Fandom Fate/Bad Joke OOC

[Xel]

Civilian casualties is beneficial to society...*nods*

Evil people never call themselves evil. Evil is a label. Might as well say there's no such thing as evil and be done with it.

When they aren't your civilians? Sure. Hell. Even in modern times that's still the way it is. Civilian casualties are always acceptable if it means attaining victory. That's one thing that has never change in the passing of time. No military leader saw a path to victory and refused to take it due to some civilian casualties.

Murder is bad yeah. That's an inherent normative moral of humanity. If saber is from "ye olden times" then religion was likely a driving force and that would just make the ideas of good and evil even stronger.

It's just pragmatic logic, not good or evil. If killing someone is beneficial, people do it. If killing them is detrimental, they don't do it. Good and evil has nothing to do with it. Saber wont go out of her way to kill people, but a few civilian casualties is a small price to pay for winning the war.

 

[Mion]

When they aren't your civilians? Sure. Hell. Even in modern times that's still the way it is. Civilian casualties are always acceptable if it means attaining victory. That's one thing that has never change in the passing of time. No military leader saw a path to victory and refused to take it due to some civilian casualties.



It's just pragmatic logic, not good or evil. If killing someone is beneficial, people do it. If killing them is detrimental, they don't do it. Good and evil has nothing to do with it. Saber wont go out of her way to kill people, but a few civilian casualties is a small price to pay for winning the war.

Your pragmatism in this sense is inherently evil. Throwing away the lives of others for your own benefit, just because it is beneficial for you and the quickest road to success. That is objectively evil. You can argue they are subjective terms but that is absolutely incorrect. Language is a tool through which we can make descriptive observations on the normative ethics.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Ethical subjectivism is just a silly and self defeating belief. Humans have the inherent capacity to determine good from bad and further than that good from evil through their objective normative ethics.

I'm confused. If there are various definitions for good and evil, wouldn't that make it subjective? Isn't that what subjective means?

I mean, even if there is an 'inherent' morality which defines humanity I think levels of ethical do exist....

When they aren't your civilians? Sure. Hell. Even in modern times that's still the way it is. Civilian casualties are always acceptable if it means attaining victory. That's one thing that has never change in the passing of time. No military leader saw a path to victory and refused to take it due to some civilian casualties.

Yes, but would you label it as Evil or Good? As I said, evil is just a label. And character alignments do exist in this fandom.

 

[Mion]

I'm confused. If there are various definitions for good and evil, wouldn't that make it subjective? Isn't that what subjective means?

I mean, even if there is an 'inherent' morality which defines humanity I think levels of ethical do exist....



Yes, but would you label it as Evil or Good? As I said, evil is just a label. And character alignments do exist in this fandom.

The subjectivness of good and evil would be more of a linguistic argument than a philosophical one. Sure they have been used to manipulate and control people but that is because language is a man made tool. Language is subjective. Ethics are not.

 

[Xel]

Your pragmatism in this sense is inherently evil. Throwing away the lives of others for your own benefit, just because it is beneficial for you and the quickest road to success. That is objectively evil. You can argue they are subjective terms but that is absolutely incorrect. Language is a tool through which we can make descriptive observations on the normative ethics.

Sacrificing the few for the good of the many is usually seen as a good thing, though. Otherwise you just sacrifice everyone. Besides, the losing side always thinks it's evil. So it's less about it being evil and more about the losers being upset it happened. You don't really see the victors decrying it as evil, now do you?

I'm confused. If there are various definitions for good and evil, wouldn't that make it subjective? Isn't that what subjective means?

I mean, even if there is an 'inherent' morality which defines humanity I think levels of ethical do exist....



Yes, but would you label it as Evil or Good? As I said, evil is just a label. And character alignments do exist in this fandom.

Saber's alignment is lawful neutral. Take that as you will.

 

[Mion]

Sacrificing the few for the good of the many is usually seen as a good thing, though. Otherwise you just sacrifice everyone. Besides, the losing side always thinks it's evil. So it's less about it being evil and more about the losers being upset it happened. You don't really see the victors decrying it as evil, now do you?



Saber's alignment is lawful neutral. Take that as you will.

People justifying their acts to live with what they have done doesn't make it any less evil lmao

 

[Xel]

People justifying their acts to live with what they have done doesn't make it any less evil lmao

Doesn't make it any more evil, though. Since good and evil are subjective. There is no objective measure as to what is good and what is evil. So it always, universally, boils down to each individual's subjective view. What you find evil, others find good. What you find good, others find evil. There's a reason you can have two opposing sides both claiming to be the good side.

 

[Mion]

Doesn't make it any more evil, though. Since good and evil are subjective. There is no objective measure as to what is good and what is evil. So it always, universally, boils down to each individual's subjective view. What you find evil, others find good. What you find good, others find evil. There's a reason you can have two opposing sides both claiming to be the good side.

You are speaking about different perspectives. You have already stated how people can justify evil. Sure there are multiple sides to the story but there is right and wrong, good and evil. Ethical subjectivism is just a fallacious argument and isn't really worth entertaining more than I have so I will just leave it there.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

The subjectivness of good and evil would be more of a linguistic argument than a philosophical one. Sure they have been used to manipulate and control people but that is because language is a man made tool. Language is subjective. Ethics are not.

Ethics vs language. Interesting. But humans are rarely purely good or evil...meaning it's usually actions that are either ethical or unethical.

Saber's alignment is lawful neutral. Take that as you will.

Same as Caster. They'll work well together then^^

 

[Mion]

Ethics vs language. Interesting. But humans are rarely purely good or evil...meaning it's usually actions that are either ethical or unethical.



Same as Caster. They'll work well together then^^

Humans are inherently good and evil. It's what people say and do and think which defines them. It's how a good man can commit evil acts and vice versa. Ethics are objective but not in the sense that humans are binary. We are both. That doesn't chang the fact that good and evil are natural laws no matter whether you believe in the divine or not.

 

[Xel]

You are speaking about different perspectives. You have already stated how people can justify evil. Sure there are multiple sides to the story but there is right and wrong, good and evil. Ethical subjectivism is just a fallacious argument and isn't really worth entertaining more than I have so I will just leave it there.

Ethical subjectivism is the objective truth, though. Ethics are subjective. To say otherwise is to show a gross level of arrogance. To say that YOUR ethics are absolutely, 100%, the objectively correct ones is supremely arrogant. Anything that relies on humans to make a determination is, inherently, subjective. Because other than saying "because I said so" what makes your view correct? Give me empirical data to support your claim. You can't, because morality is an artificial construct created by humans as a means of controlling society. This is why it exists nowhere else in nature, it's a wholely human invention and is thus entirely subjective.

As I said, good and evil doesn't actually exist. It's all just excuses to justify human behavior. To compel them to do things. It's a concept created by man in order to control man. There's nothing "inherent" about it. Nothing objective about it. It's just an artificial construct invented in order to ensure humans could coexist peacefully and productively. For them to be natural laws you'd have to be able to scientifically, empirically prove it. Which simply isn't possible.

Ethics vs language. Interesting. But humans are rarely purely good or evil...meaning it's usually actions that are either ethical or unethical.



Same as Caster. They'll work well together then^^

I mean, work well together until Saber kills Caster because there can only be one.

 

[Mion]

Ethical subjectivism is the objective truth, though. Ethics are subjective. To say otherwise is to show a gross level of arrogance. To say that YOUR ethics are absolutely, 100%, the objectively correct ones is supremely arrogant. Anything that relies on humans to make a determination is, inherently, subjective. Because other than saying "because I said so" what makes your view correct? Give me empirical data to support your claim. You can't, because morality is an artificial construct created by humans as a means of controlling society. This is why it exists nowhere else in nature, it's a wholely human invention and is thus entirely subjective.

As I said, good and evil doesn't actually exist. It's all just excuses to justify human behavior. To compel them to do things. It's a concept created by man in order to control man. There's nothing "inherent" about it. Nothing objective about it. It's just an artificial construct invented in order to ensure humans could coexist peacefully and productively. For them to be natural laws you'd have to be able to scientifically, empirically prove it. Which simply isn't possible.



I mean, work well together until Saber kills Caster because there can only be one.

Normative ethics are inherent to humanity. Whether through divinity or by nature. It'

 

[Mion]

I have never said MY ethics once

 

[Mion]

Ok my posts got messed up...

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Lawful Neutral:

One of the nine alignments from the best-known Character Alignment system. Lawful Neutral characters believe in order — personal, systemic, peace, three of them or either — above all else. They will always seek to obey and preserve order, even to the inconvenience of themselves and others, and even if they themselves admit the law in question is an annoying one. While a Lawful Good character may justify breaking his code of conduct by appealing to the greater good that transcends all things, a Lawful Neutral character will not, since the greater good does not enter into it.


An important thing to note is that Lawful Neutral characters follow their own personal vision of order and law. This order may be defined by the laws of their current location, or it might not: Lawful Neutral characters will not obey every law they ever encounter, only those that are part of or do not conflict with the code they themselves obey. They may perfectly rebel against authority if they disagree with this authority's laws, and still be Lawful.

I mean, work well together until Saber kills Caster because there can only be one.

Caster is fine with dying so long as his wish can be granted.

 

[Mion]

Also you can't provide empirical evidence for something that is intangible lol.

 

[Xel]

Normative ethics are inherent to humanity. Whether through divinity or by nature. It'

Then who's ethics are they? If they're a natural occurrence then show me scientific evidence. What other species have innate morality? Is it a mammalian trait?

You're conflating your subjective view that good and evil is real and projecting it as an objective truth of the universe. If good and evil was an objective truth it'd be like gravity, nobody could defy it. Nobody could debate it. And yet we have entire philosophical debates on what counts as good and what counts as evil. You can't quantify it. You can't provide evidence for it. By every scientific metric it is not an objective fact of reality, merely a subjective creation of humanity.

 

[Iskandar]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/tenor.gif?itemid=3579864

 

[Mion]

But oh wait... that's what normative ethics are.

 

[Mion]

Then who's ethics are they? If they're a natural occurrence then show me scientific evidence. What other species have innate morality? Is it a mammalian trait?

You're conflating your subjective view that good and evil is real and projecting it as an objective truth of the universe. If good and evil was an objective truth it'd be like gravity, nobody could defy it. Nobody could debate it. And yet we have entire philosophical debates on what counts as good and what counts as evil. You can't quantify it. You can't provide evidence for it. By every scientific metric it is not an objective fact of reality, merely a subjective creation of humanity.

Animals don't have ethics only humans do. I already stated before that the terms good and evil are subjective as all linguistics is but that is a moot point as HUMANITY, I repeat. HUMANITY have inherent normative ethics.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

I have never said MY ethics once

Xel doesn't believe in inherent ethics.

Then who's ethics are they? If they're a natural occurrence then show me scientific evidence. What other species have innate morality? Is it a mammalian trait?

You're conflating your subjective view that good and evil is real and projecting it as an objective truth of the universe. If good and evil was an objective truth it'd be like gravity, nobody could defy it. Nobody could debate it. And yet we have entire philosophical debates on what counts as good and what counts as evil. You can't quantify it. You can't provide evidence for it. By every scientific metric it is not an objective fact of reality, merely a subjective creation of humanity.

Some will argue it's humanity's ability to create morality as what defines humans. Biological is only one factor.

 

[Mion]

Xel doesn't believe in inherent ethics.



Some will argue it's humanity's ability to create morality as what defines humans. Biological is only one factor.

Yeah, which is simply fallacious. Normative ethics are inherent to all humans. Every single human alive has the capacity to derive good from wrong and how they ought to act. What they use as a descriptor for that is irrelevant.

 

[Xel]

Lawful Neutral:

One of the nine alignments from the best-known Character Alignment system. Lawful Neutral characters believe in order — personal, systemic, peace, three of them or either — above all else. They will always seek to obey and preserve order, even to the inconvenience of themselves and others, and even if they themselves admit the law in question is an annoying one. While a Lawful Good character may justify breaking his code of conduct by appealing to the greater good that transcends all things, a Lawful Neutral character will not, since the greater good does not enter into it.


An important thing to note is that Lawful Neutral characters follow their own personal vision of order and law. This order may be defined by the laws of their current location, or it might not: Lawful Neutral characters will not obey every law they ever encounter, only those that are part of or do not conflict with the code they themselves obey. They may perfectly rebel against authority if they disagree with this authority's laws, and still be Lawful.



Caster is fine with dying so long as his wish can be granted.

Then let's fulfill Caster's wish and kill him.

Animals don't have ethics only humans do. I already stated before that the terms good and evil are subjective as all linguistics is but that is a moot point as HUMANITY, I repeat. HUMANITY have inherent normative ethics.

Except there's nothing to suggest humanity has some shared root ethics. As seen by all the immensely diverse cultures throughout history. What one culture deemed good, another culture didn't. If humanity had some innate inbuilt moral code every society would share the same ethics and concepts of good and evil, yet they don't. The only common thread is simple animalistic pragmatism. There's no biological function that tells humans what is good and what is evil. It's shaped by our circumstances, our experiences, our beliefs, and the world around us. It's entirely subjective, invented as a means to foster cooperation since cooperation is in a society's best interest. It always comes back to cold hard pragmatism, not some abstract concept such as good or evil. If it benefited society to mass murder people you can bet we'd do it in a heartbeat. Because humans have the morality they assign to themselves. We're no different than any other animal species, we are not genetically programmed with a code of conduct like you seem to believe. We invented the code of conduct to make our lives easier.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Yeah, which is simply fallacious. Normative ethics are inherent to all humans. Every single human alive has the capacity to derive good from wrong and how they ought to act. What they use as a descriptor for that is irrelevant.

What about a mentally ill person? Or a person born with certain lack of traits compared to a regular human? Would they still be considered humans?

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Then let's fulfill Caster's wish and kill him.

Caster's wish requires to him to live to a certain duration.