|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 12, 2016 20:57:47 GMT
Perhaps I need to get a copy of this, if this is the kind of discussion it inspires. It MUST be a heck of a game. It's one of the best RPGs I've ever played. The dialogue and story points have a lot of substance without getting long winded. The graphics are absolutely spectacular on Saturn; it's truly second to none on the system. Even the turnbased combat, something I typically loath, is engaging and typically demands more from you than most other turn-based games. It's also short, only 10-15 hours long. Onto this moral relativism. On the strictest, most impractical of levels mortality is subjective. On the practical side it's absolutely objective. Morality and moral laws come from the overall desire for good health, happiness, and advancement for the most amount of people. So when I hear people say something like morallity is subjective, I find it to be a pointless statement. For the vast majority of laws and moral principles it's so crystal clear and agreed upon there's no leeway that can be to entertain the idea of a subjective morality.
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 12, 2016 21:09:39 GMT
so what is the morale in eating meat? does it boost our health, happiness and general advancement in life?
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 12, 2016 21:22:14 GMT
I'm not sure if PDS story line is unique as people are making out. After all, Golden Sun has much the same theme of good intentions/bad intentions. I wouldn't say Craymen was a bad guy. Certainly in relative terms, but "this is war" seems to be used as an excuse to justify his actions. First of all, not a good example. Golden sun was released some years later so you can't cite PDS as not so original by referencing a later work But no, on it's individual components it isn't completely original and definitely draws inspiration from other works. But gameplay, music, world all combine to make something truly different at the time of its release. There's a reason it and The Last of Us are my favorite games.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 13, 2016 0:39:44 GMT
so what is the morale in eating meat? does it boost our health, happiness and general advancement in life? Yes in all three categories. Let me ask you, if eating meat is immoral do you think lions, tigers, and sharks are immoral beings? What do you think should be done with these immoral murder machines?
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 13, 2016 14:03:05 GMT
so what is the morale in eating meat? does it boost our health, happiness and general advancement in life? Yes in all three categories. Let me ask you, if eating meat is immoral do you think lions, tigers, and sharks are immoral beings? What do you think should be done with these immoral murder machines? again, this is your opinion so how can you state morality like a fact?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 14, 2016 14:59:55 GMT
Yes in all three categories. Let me ask you, if eating meat is immoral do you think lions, tigers, and sharks are immoral beings? What do you think should be done with these immoral murder machines? again, this is your opinion so how can you state morality like a fact? I've already answered and explained this in full in my post to thewhitefalcon. I've answered all of your questions, would you kindly answer mine?
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 14, 2016 18:02:55 GMT
they are not immoral as they act upon their instinct as natural meat eaters, unlike us. they can't think for themselves and make environmental decisions like us either
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 15, 2016 0:31:07 GMT
they are not immoral as they act upon their instinct as natural meat eaters, unlike us. they can't think for themselves and make environmental decisions like us either So what should be done about this? Do we have a moral obligation to change their diet by force? Furthermore, why does intelligence play a factor in morality? Lets say you take a pure psychopath with severe retardation who feels no remorse and sees nothing wrong with murder. If he murders someone is that not evil? By your own logic the psychopath murdered on pure instinct, he can't think for himself, or make environmental decisions. As a side note, humans are natural meat eaters. We are omnivores and natural predators. This is obvious from our sharp teeth and eyes seated in the front of our skulls in order to stalk prey.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 15, 2016 1:11:56 GMT
Yo, this thread was about PDS, remember?
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 15, 2016 8:36:48 GMT
they are not immoral as they act upon their instinct as natural meat eaters, unlike us. they can't think for themselves and make environmental decisions like us either So what should be done about this? Do we have a moral obligation to change their diet by force? Furthermore, why does intelligence play a factor in morality? Lets say you take a pure psychopath with severe retardation who feels no remorse and sees nothing wrong with murder. If he murders someone is that not evil? By your own logic the psychopath murdered on pure instinct, he can't think for himself, or make environmental decisions. As a side note, humans are natural meat eaters. We are omnivores and natural predators. This is obvious from our sharp teeth and eyes seated in the front of our skulls in order to stalk prey. we are not natural meat eaters at all. we never ate meat until a short time ago in the human history (50.000-100.000) years. serial killers happen to be the mere opposite of retarded. that's why people are psychopaths, good luck finding a seriously retarded psychopath.
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 15, 2016 8:37:39 GMT
Yo, this thread was about PDS, remember? indeed. I won't say anymore after this unless it's about pds. this game is deserves to be talked about
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 15, 2016 13:41:57 GMT
So what should be done about this? Do we have a moral obligation to change their diet by force? Furthermore, why does intelligence play a factor in morality? Lets say you take a pure psychopath with severe retardation who feels no remorse and sees nothing wrong with murder. If he murders someone is that not evil? By your own logic the psychopath murdered on pure instinct, he can't think for himself, or make environmental decisions. As a side note, humans are natural meat eaters. We are omnivores and natural predators. This is obvious from our sharp teeth and eyes seated in the front of our skulls in order to stalk prey. we are not natural meat eaters at all. we never ate meat until a short time ago in the human history (50.000-100.000) years. serial killers happen to be the mere opposite of retarded. that's why people are psychopaths, good luck finding a seriously retarded psychopath. So the longer you perform an immoral action for the more moral it becomes? If the first human ate meat 50k years ago does that make eating meat now less moral than if he first ate meat 100k years ago? Does that make it less natural? If we ate meat 1 million years ago, would that make it natural? Does the length of time an action is committed make something more natural and more moral? If you kick your dog once is that less moral than if you kicked your dog for years? I contend it doesn't. First off, I didn't say serial killers. Secondly, it's a hypothetical question, the reality that they do exist is irrelevant, if you have a mentally deficient person who doesn't know what they're doing and doesn't feel remorse or pity. If they murder someone does that mean it's not immoral? It fits the same description as why you think Lions aren't immoral for eating meat. Lastly, before the state run mental health facilities were shut down in the USA, my grandparents used to work at the one in the town I grew up in. Ever hear the term 'retard strong'(maybe it's not a European term)? It means extremely, freakishly strong. Some of the people there would turn violent in the blink of an eye and it would take 3 muscular guys to subdue one little guy because they were filled with adrenaline. If they didn't have that type of security the patients would snap your neck with no remorse, no reason, and without understanding. So, yes, mentally deficient psychopaths exist. The interesting question is, when they murder is it not wrong? When the defense lawyer pleads insanity, is that a valid defense? To tie this back to PDS, we're discussing the validity and practicality of moral relativism. I find it perfectly acceptable to discuss this without using events present in the game itself. If the game sparks interesting and deep discussions I feel like they should be explored regardless of the ostensibly tenuous link to the game they have.
|
|
|
Post by bradcap1 on Jun 15, 2016 20:47:33 GMT
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,108
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jun 16, 2016 17:15:55 GMT
Okay, now you're getting just silly. You're talking about moral ambiguity when you don't even believe in morality, period? Where did you "ace" philosophy? an online course at Devry? How do you not grasp what bultje112 is saying? I believe art and literature exist, that doesn't mean what constitutes "good" versions of them is concrete for all time. What is good art? That's an ambiguous question. Is it morally wrong to eat meat? That depends on who you ask, doesn't mean those who answer differently don't believe in morality. Morality to exist as a concept requires a constant go between about what is right vs wrong. That IS morality. Gravity has no such requirements, it's existence just is. The fact that people have different views on morality doesn't mean that morality is purely subjective, any more than the fact that people have different views on science means that science is purely subjective, or the fact that people have different views on religion means that whether or not there is a god is purely subjective. Besides, belief in subjective morality doesn't change my point; denying the existence of objective morality while simultaneously arguing moral right and wrong is plainly hypocritical. At this point I must step out of the discussion. For me to enjoy a debate, I need to be able to respect my opponents, and when I'm being asked to explain why killing thousands of innocent people solely to advance one's personal political agenda is morally wrong, then we've gone far, far beyond that point. In fact, we've gone even farther than that due to Atolm and Bultje112's trying to impose their confused idea of morality on a fictional work which obviously does not share it. It's ridiculous enough to say that massacres like the recent incident in Orlando, Florida are justifiable; saying that the destruction of Zoah and the capital are intended to be morally ambiguous is not merely ridiculous, it's willfully ignoring the obvious intent of the authors (not to mention the most basic facts of 20th century Japanese history and culture). I wouldn't have the patience for this even under normal circumstances, and with the recent practical application of Atolm and Bultje112's views of morality in Orlando, it's a sure bet that I'd soon lose my temper if I continued to participate in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 16, 2016 18:45:15 GMT
Dude, you're a rambling nutter who bought a game.com
I didn't say anything about Orlando. Your original statement of "I aced philosphy" sure as shit didn't prove your credibility to anyone. You made some asinine statement equating morality to gravity. Morality to exist requires neurons to be firing in human brains. It isn't a thing that's existed for all time that we discovered, we INVENTED it. Here's the actual definition if you want to keep running your mouth. "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
Maybe this seems overly harsh, but you did just insinuate I approved of the slaughter of 50 of my fellow countrymen, a conclusion you reached based on the discussion of morals warring societies in a work of fiction might have. Where you pulled this from, all I can say is you're probably not a licensed proctologist.
|
|