In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 88):

On the subject of slavery, I know you are not an expert(you yourself stated), I'm not trying to one up you, I'm just providing you with evidence to contrary so as to provide a certain extent of information, so you know the truth of the matter.

Quotes from wikipedia... taken in brief, the whole can be found with an easy search.

- 8000 BC, prehistoric graves in lower Egypt sugges that Libyan people enslaved a San-like tribe.

- Code of Hammurabi (1760 BC) prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave to escape or who sheltered a fugitive.

- The Bible mentions slavery as an established institution.

- Slavery was known in almost every ancient civilization, and society, including Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, the Hebrew kingdoms in Palestine, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. Such institutions included debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.

-  In raid against Lisbon, Portugal in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, Portugal in 1191, took 3,000 Christian slaves.

- In Britain, slavery continued to be practiced following the fall of Rome and sections of Hywel the Good's laws dealt with slaves in medieval Wales. The trade particularly picked up after the Viking invasions, with major markets at Chester and Bristol supplied by Danish, Mercian, and Welsh raiding of one another's borderlands. At the time of the Domesday Book (1086), nearly 10% of the English population were slaves.

-  Slavery in early medieval Europe was so common that the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly prohibited it — or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at e. g. the Council of Koblenz (922), the Council of London (1102), and the Council of Armagh (1171). In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens (antiquated term referring to Muslims), pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery, legitimizing the slave trade as a result of war.

-  Slavery remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs.

- Even though slavery is now outlawed in every country, the number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 29.8 million. Several estimates of the number of slaves in the world have been provided. According to a broad definition of slavery used by Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves (FTS), an advocacy group linked with Anti-Slavery International, there were 27 million people in slavery in 1999, spread all over the world. In 2005, the International Labour Organization provided an estimate of 12.3 million forced labourers in the world. Siddharth Kara has also provided an estimate of 28.4 million slaves at the end of 2006 divided into the following three categories: bonded labour/debt bondage (18.1 million), forced labour (7.6 million), and trafficked slaves (2.7 million). Kara provides a dynamic model to calculate the number of slaves in the world each year, with an estimated 29.2 million at the end of 2009. According to a report from 2003, by the Human Rights Watch, an estimated 15 million children in India, bonded workers, working in slave-like conditions in order to pay off debts.

Yeah I think thats enough to establish that the whole mess wasn't confined to Africa and it was quite known and common in Europe. Also, clearly shows that while we argue morals, even today there are those without them.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 17:14, Wed 23 July 2014.

In reply to Patsup (msg # 90):

First, I don't consider debt bondage to be slavery. Didn't want to be there then you shouldn't of gotten into debt. This is a case of suffering the consequences of one's decisions, rather something forced upon them for reasons beyond their control.

Second, I merely said Africa was the primary place. Though I was referring mostly to what Americans think of as slavery, which means considering people as slaves based on race. For example black people were quite capable of being free and respected, and even gentlemen outside of Africa and America. (Egypt is a part of Africa btw)

Third, prisoners of war (even civilian ones) are quite questionable on this, as any victor of a battle has to be careful with survivors, lest they cause further harm or try to take revenge or whatever. Granting full rights to a freshly defeated enemy is just asking for an immediate rebellion and continuation of hostilities.

DISCLAIMER I am generally very bad at explaining myself, so there is a decent chance of a misunderstanding.

---
Let us use the definition of certain religious zealots,
Good is defined as whatever their deity says is the right thing to do.

Thus because their deity says that killing people who are not of their religion is the right thing to do, killing such individuals is a good act, not merely acceptable, because of how they define what is "good."

---
OR using my definitions, many acts are actually both good and evil, the balance between the two is where debates about acceptability come into play. However, actual authority is when one individual believes another not only can, but will use effective measures to force an issue if they are disobedient. This nearly always requires an actual demonstration of that willingness. Thus when a sentient person is doing bad stuff for the group as a whole, those in charge doing such things to those who are having a negative impact, is good as it discourages others from being a negative impact on the group.

Ask any gardener, gardens need weeding and plants need pruning. Same thing for societies, except on a society level, weeding means removing very bad people, and pruning means punishing the reasonably rehabilitatable bad people.

The only argument against the death penalty I have found solid is "What if they are were wrongly convicted?" otherwise, keeping convicts alive is generally bad or at least costly. Yeah prisons can turn a profit so they are not obvious burdens on the society, but truth is, they are always a burden. Criminals doing work takes jobs away from people who need jobs, and living murderers and rapists, and other folks who are unlikely to ever be anything other then harmful to the group if they ever get loose will always be ever present threat that needs guarded against, which takes attention and resources away from other things and other threats. Killing them (or in some cases exile, if it is believed they will actually not come back is the best solution as it removes any lasting threat as well as removing a drain on the groups resources (whether financial or other drains, such as job availability.) Granted minor crimes and individuals that have a high chance of rehabilitation can always be given a second chance after a suitable punishment and thus are generally worth the expense.

Alternative examples, too many people putting a drain on too few resources. Trying to support them all equally will end up with a downward spiral of negativity that will put the entire group in danger of destruction, while removing certain individuals or at least focusing on a select group (which means bad things for those outside the select group) means that at least the entire group won't die. (granted that is very generalized, but you can't support a group with too few supplies without killing the group, or at least a large portion of it unless the condition is temporary)

Also when the needs of two groups are mutually exclusive, causing harm will be unavoidable. It should be assumed that whatever theoretically correct course of action will be taken by 95% of people, if it would work, then it is theoretically correct. In this case, the survival of any group is dependent on a group fighting to meet its needs, which means 95% of people taking that action, means people will be harmed, and it will be a good thing (though maybe not for those individuals themselves), as the alternative is have 95% of people forgo their needs which leaves 5% of people, the selfish 5% being the only who gain anything in which case 95% of those involved will suffer harm, just at their own hands instead of at the hands of another.

------
And lastly, harm and suffering are very important, as experiencing small amounts of harm allows one to recover from large amounts of harm. Your immune system needs practice, for if you never get exposed to any sickness, then if you were to encounter so much as a cold, you would die. Martial artists take hits and using conditioning (hitting oneself repeatedly everywhere), so that their body gets used to being hit, making their body more resilient. Etc.

All of these cases are cases of a sentient experiencing harm, but it is good, because everything about people is adaptive, and they adapt to what happens to them, thus experiencing harm makes them more capable of dealing with and recovering from greater harm. So mild harm is often a good thing.

I could no disagree with you more.  It might be a lighter bondage that the slavery of old, but make no mistake that it is slavery.  It seems more polite, but it is almost worse because it is so insidious.  Right now, it is a rampant problem the US in STEM jobs (and the reason wages have been terrible for so long).

Zealotry of this kind is neither good nor acceptable.


Aah but it doesn't actually discourage anything, otherwise at the first death sentence crime would have stopped entirely as long as it was remembered by the people, and we'd only have like one per community every 20-30 years or so. In practice this doesn't happen.


I agree this is an acceptable practice, even when human lives are at cost, but due to the physical harm, it is merely acceptable, not good.


I am very pro death penalty, however I still don't believe it's good, merely acceptable. Very... very... acceptable :D. I would go to my grave falsely convicted in the hopes that someone who was really convicted of a Death Penalty worthy crime would go to their graves as well. Things like going in for a month over rape are very hurtful to me, and only show weakness with our legal system, but outside those few instances of system failures, I'm generally proud of the judicial system.


Indeed, this is one of the forms of that 'financial harm' I mentioned previously. Prisons should go back to the way they were before where prisoners paid their own way, had to rent the cell and so forth. State/Federally funded prison systems are a joke on the citizenry, and worse, a drain on the finances of everyone who pays taxes. They are Evil.

I don't disagree that an action benefitting 95% of the people is correct. I do however disagree that 'correct' and 'moral' are always synonymous. To me, this falls under acceptable evils. Killing one person for the benefit of 20 is evil, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Right. Lesser of two evils, and therefore acceptable, but no less evil in any case.

it's slavery in my book too, but if the slave drivers are humane and don't cause the physical/social/psychological harm typically associated with slavery, I wouldn't call it evil.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 94):

I don't call it slavery because it shouldn't be lumped together with when slaves are made slaves for something outside their control. Debt bondage is something they brought upon themselves.

Additionally, if you really want to call debt bondage slavery, something that came about through the enslaved person's choices, then are getting close to calling anyone with a job a slave, as the only real difference between a job and a debt slave is the ability to quit. Both cases are people doing what they are told and being in that position based on their choices.

Incorrect. This course of action reduces the people who do bad things because fewer will be willing to risk the consequences. But many factors will affect what someone is willing to risk. High risk means fewer people willing to take the risk, low risk means more people willing to take the risk

Discouraging doesn't equate will near absolute results.

Just because something doesn't have near universal results, doesn't mean it doesn't have a significant effect.

You are forgetting that it depends on how good is defined.

Your definition of good does not allow room for any stable society to function without doing things that are not good. At which point one has to wonder why you have defined good in such a way, and whether it intended that there should be an implication that a theoretical society could exist that does only good things.

And yes, the same can be said for my definition, and the "why" for my definition is that my definition focuses on the idea of balance and that no action is ever completely good, not even in fantasy idealism, while also bringing to light how different folks can find idea of what is acceptable without pretending that there is an objective line of acceptability (thus promoting the view of cross-culture acceptance).

I'm not sure I believe the argument for significant results is valid. Maybe if you had numbers from a government that doesn't use the death penalty at all. Mind you, even with that said, I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty, evil as it is.


I'm not forgetting anything. I'm of the opinion that if harm (one of the forms I've previously mentioned) is caused, unduely, there is evil, and if it is caused duely, there's still evil, but it's acceptable.


Aah good, I'm glad you noticed that. I'm a very firm believer that society doesn't function without doing things that are not good. I'm no sure I believe they can't, but at its current state, it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that it does. Merely all people in political power are required by their mere function to pick between the lesser of multiple evils on a daily basis. I wasn't particularly thinking about that implication, but as I said, I'm not really sure whether it can or not.

Admittedly in my games, that's usually what I'm going for.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:53, Wed 23 July 2014.

Given the following,




One really as to wonder what your definition of "moral" is as well, and why have you decided to make the definitions you now use?

It seems that officially, there is no official idea of what any of these terms mean sufficient for objective classification of actions. At least as far as the english language itself is concerned.

It isn't moral to cause any of types of harm I've mentioned to any entity, whether it be an individual or group. Someone who intends or causes harm on another individual has some level of badness of character. I believe that Paladins and Inquisitors are good at killing heretics, but this does not make them moral. They have fulfilled their roles suitably, but not morally. It is to the benefit or advantage of their reference societies, but the mere fact of causing harm (especially to heretics that might actually be neutral, rather than evil) prevents it from being anything other than an acceptable evil for which they suffer no actual roleplaying penalties provided the evil doesn't outweight the acceptable.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:13, Wed 23 July 2014.

Except this isn't an opinion, it is a definition you have applied to the word "evil." Not everyone uses the same definition.

Your opinion over whether this is what the definition should be is a completely separate thing.

You have defined evil a something that causes harm.
You have the opinion that the above definition is better then others that you know of.

I agree with this, but there are two types of "subjective."

First, there is subjective in the meaning of there being no objective right or wrong.  This a philosophy in and of itself. This is "subjective morality." This appears to be what steelsmitter is referring to.

Second, there is a subjective as to an individual and how an individual perceives and responds to his perception of good or evil.  The individual may also believe in objective good or evil, but individuals are always prisoner to the limits of their own understanding and culture.  This is "subjective to the individual."  I believe this is what you and I are referring to in the context of character and roleplaying.

EDIT: This is also why "alignment" must be based on context of "subjective to the individual."  In other words, a character whose heart is in the right place can be "lawful good" even when doing things other cultures might consider evil or chaotic.  Or even neutral, as in the case of many nature loving characters who believe in natural balance being the ultimate good.

If you define it differently during the game, that's certainly fine as long as everyone playing knows what definition you're working off of.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:16, Wed 23 July 2014.

Does that nice, neat justification include the estimated 15 million children in India, who are in debt bondage mainly due to the actions of others (in many cases, actions which occurred before the kids were even born)?

Not quite. It would need to be an act. More accurately stated, I believe evil is when someone causes harm. My hangup is the part where I seriously disbelieve any actual harm of one of the vairous types previously discussed being caused by an individual is a good thing. You've given two definitions of good, and whereas you consider both of them moral, I consider one of them moral, and the other merely acceptable. We'll just keep going around in circles until you give up, or convince me. I have seen a huge amount of examples of things that are considered moral, but no valid reason why they are actually moral. Provide that, and you'll convince me provided 'I think so' is no less valid than 'society thinks so' when opinions differ, such as slavery, witch hunts, and other things that cause harm. That is to say, there has to be another reason than because society thinks so otherwise morality is useless due to the shortfalls of society.

The saving of souls or redemption and rehabilitation of deviants. These are good acts because in causing some harm now, you spare the person from greater harm. Driving out demons is not an evil act, where doing nothing is unacceptable negligence.

I think you called these necessary or acceptable evils before, but if the purpose of the exercise is to help the person through causing harm, not to cause harm as a punishment or convenience it isn't an evil act.

The forms of rehabilitation that don't cause harm, such as exorcism aren't evil acts. The violent ones, and the ones that cause the financial drain are, but they're acceptable.

In reply to Tileira (msg # 107):

But this goes back to the original subjective implementation of an objective intent argument.  What do you do to save souls?  Some people believe that to save the souls of heathens, the physical body must be destroyed.  Hence, things like burning at the stake to get the devil out.  Is that murder?  Or a good thing?

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 108):

Why are they evil? You're the one challenging us to explain without giving any merit to our points. Why is it better to allow a person to continue on a destructive path with harms them and others, than to apply a measure of force to divert them? If the amount of suffering determines how evil something is, then anything which reduces the amount of evil in the world is an act of good.



In reply to Heath (msg # 109):

I know, but steelsmiter is insisting that morality is not subjective, with no explanation as to why he believes so, and that the nature of an act is not determined by the intent. While he tells us we must justify how an 'evil' act can be 'good' he's not explaining why he believes his definition of 'evil' acts is better than ours.

Okay lets play a game.

Tell me steelsmitter, is injecting a person, any person, with full knowledge and clear intent with highly poisonous materials evil or not?

How far does your definition of evil extend? Pesticide? I don't think it's possible to anything to be defined as good by your scale. Everything is just a matter of greater or lesser evil.

You break someone's arm while saving them from a car? Accidental evil.
You cure a patient with a drug first tested on animals? Necessary evil.
You test a drug on humans without first ensuring its safe through animal testing? Evil.
You eat meat thereby necessitating the slaughter of an animal raised to die? Acceptable evil.
You get a job thereby perpetuating capitalism and the unethical and near immoral behaviours of corporations? Unavoidable evil.
You foster a child and impose your values on them, driving them away from their original beliefs? Deliberate evil.

Evil is like art and porn.  I know it when I see it.

Harmed is harmed, stolen is stolen, raped is raped, dead is dead, driven insane is driven insane.

I didn't say it was better. I'm advocating using the least amount of force to do so. It's always better to harm than to kill. Both are evil, but as I sad above, harmed is harmed, and dead is dead. The least amount of evil is still evil.


No it isn't if it causes harm, it's the lesser of two evils.


Yes, and modern medicine up to and including chemotherapy/radiation/any drug that has any vaguely annoying side effects are evil. As a cancer patient, I've got first hand experience with the evils of the medical profession. I believe the medical profession is the lesser of two evils, but it isn't actually 'not evil'.


Love is good. Sometimes people can love someone and hurt them, but that hurt isn't always harm. if it is harmful, that love is not good, but if it's harm for the sake of trying to pull someone out of a self destructive cycle, it's less evil.


Pretty much yeah. Also, I'm very pro stem cell research. I don't consider it any less evil though.


I've always been fond of barter economy. I see it as the lesser of two evils. Seriously the second someone decided a flat portable object of something pretty or shiny had any value for a reason other than personal consumption, that's where it all started going down hill.

Maybe. If they're actually spiritually harmed in the process. If they're better for it spiritually, then at best you've probably only committed very minor individual evils over a period of years that were probably generally good. Unless your dogma is [insert racial/social group here]-phobic.

In light of all of the above, No one is ever truely good, but most of us, myself included are more or less comfortable with what they've done on the way to being more or less good. Bad experiences are what help us grow. A necessary evil if you will.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:06, Wed 23 July 2014.