These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sojourn: Void
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#181 - 2015-07-10 21:16:03 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:

Which of the needy to help? In what way? To what degree? Why them and not others? ... and what critical thread might you have missed that will unravel the good you've done?

If you wonder what I might mean by that last, there's a lot of historical Caldari resentment towards well-meaning Gallenteans.

It's easy to want to help. Personally, I try to keep my good deeds at the level of individual people, and even then it doesn't always seem to work out very well.


The answers to all of the questions you've raised aren't simple, if they were then they'd hardly be moral dilemmas.

In my admitted ignorance, bias and naivety, my answers to them would be "those I can," "to the best of my ability," "because I cannot help everyone," and "it's impossible to know but that will not prevent me from trying."

It is impossible for us to know the outcome of every action we take or to perceive every thread of every moment in the webs of our lives. All that is up to us is to do what we are able to and, upon making the decision to do something rather than nothing, to do the best we are able.

As for the "why them and not others" question...it is perhaps the most difficult of them all for me to answer but I am inevitably drawn to a singular conclusion:

If I can help people A, then I should.
If I can help people B, then I should.
If I cannot help both people A and people B, and there is no clear indication as to why I should choose one over the other then:

Choosing to help people A may not be the best or easiest choice to make but it is also not clearly the right or wrong choice.
Choosing to help people B may not be the best or easiest choice to make but it is also not clearly the right or wrong choice.
Choosing to help neither people A nor people B because I cannot help them both may not clearly be the right choice but it is clearly the wrong choice.

So I help whichever one I choose to help and do so to the best of my ability.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#182 - 2015-07-10 21:44:04 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
If a student fails, is it the fault of the student, or the teacher ? Who bears responsibility ?


Except God is not a teacher, he is the sovereign. More akin to a king than a teacher. The only responsibility a king holds over his subjects is ruling toward their well-being and enforcing a system of justice.

Given that we cannot fully know what is in our best interests on the scale of both magnitude and time that a being such as God (as He is conceived by the Amarr) could, then it is impossible for us to rightly judge whether He is fulfilling those obligations.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#183 - 2015-07-10 21:46:35 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:
Free will might strike me as more of a "thing" if everyone got to make their own choices. You, for example-- as a slave, did you really have any option but to believe? I sort of suspect that the salvation of your soul was given priority over your autonomy as one of God's creatures.

... For your own good, of course, so that you wouldn't use your free will to make the wrong decisions.

Wouldn't that, therefore, have denied you the chance to develop wisdom, though?


Everyone does get to make their own choices. You are associating free will with freedom of action. It's a common misconception that the two are the same. Free will is separate from freedom of action. Limiting freedom of action might encourage you to believe certain things, but ultimately your mind is always your own. The physical is immaterial.

As a slave, I had the option not to believe. I had the option to resist and be stubborn, like my brother was. I had the option to lie and pretend to believe when I didn't. I would have been punished if I had done these and was caught, but I always had the capability to do it.

I chose to believe. I embraced God with all my heart. That was a choice only I could make, because chains do not bind the soul.

This is why TCMCs are so vile.


With regard to developing wisdom? The experiences and hardships I went through helped me grow as a person. I learned from them. I wasn't denied the chance, I was given the chance.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#184 - 2015-07-10 22:01:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Liam Antolliere wrote:
[system for approaching charity-related moral dilemmas]

Ah ... again, respectfully, that's very Gallentean/Amarrian: goodwill towards more or less all humankind. It's also bound to land your foot squarely in some snares, since you prefer trying and failing (perhaps catastrophically) to not trying.

Coming back to our original topic, then.

The fact that you have to come up with such a system to figure out who you should direct your aid towards, and the results still end up uncertain, demonstrates a lot of why I say that God, if he exists, is unforgivable.

If the evils of the world were just a result of people being willfully wicked, it would be another matter. But it's not, is it? The best intentions can and often do produce awful results.

The world isn't made for us. It isn't apparently made "for" anyone. Lt. Kernher said that "God created chaos." She believes God wants us to make order of that chaos, that it's a challenge of sorts, but I see no sign of that. The world is complicated to the point of being confounding. Large-scale control is an illusion, a game of probabilities at best.

And it's morally silent. Good acts do not predictably produce good outcomes. Evil acts do not predictably work out for the worst (certainly not for those who commit them). The only remarks the universe seems to make on our moral struggles are the consequences of our actions. And that's not a very coherent narrative, really.

If the universe is not sapient in any way we would recognize or understand, that's ... marvelous. Transcendently beautiful. It's not its fault if we're stuck struggling with our hands caught up in the gears.

If something sapient, that cares about us in some way, built this, though ... I have difficulty seeing that being as benevolent, even in the sense of the Maker. Maybe that's only because of the things I've seen in the last five months; after all, we're involved in a very violent aspect of society.

It just seems to me that nothing benevolent could do this to us.

It makes no sense to me.
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#185 - 2015-07-10 22:25:10 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:
If the universe is not sapient in any way we would recognize or understand, that's ... marvelous. Transcendently beautiful. It's not its fault if we're stuck struggling with our hands caught up in the gears.


It's not beautiful. It lacks purpose. It means that all that violence, all that suffering, it has no meaning.

There's nothing marvelous about that.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#186 - 2015-07-10 22:28:00 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
Everyone does get to make their own choices. You are associating free will with freedom of action. It's a common misconception that the two are the same. Free will is separate from freedom of action. Limiting freedom of action might encourage you to believe certain things, but ultimately your mind is always your own. The physical is immaterial.

As a slave, I had the option not to believe. I had the option to resist and be stubborn, like my brother was. I had the option to lie and pretend to believe when I didn't. I would have been punished if I had done these and was caught, but I always had the capability to do it.

I chose to believe. I embraced God with all my heart. That was a choice only I could make, because chains do not bind the soul.

This is why TCMCs are so vile.

I'm familiar with that theory, but ...

I guess it reminds me of marketing theory. A single person may resist even a well-calculated advertising campaign, or even be negatively affected, but the aggregate effects on sales are predictably positive. Put a person in an environment in which they're subjected to intense and pervasive pressure, then told that the choice is their own, and ...

Still, I guess what it boils down to is that I don't believe in free will to begin with, while it's basic to your faith.

Quote:
With regard to developing wisdom? The experiences and hardships I went through helped me grow as a person. I learned from them. I wasn't denied the chance, I was given the chance.

... to become exactly what it was presumably hoped that you would. I guess, those who guided you must be very proud.

And yet, I'm never quite sure which of us you're trying to persuade when we argue.
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#187 - 2015-07-10 22:45:20 UTC
With respect,

I think a proper way to approach your argument would be with this singular thought:

"The best intentions can and often do produce awful results"

Which I would answer with the following singular thought:

"Who defines 'best' and 'awful?'"

See, what we consider "good" is from a limited scope of understanding and perspective, what God knows to be "good" is not based on anything limited. What we may see as "good" or "bad" may be very different things to God, whom knows more than you could possibly know about everything you could possibly be considering or involved in. Thus, if He knows what is "good" or "bad" with full understanding and knowledge and I think I know what is "good" or "bad" with my limited understanding, the only rational course of action is to acquiesce to He Whom knows more than I (to bow to wisdom, so to speak).

Further, even if the results we receive are not the results we wanted, even if the immediate result is "awful" in our perception, time and scope often have a way of showing us there was more to it than we originally saw and often times our outcome is far better than it seemed in the moment.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#188 - 2015-07-10 22:50:10 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
If a student fails, is it the fault of the student, or the teacher ? Who bears responsibility ?


Except God is not a teacher, he is the sovereign. More akin to a king than a teacher. The only responsibility a king holds over his subjects is ruling toward their well-being and enforcing a system of justice.

Given that we cannot fully know what is in our best interests on the scale of both magnitude and time that a being such as God (as He is conceived by the Amarr) could, then it is impossible for us to rightly judge whether He is fulfilling those obligations.



Yet the question is still perfectly applicable to a king. If the subjects fail, who bears the responsibility: the subjects, or the king and the system he created that allowed so ?
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#189 - 2015-07-10 23:04:30 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:

Yet the question is still perfectly applicable to a king. If the subjects fail, who bears the responsibility: the subjects, or the king and the system he created that allowed so ?


If the conditions mentioned above are met (that being that the king is ruling in the best interests of his subjects and that he is enforcing an equitable system of justice) then the failure is the subject's fault.

To even attempt to blame the king for the individual failings of his subjects is fallacious. To blame the king for a system put in place that serves the best interests of his subjects because his subjects rebelled against the system, discarded the system, imperfectly executed the system or otherwise is also fallacious.

If the system put in place is well within the capacity of the subjects to execute and is designed to serve their best interests and the king has provided instruction on how to work within the system and his expectations of the system and the subjects, the fault is unquestioningly on the heads of the subjects.

Now, ultimately, this all hinges on both the king having a perfect understanding of his people and implementing a perfect system. But as we're talking about the Amarr God (which is assumed to be perfect), then both of the criteria are also assumed to be met.

If you instead which to argue that it is an imperfect system by design...well, I'll leave that one to the theologians.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#190 - 2015-07-10 23:06:22 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
With respect,

I think a proper way to approach your argument would be with this singular thought:

"The best intentions can and often do produce awful results"

Which I would answer with the following singular thought:

"Who defines 'best' and 'awful?'"

See, what we consider "good" is from a limited scope of understanding and perspective, what God knows to be "good" is not based on anything limited. What we may see as "good" or "bad" may be very different things to God, whom knows more than you could possibly know about everything you could possibly be considering or involved in. Thus, if He knows what is "good" or "bad" with full understanding and knowledge and I think I know what is "good" or "bad" with my limited understanding, the only rational course of action is to acquiesce to He Whom knows more than I (to bow to wisdom, so to speak).

Further, even if the results we receive are not the results we wanted, even if the immediate result is "awful" in our perception, time and scope often have a way of showing us there was more to it than we originally saw and often times our outcome is far better than it seemed in the moment.



But you can not know what He knows, and not on the same level, as you say it yourself... Then, the very discussion about knowing God's moral values becomes totally irrelevant... Unless you are God's Mouthpiece.
Jev North
Doomheim
#191 - 2015-07-10 23:06:52 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
It's not beautiful. It lacks purpose. It means that all that violence, all that suffering, it has no meaning.

There's nothing marvelous about that.


I find the idea that all the miseries inflicted on us are somehow just and rightful to be far more grim.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#192 - 2015-07-10 23:12:52 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:

Yet the question is still perfectly applicable to a king. If the subjects fail, who bears the responsibility: the subjects, or the king and the system he created that allowed so ?


If the conditions mentioned above are met (that being that the king is ruling in the best interests of his subjects and that he is enforcing an equitable system of justice) then the failure is the subject's fault.

To even attempt to blame the king for the individual failings of his subjects is fallacious. To blame the king for a system put in place that serves the best interests of his subjects because his subjects rebelled against the system, discarded the system, imperfectly executed the system or otherwise is also fallacious.

If the system put in place is well within the capacity of the subjects to execute and is designed to serve their best interests and the king has provided instruction on how to work within the system and his expectations of the system and the subjects, the fault is unquestioningly on the heads of the subjects.

Now, ultimately, this all hinges on both the king having a perfect understanding of his people and implementing a perfect system. But as we're talking about the Amarr God (which is assumed to be perfect), then both of the criteria are also assumed to be met.

If you instead which to argue that it is an imperfect system by design...well, I'll leave that one to the theologians.


If the system is perfect and the subjects still fail, then it either implies that the system is not actually perfect, or it implies that what the faithful considers "evil" has to happen as a mean to a bigger scheme.
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#193 - 2015-07-10 23:15:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Samira Kernher
Jev North wrote:
Samira Kernher wrote:
It's not beautiful. It lacks purpose. It means that all that violence, all that suffering, it has no meaning.

There's nothing marvelous about that.


I find the idea that all the miseries inflicted on us are somehow just and rightful to be far more grim.

Suffering for a purpose is bearable.

Suffering without meaning is horrible.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#194 - 2015-07-10 23:22:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Do people bled to death in Blood Raider holds suffer for a purpose? Or do they suffer without meaning?

If they suffer without meaning, then does it mean that God's clockwork is flawed, or does it mean that this just happens outside of His realm ?

More importantly then, when does suffering without meaning happen and when does it not?
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#195 - 2015-07-10 23:30:22 UTC
Only through many hardships
Is a man stripped to his very foundations
And in such a state
Devoid of distractions
Is his soul free to soar
And in this
He is closest to God
- Missions 42:5
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#196 - 2015-07-10 23:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
So, what is the suffering without meaning you speak about ?

"When the ears hear only
The mouth shouting
And the eyes see only
The fingers broken
The world has turned
And God has gone
Left us with fond memories
Of sweet life without pain."
- Apocalypse 8:18
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#197 - 2015-07-10 23:51:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Samira Kernher
I was speaking of the theoretical universe in which there is no God or Divine plan, just an empty, random universe.

There is nothing worse than that sort of meaningless existence.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#198 - 2015-07-10 23:56:27 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
What we may see as "good" or "bad" may be very different things to God, whom knows more than you could possibly know about everything you could possibly be considering or involved in. Thus, if He knows what is "good" or "bad" with full understanding and knowledge and I think I know what is "good" or "bad" with my limited understanding, the only rational course of action is to acquiesce to He Whom knows more than I (to bow to wisdom, so to speak).

You realize, Mr. Antolliere, that if Nauplius were correct in his interpretation of God, this would oblige you to recognize that as a benevolent being?

In the end, all human experience is subjective. It is only from such (or related) subjective perspectives that we can judge the worth of things.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#199 - 2015-07-11 00:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Samira Kernher wrote:
I was speaking of the theoretical universe in which there is no God or Divine plan, just an empty, random universe.

There is nothing worse than that sort of meaningless existence.

But such an existence is literally a natural wonder. To be a sapient part of such a phenomenon, even temporarily-- it's a privilege without equal.

If our transient consciousnesses, our transient sufferings and joys, are all tricks played on us by biological mechanisms evolved to keep us alive ... if we ourselves are bioelectrical shadows on the walls of our own minds ... then we, ourselves, do not exist as separate beings at all. We are parts of the universe that, however briefly, are able to explore and appreciate this astounding reality we inhabit.

Even if the illusion must end, and our minds must vanish like snuffed candle flames, and all we have learned must be forgotten ... it's literally the journey of a lifetime, Lieutenant.

Nothing will last, but we are here, now, and that is something amazing.
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#200 - 2015-07-11 09:19:35 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:
You realize, Mr. Antolliere, that if Nauplius were correct in his interpretation of God, this would oblige you to recognize that as a benevolent being?

In the end, all human experience is subjective. It is only from such (or related) subjective perspectives that we can judge the worth of things.


On the latter part we agree, I was merely remarking upon the idea that labeling God as unforgivable from our limited perspective has always vexed me given that we do not and cannot fully understand His motivations and (in)action.

Forgive me if it appeared I was passing a moral judgment on you, that was not my intent.

As to the former part, it would not oblige me in any way. If God is sovereign over all creation and benevolence (as dictated above) requires that the sovereign rule in the best interests of his subjects (which, in God's case, would be all people) then a mandate that a particular people should be unilaterally destroyed and sacrificed is a direct violation of that mandate.

That is, in point of fact, the difference between the Amarr interpretation of slavery (which, supposedly, is designed to edify the subject and discipline them to live righteously) and Monsieur Nauplius' interpretation of unmitigated suffering and sacrifice for his personal glory.

I see no such decree from God anywhere, either in the actions of this universe toward anything within it, nor in the words that fill the pages of the scriptures which are supposedly the revelations of God to His creation. Until I do, I have no reason to believe Monsieur Nauplius has any understanding of God beyond his own self-perceptions to justify himself.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."