's considered a good thing to kill an enemy and then eat at least part of them. Maybe it shows your dominance, maybe it honors them by taking their strength into you.
There's also extenuating circumstances to consider. Even regular folks who would never otherwise dream of it may turn to cannibalism -- or, in fantasy settings, eating intelligent creatures of other types -- if there is no other food available and that other person/critter is the only thing between them and starvation.
In short, this question can be answered the same way so many others are: it depends. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 04 Dec 2020 22:34:39 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 08:08:12
|
Acolyte Divinity,
quote:
I'm curious about the general, overall feeling that most people (NPCs) in the Realms would have towards eating intelligent creatures, like worgs, winter wolves, manticores, sphinxes, and other magical beasts - things that are generally intelligent enough to speak.
I find this to be a very interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up! I also want to say: anything I say is not supporting or detracting from any one perspective. I am merely discussing it through the lens of different ethics. That is all.
In my view, the Forgotten Realms woefully tackles ethics. It appears to me on average to contend with ethics in a univariate way of generalizing an Epicurean perspective on Utilitarianism. Sadly, at its most micro level. The few people "doing the right thing", though their actions may be horrifically bad on a grander scale.
Regarding animals therefore, I think it would be an after thought. The animals/intelligent creatures/monsters, etc., would be a means to an end, or an instrumental moral value, as Max Weber would put it.
However, if you really dug into it, I believe, you would find that the different societies, religions, etc., all of which are cultures in one manner or another, would have a different approach to it. Imagine Malar the Beastlords clergy. They are believers of instrumental morality, in the most Cyrenaically hedonistic manner possible. However, if that perpetuation of Cyrenaic hedonism went unchecked, and the satisfaction of said Malar clergy came to an end, what would that mean? I argue, it would mean that the instrumental moral goodness (within the framework of their deities ethos and dogma) would be undone by the unchecked, and lacking in foresight, hedonistic state of their ethic.
So, I think the answer really is: who are you asking, in the Realms? Malar clergy, Tuigan nomads, the middle class shopkeepers of Halruaa, etc.?
quote:
I read where THO, mentioned that Ed had previously written an unpublished article called "Dragon Soup" which was about recipes that used monsters for food for adventurers, but it was killed because the Dragon editor had moral qualms about eating intelligent creatures. So I assume it at least included some of the types of creatures I'd be curious about.
This is a perfect example of what I was mentioning. The personal ethic of the editor informed what would and would not be published. Was the editor correct? Well, ask people that agree with or disagree with his ethic.
Ethics are the framework by which we define and inform our morality/moral code. It's why politics are always so fun, and exciting. haha
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 11:36:49
|
I once had a player in a campaign playing a young Ogre (Savage Species). He spent about half of his starting money on food - bread, cheese, a few cages with live chickens that he lugged around. He also took to cutting up every corporeal monster they killed and later fashioned them into a stew, soup or barbeque to "try new things" as he put it. He was very kind and caring and always asked the other PCs if they wanted to try some of his food. It led to some nice roleplaying and a lot of funny interaction for me as a DM when I had to describe the flavour and texture of different things.
It's a shame he never lived to grow into an adult Ogre, take the monkey grip feat and arm himself with a ballista... |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 05 Dec 2020 11:37:43 |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 18:00:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I find this to be a very interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up! I also want to say: anything I say is not supporting or detracting from any one perspective. I am merely discussing it through the lens of different ethics. That is all.
In my view, the Forgotten Realms woefully tackles ethics. It appears to me on average to contend with ethics in a univariate way of generalizing an Epicurean perspective on Utilitarianism. Sadly, at its most micro level. The few people "doing the right thing", though their actions may be horrifically bad on a grander scale.
Regarding animals therefore, I think it would be an after thought. The animals/intelligent creatures/monsters, etc., would be a means to an end, or an instrumental moral value, as Max Weber would put it.
However, if you really dug into it, I believe, you would find that the different societies, religions, etc., all of which are cultures in one manner or another, would have a different approach to it. Imagine Malar the Beastlords clergy. They are believers of instrumental morality, in the most Cyrenaically hedonistic manner possible. However, if that perpetuation of Cyrenaic hedonism went unchecked, and the satisfaction of said Malar clergy came to an end, what would that mean? I argue, it would mean that the instrumental moral goodness (within the framework of their deities ethos and dogma) would be undone by the unchecked, and lacking in foresight, hedonistic state of their ethic.
Is any of this in English? |
. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 18:34:00
|
Acolyte Returnip,
That is awesome. I had a druid that I had kind of doing the same thing. I had him with an "allergy" to magic though, that had his on a path to discover what magics he could and could not use for fear of it killing him, potentially.
So, he was cautious with his use of magic, and felt that it had to do with him needing to be more at one with nature, so he could have insight into the right magics he could safely used. Therefore, he went around consuming all of nature he could, within reason, to try to intrinsically understand it.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11692 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 18:38:26
|
Its kind of ironic... I'm literally exploring this topic right now with some of the stuff I'm writing up for Anchorome. I'm creating a bunch of races that aren't the "normal" thing we think of for play, but they're also not that "way out in the wind" either. Others have given you the basic answer... it depends... and "whose morals are we talking about"... but ultimately few pieces of D&D actually discuss this idea (we do see some of it with gnolls of recent, etc...)
So, the races I'm talking about including are like a spur race of verbeeg... and I see them as willing to kill and eat "deer centaurs" and "moose/deer head folk" and "bigfoots"/Alaghi, but preferring not to unless times are lean. However, if they killed say a kercpa... they would consider it just like killing a squirrel and wouldn't think two seconds about eating it. Meanwhile, the deer centaurs... they're omnivores with human torsos and thus eat what they kill, if its not humanoid... but the "moose/deer head folk"/shatjan are herbivores and won't eat meat at all. Of the kercpa/squirrelfolk, they're mostly herbivorous, but will eat insects, etc... but they'll have a "twisted by shadow" subrace called skiurid that create "lifeforce pellets" from living beings that they must consume to survive. There will be certain bearfolk races that act one way, but other bearfolk societies may act another way... and its entirely cultural, and not racial. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2020 : 18:57:39
|
Seeker Tasker Daze,
quote:
Is any of this in English?
Yeah, I'll give it a shot! :)
quote:
In my view, the Forgotten Realms woefully tackles ethics. It appears to me on average to contend with ethics in a univariate way of generalizing an Epicurean perspective on Utilitarianism. Sadly, at its most micro level. The few people "doing the right thing", though their actions may be horrifically bad on a grander scale.
There are different kinds of ethics. Think of ethics as the framework that informs our decision making process for making "moral" decisions. The reason that conflict so regularly exists between beings is because they have a different method by which they derive their perception of moral behavior.
There is an ethic called hedonism. Many people are colloquially familiar with it as "do whatever you like that is pleasurable." In Cyrenaic Hedonism, that is kind of close.
A Greek named Aristippus created the ethic of Hedonism. He was from a place called Cyrene. Anyhow, the idea is to pursue immediate satisfaction, or pleasure. Pleasure should always exceed pain, by a great degree, is what is believed.
Epicurean Hedonism however adds to that by saying that there should be some degree of virtue associated with the hedonistic outlook. Otherwise, someone's pleasure, being someone else's pain, could very well achieve the opposite intent of hedonism.
Utilitarianism as an ethic is the idea that a person should pursue actions that maximize the greatest positive effect. It doesn't necessarily concern itself with the notion that what happens between points A and B are of consequence, as long as upon arriving at point B, the best, most positive outcome is assured. Think of it as a guy delivering blood to a hospital causes (3) accidents that kills (2) people. However, the delivery of the blood, on time saved (10) lives. The net (8) lives saved, ends up being better in the end, and it is deemed that the speed of the driver that caused the said (3) accidents was a necessary and acceptable outcome due to the net lives saved.
Some may take umbrage with the lost lives and determine that the choice of the driver leading to the deaths in the accident was immoral. However, that is likely because they do not share a Utilitarian ethic.
So, now, getting back to my earlier stated belief about an Epicurean perspective on Utilitarianism, it appears to me that the writers/authors of the Realms apply a generalized and sort of "fancy-free" approach to ethics. It is super narrowly focused on the adventure itself, regardless (I am speaking with broadness here as not all novels/accessories are like this of course) of the broader outcomes. So, it is a somewhat virtue-laden set of actions that the adventurers in these books undertake in order to maximize the pleasure (safety, well being, etc.) of whoever they are helping, and doing so in a manner that seeks to achieve the greatest good, regardless of the consequences between points A and B. The irony not being insignificant here. It is not uncommon at all to imagine the outcomes of adventurers looking to "help" someone or something, making things vastly worst. However, those issues are rarely tackled.
One of the interesting things to come from WotC recently in their endeavors to address equity issues in their discussions surrounding races, i.e. Drow, and alignment, i.e. Drow are evil almost always, is that it necessarily breaks down the wall of absolute alignment (as it should be) and looks at the notion that it is ethics that lead to moral/immoral decisions/actions.
quote:
However, if you really dug into it, I believe, you would find that the different societies, religions, etc., all of which are cultures in one manner or another, would have a different approach to it. Imagine Malar the Beastlords clergy. They are believers of instrumental morality, in the most Cyrenaically hedonistic manner possible. However, if that perpetuation of Cyrenaic hedonism went unchecked, and the satisfaction of said Malar clergy came to an end, what would that mean? I argue, it would mean that the instrumental moral goodness (within the framework of their deities ethos and dogma) would be undone by the unchecked, and lacking in foresight, hedonistic state of their ethic.
As to this point, Malar followers/clergy are focused on the bestial, savage hunt. They find it pleasurable, and that it maximizes their positive outcomes by bringing about slaughter in the name of the Beastlord. So, we can see that what they find to be moral, is at odds with what others find to be moral. The difference isn't really absolute good vs. evil. It's a choice. The ethical framework, i.e. the dogma and ethos, of Malar is what informs his followers as to what is good or evil. Interestingly enough, Malarites are not suppose to kill the pregnant or young. Something I am sure most people agree with them on and deem to be a "good" idea. However, the rest of Malar's dogma/ethos is not good. Sort of a conundrum, from certain ethical points of consideration.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Divinity
Seeker
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 19:10:48
|
Alright, so it seems it totally depends on the context. I'll give more context.
Let's say that war and regional battles have left an area of Cormyr in a famine. Fields have been trampled and destroyed and men to work the fields are in short supply. With winter coming and food already scarce, adventurers are turning to hunting monsters and less common food supplies for more ways to provide food. So there is a threat of food shortage which, in theory, would drive people to be less picky. However, they're city-dwelling folk who may not otherwise be used to unusual feasts like that.
I suppose as long as the answer isn't "They wouldn't eat that ever", a famine is a good reason to accept that people will need to eat what's provided or starve. |
- Craig Vincent
My Faerūn Continent Map |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 19:32:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Divinity
Alright, so it seems it totally depends on the context. I'll give more context.
Let's say that war and regional battles have left an area of Cormyr in a famine. Fields have been trampled and destroyed and men to work the fields are in short supply. With winter coming and food already scarce, adventurers are turning to hunting monsters and less common food supplies for more ways to provide food. So there is a threat of food shortage which, in theory, would drive people to be less picky. However, they're city-dwelling folk who may not otherwise be used to unusual feasts like that.
I suppose as long as the answer isn't "They wouldn't eat that ever", a famine is a good reason to accept that people will need to eat what's provided or starve.
You're spot on. Famine is famine. People can't afford to be picky and they learn that quickly under such circumstances, or they die.
I would like to add, however, that if the food is running out, and especially the veggies and grains, then animals migrate. So there will be fewer monsters to hunt. This is because of the food chain, and if there's no vegetables and grains there is no food for the plant eaters which are the main course of the carnivores. What happens in countries struck by severe food shortage is people figure out other things to eat. In some parts of africa they make bread from flies. In Scandinavia there were huge problems with the harvests in 1867 which resulted in famine. That in turn led to people emigrating to the USA. What people did here in Scandinavia to try and survive was to mix ground down tree bark into the flour and make what's called "bark bread".
Historically what made the population boom up here was when people started to till the soil and grow crops. Before that a lot fewer people could be sustained by a given area of land. Hunting has never been a good way to combat famine. It's just not sustainable. So if you want to work famine into your game I recommend coming up with other stuff that people can eat to fill their bellies, and more than anything else, migration. Huge amounts of people, starving, walking with their possessions, to what they hope is a land where there is food. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 21:01:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Divinity
Alright, so it seems it totally depends on the context. I'll give more context.
Let's say that war and regional battles have left an area of Cormyr in a famine. Fields have been trampled and destroyed and men to work the fields are in short supply. With winter coming and food already scarce, adventurers are turning to hunting monsters and less common food supplies for more ways to provide food. So there is a threat of food shortage which, in theory, would drive people to be less picky. However, they're city-dwelling folk who may not otherwise be used to unusual feasts like that.
I suppose as long as the answer isn't "They wouldn't eat that ever", a famine is a good reason to accept that people will need to eat what's provided or starve.
Another point to think about is that the Church of Chauntea would see that as an emergency situation and would show up in force to help mitigate the damage and famine. There was very bad flooding along the Chionthar in 491 (actually, there were VERY heavy rains possibly all over the place that entire year so there was very likely flooding elsewhere-- Lands of Intrigue: Book 2 page 21) that destroyed crops and killed livestock. The Chaunteans showed up to help and that is why there is a temple to Chauntea in Iriaebor. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Archmage of Nowhere
Seeker
USA
64 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 21:09:09
|
Interestingly enough the types of creatures typically ok with eating anything or are opportunistic are associated with nature, and that behavior just a function of survival. However most things that enjoy the flesh of sentient creatures are associated with an evil rather than anything natural, even if those tastes are naturally occurring. Even though different cultures in the realms have different views, I definitely feel they have set an evil undertone or shorthand if the people in question enjoy the flesh of sentient creatures rather than partake strictly for utilitarian needs established by the worlds biology. Ogres, trolls, dragons, goblins, orcs, etc all come to mind as those who enjoy or may go out of their way to eat sentient creatures where as I have trouble of thinking of a single good aligned creature that will go out of its way to eat any sentient being.
Now how that effects the behavior of the individual NPC sort of stems from context as has been said earlier posts. In the specific example given in Cormyr I would expect the people to be hurt by the act and express it in one of two ways.
Willful Ignorance generally the people know where the food is coming from but dont talk about it, dont ask questions and generally keep it as far from their minds as possible. They may even manage to convince themselves that no such thing is happening. Such places would be business as usual in a war stricken country in the midst of a famine, until the subject is brought up.
Hostile and Defensive They may be in a state of constant frustration, agitation, or defensive in general due to the mental stress of it. They are acting out because in their minds are trying to reconcile their acts with their beliefs. Cormyrs culture is associated with the qualities of good, eating a sentient creature is at its best neutral and its most common within the evil sphere of things in the setting. So it would be common to see the symptoms of that stress manifest often as agitated or erratic behavior even if the stress is coming from subconscious beliefs.
I guess there could be a third, complete indifference, but I would reserve that for characters who are so low on the social totem pole given the context as they dont care at all about Cormyr culture or beliefs and are totally focused on survival.
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 22:09:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
Interestingly enough the types of creatures typically ok with eating anything or are opportunistic are associated with nature, and that behavior just a function of survival. However most things that enjoy the flesh of sentient creatures are associated with an evil rather than anything natural ...
Dragons eat people. Even good-aligned metallics aren't above gobbling up annoyances who dare invade their lairs, although they might restrict their diet to "evil" people.
Giants eat people. Giants have always eaten people. And they're always hungry.
Drow sometimes eat people. Apparently they consider halflings a particular delicacy.
I suspect "cannibalism" of sentients might sometimes serve cultural, religious, spiritual, or magical meanings which aren't intrinsically evil. Consuming the flesh (blood, brain, heart or other organ) of a worthy opponent to steal his attributes. Consuming the flesh of ancestors or elders or heroes to achieve continuity, to commune with them, to perhaps borrow their strength and wisdom in times of need. Consuming the flesh of a fallen enemy as a gesture of respect or as a gesture of disdain. All sorts of reasons which don't involve nutrition and which don't involve evil. And then there's all sorts of predators (like vampires) who have no choice but to consume living people to sustain themselves, sometimes they have tragically evil origins yet they refuse to submit themselves to becoming evil. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 10 Dec 2020 22:11:02 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 03:05:59
|
Acolyte Divinity,
Good evening to you good sir! :)
quote:
Alright, so it seems it totally depends on the context. I'll give more context.
Let's say that war and regional battles have left an area of Cormyr in a famine. Fields have been trampled and destroyed and men to work the fields are in short supply. With winter coming and food already scarce, adventurers are turning to hunting monsters and less common food supplies for more ways to provide food. So there is a threat of food shortage which, in theory, would drive people to be less picky. However, they're city-dwelling folk who may not otherwise be used to unusual feasts like that.
I suppose as long as the answer isn't "They wouldn't eat that ever", a famine is a good reason to accept that people will need to eat what's provided or starve.
The answer is certainly yes that they would. Hunger is a motivating factor, especially where children are concerned. Food chains though as mentioned by other scribes herein are the reality of things. If an element of the chain is running short or gets destroyed, it quickly destroys the others.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 03:09:24
|
Senior Scribe TheIriaeban,
quote:
Another point to think about is that the Church of Chauntea would see that as an emergency situation and would show up in force to help mitigate the damage and famine.
That is likely true, but not in a vacuum. I would imagine that the clergy of Silvanus, Malar, and perhaps even Eldath, may have something to say about that. Famine is a normal process of eradicating excess, and to bring balance back to things. Those Chauntean's may be running to the rescue, only to find a scythe on their necks, or a Malarites claws in their bellies.
As I close, I realize as well that followers of Talona would likely even push for such a famine to reach fruition. It brings plague and disease with it.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 15:28:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Senior Scribe TheIriaeban,
quote:
Another point to think about is that the Church of Chauntea would see that as an emergency situation and would show up in force to help mitigate the damage and famine.
That is likely true, but not in a vacuum. I would imagine that the clergy of Silvanus, Malar, and perhaps even Eldath, may have something to say about that. Famine is a normal process of eradicating excess, and to bring balance back to things. Those Chauntean's may be running to the rescue, only to find a scythe on their necks, or a Malarites claws in their bellies.
As I close, I realize as well that followers of Talona would likely even push for such a famine to reach fruition. It brings plague and disease with it.
Best regards,
The given cause of the famine was war and not a result of a natural process so Silvanus would very likely not hinder the Chaunteans. He may even assist so that the people of the area don't wipe out all the animals there just to get something to eat. Malar might but there isn't much glory in killing rabbits so that is kinda iffy in my mind. Talona MIGHT interfere so that people pray to her more to end it but famine isn't directly part of her portfolio so I am not really sure.
Another thought occurred to me is that Tempuran forces may show up if the fields were destroyed intentionally. That is needless destruction and he doesn't like that. It is also possible that they would show up to protect the Chaunteans while they try to get the area back to normal since it was war that caused the damage. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 17:53:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Senior Scribe TheIriaeban,
quote:
Another point to think about is that the Church of Chauntea would see that as an emergency situation and would show up in force to help mitigate the damage and famine.
That is likely true, but not in a vacuum. I would imagine that the clergy of Silvanus, Malar, and perhaps even Eldath, may have something to say about that. Famine is a normal process of eradicating excess, and to bring balance back to things. Those Chauntean's may be running to the rescue, only to find a scythe on their necks, or a Malarites claws in their bellies.
As I close, I realize as well that followers of Talona would likely even push for such a famine to reach fruition. It brings plague and disease with it.
Best regards,
The given cause of the famine was war and not a result of a natural process so Silvanus would very likely not hinder the Chaunteans. He may even assist so that the people of the area don't wipe out all the animals there just to get something to eat. Malar might but there isn't much glory in killing rabbits so that is kinda iffy in my mind. Talona MIGHT interfere so that people pray to her more to end it but famine isn't directly part of her portfolio so I am not really sure.
Another thought occurred to me is that Tempuran forces may show up if the fields were destroyed intentionally. That is needless destruction and he doesn't like that. It is also possible that they would show up to protect the Chaunteans while they try to get the area back to normal since it was war that caused the damage.
Druids of Silvanus and others may show up to teach people about other things growing in the forest that you can eat, like roots, wild cabbage, herbs and so on, to help them find food while still existing in harmony with nature (in extension this is to prevent the starving people from overhunting and such things, but the druids doesn't have to say that outright). Just a thought. 
EDIT: I'd still like to push for working with the catastrophic effects of famine to create a unique setting however. When the crops fail, herbivores migrate, the carnivores will follow them be they intelligent or not. When famine strikes people lose energy because of lack of food. That means hunting and killing is a lot harder if not impossible. The only realistic way of hunting of the few animals that may still be around is trapping. And intelligent creatures are much less likely to step in a trap, which is something we see a lot in the real world.
If you want to build an atmosphere around it I would recommend considering the following things. People who starve migrate in the hopes of finding new land that can feed them. In this process they have to leave their old and weak behind, and they're likely to lose more people on the way. Those lost during the journey are buried beside the road if at all, or just left there on the road side to fend for themselves. Large amounts of people traveling together means diseases run rampant. If it's cold people are also more likely to freeze to death. And so on and so forth. This is what happens even when the famine is the result of war. The people who migrate are not only on the run from famine. They're also on the run from war.
This can be a great setting to make the players feel hopelessness, terror, sadness and all sorts of feelings if you play your cards right. A sort of reality horror.
Good luck. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 11 Dec 2020 19:02:11 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 23:23:13
|
Senior Scribe TheIriaeban,
quote:
The given cause of the famine was war and not a result of a natural process so Silvanus would very likely not hinder the Chaunteans.
I am going to respectfully disagree here, as quote:
The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be. Like Wilson, Pinker believes that evolutionary forces have shaped human nature into a complex amalgam of the bestial and heroic, the compassionate and pitiless. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/edward-o-wilsons-new-take-on-human-nature-160810520/)
So, even if you take Dr. Pinker or Dr. Wilson's view that government, and other entities/organizations can help tame the natural impulses of war in us, the Forgotten Realms is not at that state as described in the article presented above. Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that war is in fact, natural.
quote:
He may even assist so that the people of the area don't wipe out all the animals there just to get something to eat.
Look at the work of the Emerald Enclave, who I argue, have done impossibly horrible things in the name of maintaining the balance. It is in canon lore that the Enclave members receive their spells from Silvanus (at least those that worship Silvanus), even when doing things that others may consider evil, but the ethos/dogma/moral code of Silvanus followers does not view it as evil. So, I could totally see Enclave members, as well as others, coming in to support the prevention of assistance of those clergy of Chauntea, in order to hold up the natural consequences of war. I argue that war is the natural clean up of overabundance in population, to bring things back into balance.
quote:
Malar might but there isn't much glory in killing rabbits so that is kinda iffy in my mind.
What better a way to help bring along nature's glory for Malar, than to have his followers massacre/slaughter the remnants of the military, as well as those helping to set the countryside back to its formally "civilized" place? Malar wants the jungle, the wild kingdom, and he wants his followers to rule it with horrid, rampant, unbridled but natural violence. I think his followers would be all over that like white on rice.
quote:
Talona MIGHT interfere so that people pray to her more to end it but famine isn't directly part of her portfolio so I am not really sure.
When bodies decompose, rot, and become infected, those bodies become the vessels of pestilence. It even says in here entry in the Faiths and Pantheons book, page 107, that, quote:
Festivals are held every 12 days and are open to nondevotees, where such visitors are encouraged to pray and give offerings to Talona to spare themselves or loved ones from death, disease, wasting, illnesses, and the like.
It seems there is a very good reason for Talona and her followers to be involved in that kind of a situation.
quote:
Another thought occurred to me is that Tempuran forces may show up if the fields were destroyed intentionally. That is needless destruction and he doesn't like that.
Again, I am going to respectfully disagree here. War is not needless to the god of destruction, and the muddied soil of the battlefield is certainly no needless destruction. The ground regrows. Perfectly normal.
quote:
It is also possible that they would show up to protect the Chaunteans while they try to get the area back to normal since it was war that caused the damage.
The God of War makes no excuses for the needful damage from war. I think Tempus would be ambivalent to the damage, it being needful, and let the Chaunteans do what they do.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 14:20:58
|
I had to giggle. "Tempuran" takes on a different meaning in a thread about food.
By the way, there's a comedic manga (i.e., Japanese comic) that deals with dungeon-delving adventurers killing, cooking and eating all manner of fantastic beings (some of which are mainstays of the fantasy genre): Delicious in Dungeon. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2020 : 22:04:32
|
Learned Scribe Azar,
That is pretty good. I didn't even think about it in the food sense of it. haha
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2020 : 12:09:25
|
I think it mostly will come down to how people regard the creature in question. Here in the West, we don't eat dogs and cats. We see them as part of our families and doing so is a cultural taboo. In other areas of the world they are dinner.
So, might an adventurer eat sphinx meat? I think some would because they haven't internalized the idea that it's a 'person' or otherwise taboo to consume. Still others would ask what the hell they're doing eating from a being that had higher thoughts and emotions.
And since we're on the topic, here's an interesting video: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=123847119402509 |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 07:10:33
|
Master Arcanamach,
quote:
I think it mostly will come down to how people regard the creature in question. Still others would ask what the hell they're doing eating from a being that had higher thoughts and emotions.
True, and interestingly enough, I think that is the quintessential and colloquial reference to ethics. Why is it ethical, and thus moral, in one place to eat them, and in others not? Certain cultural beliefs, etc. are establishing a positive or negative norm.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 07:47:20
|
Learned Scribe Azar,
quote:
Ethics do not stem from morals?
Correct. Ethics do not stem from morals. Ethics are the structured system(s) that allow for the evaluation of actions, to be moral or immoral.
For example, consider a couple of ethical forms of consequentialism: Cyrenaic Hedonism and Utilitarianism. Both are consequentialist in nature; however, one is worried about immediate, maximum pleasure for the self, whereas the other is concerned with the greatest and best outcome for the most at once. Knowing those to be the "rules" if you will, allows you to evaluate any actions taken as moral or not. Hence people disagreeing so vociferously on things, and often not realizing it.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Storyteller Hero
Learned Scribe
USA
329 Posts |
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 17:41:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Learned Scribe Azar,
quote:
Ethics do not stem from morals?
Correct. Ethics do not stem from morals. Ethics are the structured system(s) that allow for the evaluation of actions, to be moral or immoral.
For example, consider a couple of ethical forms of consequentialism: Cyrenaic Hedonism and Utilitarianism. Both are consequentialist in nature; however, one is worried about immediate, maximum pleasure for the self, whereas the other is concerned with the greatest and best outcome for the most at once. Knowing those to be the "rules" if you will, allows you to evaluate any actions taken as moral or not. Hence people disagreeing so vociferously on things, and often not realizing it.
Best regards,
Hm, I'm sorry but I question that conclusion. The fact that morals are subjective is the reason why ethics are also subjective. So there is definitely a consequence of one fueling the other there. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 18:13:34
|
Learned Scribe Returnip,
A good morning to you sir! At least it is morning here in Washington State, haha.
quote:
Hm, I'm sorry but I question that conclusion. The fact that morals are subjective is the reason why ethics are also subjective. So there is definitely a consequence of one fueling the other there.
I can appreciate why you that is a view you hold, and I won't disagree that subjectivity is an aspect of morality. However, morality is a hybrid of sentiment and reason. Ethics are what bring reason to an otherwise a completely subjective set of evaluation of actions one may take or observe. As we grow as people, our experiences inform our opinions about things, and that commonly alters our views on issues over time. That being the whole notion of wisdom in a sense.
However, applying reason to a set of actions, we can start to draw patterns through consistency of action. Take Spock's famous line, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The idea is that on average, the greatest good is the greatest utility, which should be understood that the many should outweigh the few, as the likelihood of more good coming from many has a higher likelihood. That is until you observe a scenario such as with Stephen Hawking and wonder: if he were just left to his own devices if you will at a younger age, and his contributions never came to be, what is the proportionate impact upon society, from a utility perspective. So, effectively utility is not purely gauged upon numbers alone. However, that doesn't change the fact that if people made "moral" decisions, purely predicated upon the ethic of utilitarianism, that does not in fact make it subjective. It makes it very objective. The consistency of action means order, structure, etc. That is the very opposite of subjectivity.
Now, on the other hand, Kantian ethics (a deontological derivative) informs a person that there is no tolerable rationale to a "wrong." There is no acceptable situation in which a lie could be validated as right, would be an example. No matter the harm that would come.
So, a utilitarianist would argue that if the greatest good/greatest utility could be attained by lying, then lie your ass off. The Kantian would argue that lying under any circumstance, for any reason, would be a bad will, and therefore, there is no rationale for doing it.
There is no subjectivity there. That is objective. One could irrationally argue from one side of the fence that the other side is "immoral", but that is the very subjective ruling. Under what basis would such a claim be made? That answer is clear: that the "other" ethic, doesn't "morally" compare to the other, and thereby, using that ethic to evaluate actions as moral or immoral, would inherently produce a false outcome. However, that is by its nature a bifurcative outcome, when we can easily take other ethics, i.e. bio-ethics, Epicurean Hedonism, and more, and conduct the same test.
What I think makes people uncomfortable about the field of ethics, is that it quickly removes the notion of easily pairing down the options to one that more significantly elevates their chosen ethic to a great position of value. In essence, they feel better about their process of evaluating good, bad, etc. The reason that is important is because people use their choices to survive. So, the reason people get so angry when they get called out for making "bad", "immoral", "wrong" decisions, is because it effectively calls into question (if taken seriously) the decision making processes that people utilize, that necessarily inform them on making decisions that impact their lives.
That's my take on the issue. I'd love to hear your rebuttal! :)
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2020 : 19:22:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I can appreciate why you that is a view you hold, and I won't disagree that subjectivity is an aspect of morality. However, morality is a hybrid of sentiment and reason. Ethics are what bring reason to an otherwise a completely subjective set of evaluation of actions one may take or observe. As we grow as people, our experiences inform our opinions about things, and that commonly alters our views on issues over time. That being the whole notion of wisdom in a sense.
You're leaving out human emotion from the equation. People build their reason on emotion to a great extent, which means anything built on reason is also suffused by emotion. And "as we grow as people" is not enough to describe the phenomenon. "As we grow as cultures" is however starting to cover it. The reason is group thinking is always prevalent in all cultures. Sure there might be a few dissidents, but they're just the exception that confirms the rule. In the end humans strive to belong and as such the majority will force themselves to forego their own values and think like others to be allowed into a certain group.
quote:
However, applying reason to a set of actions, we can start to draw patterns through consistency of action. Take Spock's famous line, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
No. Do not take Spock. He's a pastiche on a completely logical being, used to present that which we as humans can never achieve (a machine like logic) to represent something alien.
quote:
The idea is that on average, the greatest good is the greatest utility, which should be understood that the many should outweigh the few, as the likelihood of more good coming from many has a higher likelihood.
Again, group think interferes with your interpretation here.
quote:
That is until you observe a scenario such as with Stephen Hawking and wonder: if he were just left to his own devices if you will at a younger age, and his contributions never came to be, what is the proportionate impact upon society, from a utility perspective. So, effectively utility is not purely gauged upon numbers alone.
Considering Hawking managed to produce one of his most important works before his diagnosed death (that he survived) I would say that's not the best example.
quote:
However, that doesn't change the fact that if people made "moral" decisions, purely predicated upon the ethic of utilitarianism, that does not in fact make it subjective. It makes it very objective. The consistency of action means order, structure, etc. That is the very opposite of subjectivity.
On the contrary, law and order being based on moral and ethics which in turn are based in emotion combined with group think means it's highly subjective. While ideally those things are based in pure logical reason that is never the case in modern society.
quote:
Now, on the other hand, Kantian ethics (a deontological derivative) informs a person that there is no tolerable rationale to a "wrong." There is no acceptable situation in which a lie could be validated as right, would be an example. No matter the harm that would come.
So, a utilitarianist would argue that if the greatest good/greatest utility could be attained by lying, then lie your ass off. The Kantian would argue that lying under any circumstance, for any reason, would be a bad will, and therefore, there is no rationale for doing it.
There is no subjectivity there. That is objective. One could irrationally argue from one side of the fence that the other side is "immoral", but that is the very subjective ruling. Under what basis would such a claim be made? That answer is clear: that the "other" ethic, doesn't "morally" compare to the other, and thereby, using that ethic to evaluate actions as moral or immoral, would inherently produce a false outcome. However, that is by its nature a bifurcative outcome, when we can easily take other ethics, i.e. bio-ethics, Epicurean Hedonism, and more, and conduct the same test.
What I think makes people uncomfortable about the field of ethics, is that it quickly removes the notion of easily pairing down the options to one that more significantly elevates their chosen ethic to a great position of value. In essence, they feel better about their process of evaluating good, bad, etc. The reason that is important is because people use their choices to survive. So, the reason people get so angry when they get called out for making "bad", "immoral", "wrong" decisions, is because it effectively calls into question (if taken seriously) the decision making processes that people utilize, that necessarily inform them on making decisions that impact their lives.
That's my take on the issue. I'd love to hear your rebuttal! :)
Best regards,
I'm not gonna quote everything you've written here, but my point is you're viewing these things as a natural science and humanities, devoid of the thing that makes us human. Instead view it as behavioural sciences and psychology and you'll see why it's all subjective. The fact that you can prove something scientifically just means you can get a majority of the results pointing in one direction. Not all of them. And humans are not binary as you well know.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the matter of compromise between all these subjectivities, which sometimes is allowed to serve as the basis for law, and sometimes not, depending on culture. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 19 Dec 2020 19:28:30 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2020 : 00:21:20
|
Learned Scribe Returnip,
As always, thank you for the quick and thoughtful reply! :)
quote:
You're leaving out human emotion from the equation.
I respectfully disagree. Sentiment includes the element of emotion. The very definition of the word sentiment includes, importantly so, emotion. So, from the onset of my argument, I necessarily and factually included it in my view of ethics and morality.
quote:
People build their reason on emotion to a great extent, which means anything built on reason is also suffused by emotion.
A bold statement for sure, good sir. The fact that you and I will likely cite different sources for this authority after great rigor in thought, I feel, only goes to show that this issue is far from being settled, and as well, demonstrates that the difference in thinking is the very affirmation that different ethics apply. We're discussing the epistemic quality of reason itself. I will bear no such confidence as to proclaim what reason is or is not built on. Though, I applaud yours good sir!
I will say that I agree with Dr. Nikolas Kompridis definition of reason as the "capacity of consciously making sense of things, applying logic, and adapting or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information." (Kompridis, Nikolas (2000). "So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean". International Journal of Philosophical Studies. 8 (3): 271295.) However, I don't think that to be the stop point for consideration of reason, as a means to lay the foundation of what reasoned thought is, as we discuss ethics and morality as tools to making sound and rational decisions. I'll reference your quote just below, and I will respond to that and continue this current line of thinking...
quote:
And "as we grow as people" is not enough to describe the phenomenon. "As we grow as cultures" is however starting to cover it. The reason is group thinking is always prevalent in all cultures. Sure there might be a few dissidents, but they're just the exception that confirms the rule. In the end humans strive to belong and as such the majority will force themselves to forego their own values and think like others to be allowed into a certain group.
Group think is certainly a reality with humans, as we are indeed a herd animal. However, just because something is intrinsic in us, doesn't mean it is a laudable end point, and even if some believe it to be a laudable end point, that we shouldn't consider something that runs parallel to, or intertwined with it. I argue, as I feel Dr.'s Jurgen Habermas and Nikolas Kompridis do, that self-determination and a non-Kantian perspective on reason is critical. Instead of allowing for one ethic to prevail out of baser instincts, thoughtful reason predicated upon logical thinking, coupled with sentiment (emotion) can produce a hybrid that produces outcomes that are more appealing to people.
I argue that it was not emotion alone or predominantly that has brought humanity to its current successes. At the same time, I acknowledge that the panoply of ethics that facilitate and crowd the space that creates on occasion deleterious outcomes. Self-determination does come with costs, as do really any ways of reason that lead to actions: just ask Dr. Habermas about growing up in post-WWI Germany, and post-WWII Germany, as a German. I sense you've likely read some James McAllister or Nancy Nersessian in evaluating emotion as a foundational element of reason. If I am correct about that (I will assume I am for the time being), then I will explain why I disagree with such a belief about your view of ethics and morality.
When David Hume argues in his treatise, The Problem of Induction, he was of course squarely taking aim at the issues he felt existed with inductive analysis and argued only for deductive analysis. While I don't agree with Sir Hume's argument about induction, he did make a point that I feel is important when considering the epistemic quality of reason: an ordinal relationship between felt (or sentimental) and objective facts. The emotion of fear at a fallen tree, when not understood by someone, could lead them to believe that something supernatural and therefore other than its rotten core was the cause for such an event. Without reason, that person would be left with that thought alone. Without having knowledge of what could have led to that outcome, one could induce a variety of reasons (to include the rotten core option). The concomitance of emotion and rational thought are the married foundation of reason. Emotion appears to be the evocative element of response that is necessary and ordinal in survival. To allow one to respond in a basic sense.
Though there is a much larger volume of work to develop the variable input of emotion as a continuance of work from Herbert Simon concerning bounded rationality, one that I think that clearly identifies my point about emotions being a response, or intuitive analysis of a situation is quote:
one that prioritizes emotions as important intuitions, or fast, automatic judgments of right and wrong (Keltner D, Lerner JS. 2010. Emotion. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, pp. 317-52. New York, NY: Wiley).
. It reinforces my point that emotions are a concomitant form of reasoning alongside rationale (but not the prime driver). A good graphical representation of that is below, taken from the aforementioned source (thus, I will not cite it again):
Table 9.10 Emotions and Their Associated Moral Concerns
Emotion Moral Concern
Anger Rights, Freedoms, Retributive Justice
Compassion Harm, Need
Contempt Community Role, Position within Hierarchy
Disgust Purity, both Sexual and Spiritual
Gratitude Reciprocity, Equality
Guilt Duty, Obligation
Shame Own Character Flaws
Awe Elevation of Other's Virtues
However, there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of those authors and that is their belief that, quote:
The individual in the act of making a moral judgment is assumed to be guided by a priori, abstract principles (e.g., conceptions of rights or equality) that apply to all contexts and individuals. (Keltner D, Lerner JS. 2010. Emotion. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, pp. 317-52. New York, NY: Wiley)
, is an assumption that ethicists and others in times past have argued in a bubble, consistently that people intrinsically do so, and with great degrees of efficacy. One of the very premises of ethics is that through utility of higher thinking, rational sense can be made of irrational choices, so that people can confront those choices through structured, ordered thoughts and decide if that is something that is sensible. Sensibility, absent absolute uniformity in action by people necessarily implies other forms of sense. Otherwise, we would not have facts based analysis of people having different processes to living their lives, organizing their governments, and more.
quote:
No. Do not take Spock. He's a pastiche on a completely logical being, used to present that which we as humans can never achieve (a machine like logic) to represent something alien.
haha, I thought of leaving out Spock, but it was a great quote to use that many are familiar with. Though you are correct about his character having gone too far with the notion of logic, logic is a tool, not an ethic. It is used to evaluate objectively ethical thought, and the choices made within such a constraint. It does illustrate well a Utilitarian ethic though, in a basic way.
quote:
Again, group think interferes with your interpretation here.
Group think definitely did not interfere with my interpretation. I was providing multiple examples of ethics that provide a different means by which to evaluate choices/actions as being moral or not. I didn't say I prescribed to them.
quote:
Considering Hawking managed to produce one of his most important works before his diagnosed death (that he survived) I would say that's not the best example.
I completely disagree that Dr. Hawking is not a good example when examining the point through a Utilitarian lens. Before knowing, in his earlier years, how much he would contribute, there was no good reason to invest the kinds of resources in him in light of where medicine was back in 1970, especially when it came to illnesses such as ALS. It's easy to look back now and say that of course it would be worth investing in Dr. Hawking but back then, it was an entirely different scenario.
Dr. Hawking would have been, through a Utilitarian lens, much easier to disregard in his earlier years of work. He had enormous support though as he got older, because the benefit to society, outweighed the cost to society. Eventually of course, he was quite wealthy, so those costs to society were moot.
quote:
On the contrary, law and order being based on moral and ethics which in turn are based in emotion combined with group think means it's highly subjective. While ideally those things are based in pure logical reason that is never the case in modern society.
The notion put forth that "law and order being based on moral and ethics" is not always accurate. It depends on the ethical system that underlies the legal system itself. Certainly one could argue that in the Forgotten Realms, Semphar is a theocracy, and clearly its legal system explicitly explains and demands that. Sure, I give you that in that circumstance, the law is based on morality. However, your premise discounts the three legal systems:
- The Autonomy Model
- The Socialist Model
- The Deontological Model
The Socialist model argues for the ethic of state consequentialism. In effect, that the State as an entity, in representing the best efforts and outcomes for the masses it governs, should make legal decisions that focus on the needs of the State before individuals, because the individual is not on par or as important in their individual liberties as the whole.
A deontological model of legal ethics stipulates that (like Immanuel Kant) that the ethic of duty should inform all beliefs and actions, even if to the detriment of individuals or society as a whole, as there is essentially, an absolute morality, and that is duty. This would definitely comport with the Semphar model of legal ethics.
The Autonomy Model, specifically is, quote:
The autonomy foundation of legal ethics is the standard conception of contemporary law practice, viewing the lawyer as a facilitator of her client's interests and rights within the legal system. Pursuant to this conception, lawyers' primary loyalties are to clients in helping them achieve their due in society. By applying their specialized legal knowledge and skill to their
clients' problems, lawyers help clients achieve personal freedom, liberty, and dignity - in short, their "autonomy." In this sense, autonomy is a base idea or set of ideas constitutive of legal ethics. (https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=law_fac_fs)
Now, if someone's ethic was anathema to "autonomy", and I argue human dignity to be self-determinant (to reference Dr.'s Habermas and Kompridis), then I would argue that the autonomy model would be immoral.
So, if there can be such diverse, and in fact with the autonomy model and the deontological model they are opposites, how can it truly be argued that morality is a) subjective, and b) that morality is sub-ordinate to ethics, absent making a natural law argument, which is a reference to a moral and legal theory with separate structures. It's not the laws of nature but rather science. Natural law as a moral theory goes to define the moral standards that govern human behavior as a consequence of their being natural beings and interacting with a natural world. It is best described here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
quote:
I'm not gonna quote everything you've written here, but my point is you're viewing these things as a natural science and humanities, devoid of the thing that makes us human. Instead view it as behavioural sciences and psychology and you'll see why it's all subjective.
That is true, that I am viewing it through the lens of natural science and the humanities. However, no one school of thought has jurisdiction over the notion of ethics and morality. Certainly the social sciences play a big part in there. I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am wrong), but it appears the implication of your point is that the humanities are ill equipped to evaluate the human condition, when juxtaposed against the social sciences, i.e. psychology?
[quote]The fact that you can prove something scientifically just means you can get a majority of the results pointing in one direction.
I admit: I am partial to the scientific model. :) Logic, being the hammer of philosophy, has done pretty well to make sense of things. In fact, the only thing that allows people to make sense of the social sciences as well, is the fact that different modalities of logic are applied to facilitate understanding through consistency and patterns.
______________________
Conclusion
In closing, the fact that different outcomes exist, does not imply subjectivity. It is clearly indicative from evidence provided that while admittedly emotion plays an intuitive and intrinsic[/i] role in the application of morals as they are concomitantly joined with rationale to form reason, there is nothing to date that corroborates that emotion (sentiment) is the majority player in a higher[/i] of thinking. The fact that a consistent understanding of outcomes can be traced from different ethical systems, demonstrates concisely that ethics do inform the morals.
I look forward to your rebuttal! Thank you for the great argument thus far! :)
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
Edited by - cpthero2 on 24 Dec 2020 08:16:25 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Eating Intelligent Creatures
