• This section is for roleplays only.
    ALL interest checks/recruiting threads must go in the Recruit Here section.

    Please remember to credit artists when using works not your own.

Futuristic Nova One - OOC

So collectively we have a good understanding of physics, moral philosophy, biology, what else do we collectively know?
 
Honestly it's a subtle difference. Without going into a lecture, they are two philosophies that seek to do what they think is right/moral. The difference lies in how they determine what is ethical.


For Kantianism, it's fairly simple. Every human is deserving of dignity, and it is every person's duty  to follow this absolute moral imperitive. In essence, they perform this thought experiment on their actions. Would the action be beneficial if every person in the world performed it?  Example: I'm going to kill the next person I meet. If everyone did that, almost eveyone would be dead. Obviously not a good move. Another example: I am starving to death and need to steal some bread to eat. What if everyone stole some food? Nope, not beneficial. So, under Kantian ethics it would be wrong, even though you're denying someone (yourself) happiness.


On the other hand, Utilitarianism is much more an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. Utilitarianism is prepared to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. This is obviously a much more gray area. Essentially, the morality of a Utilitarianist's action are relative to their results. Example: Do you sacrifice one life to save a thousand? Under Utilitarianism, yes, you do. You're looking to promote the greatest amount of happiness you can, so you weight the actions and the outcomes. It naturally follows that 4000 > 1.


Using that same example in regards to Kantianism, you would never sacrifice anyone for any reason ever. Human life is to be treasured and every person deserves to be treated with that kind of respect.


Edit: Sorry, I guess it kinda did turn into a lecture. >_>

Whoooooooooa, that is some seriously deep thinking right there. I love it when I learn something new like that ^^

I'm getting a degree in psychology next week! ^_^  Just a 2 year, but I suppose it's something.

Thats pretty awesome avira! Congrats on all your hard work. 
 
@zCrookedz Me too! I'm only glad to feel my education hasn't completely gone to waste. >_>


Edit: Also, thanks! Sorry, didn't see you said that last part there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@zCrookedz Me too! I'm only glad to feel my education hasn't completely gone to waste. >_>

Im sure it wont ^^ 


With those spelled out in such fine detail, I really can't see the Patronus falling into either of those categories XD Any other psychological categories that might fit them a little better?
 
@SilverFlight


@avira


@zCrookedz


It is actually limited, but its the fact he appeals directly to the masses. Those that are affected by this: soldiers, workers, scientists, traders.


He lives a long time, so he knows how to play the long game to his advantage.


For example: he's going to put forth a motion to place a supply/habitation platform in space above the Vos homeworld. They pay for the cost of the construction and ask only for 5% of earnings for a year to cover the cost.


In exchange, the Vos get a close source of food, protection (because they have to protect their investment) as well as a chance for a sizeable economy based on agriculture. 


This makes the Ascended look good in the eyes of the Vos, where as with the Coalition, its like 'where were you when we needed you?'
 
@zCrookedz Oh goodness, there are as many philosophical schools as you can count. I wouldn't be sure where to start.

lol sounds like I have a long google search ahead in my future ^^ 

The psychological stuff is pretty cool. I briefly considered it as a profession when I was thinking about college years back, but opted not to due to the fact that I don't generally like people XD So I went to college for computers. Now I work with people. Karma is a bitch, huh?
 
@SilverFlight


@avira


@zCrookedz


It is actually limited, but its the fact he appeals directly to the masses. Those that are affected by this: soldiers, workers, scientists, traders.


He lives a long time, so he knows how to play the long game to his advantage.


For example: he's going to put forth a motion to place a supply/habitation platform in space above the Vos homeworld. They pay for the cost of the construction and ask only for 5% of earnings for a year to cover the cost.


In exchange, the Vos get a close source of food, protection (because they have to protect their investment) as well as a chance for a sizeable economy based on agriculture. 


This makes the Ascended look good in the eyes of the Vos, where as with the Coalition, its like 'where were you when we needed you?'





The Vos would definitely be receptive. They're very much a capitalist system and would be able to see the value in such a deal.


I get what you mean, it definitely pulls them closer together while at the same time excluding the Council.
 
Honestly it's a subtle difference. Without going into a lecture, they are two philosophies that seek to do what they think is right/moral. The difference lies in how they determine what is ethical.


For Kantianism, it's fairly simple. Every human is deserving of dignity, and it is every person's duty  to follow this absolute moral imperitive. In essence, they perform this thought experiment on their actions. Would the action be beneficial if every person in the world performed it?  Example: I'm going to kill the next person I meet. If everyone did that, almost eveyone would be dead. Obviously not a good move. Another example: I am starving to death and need to steal some bread to eat. What if everyone stole some food? Nope, not beneficial. So, under Kantian ethics it would be wrong, even though you're denying someone (yourself) happiness.


On the other hand, Utilitarianism is much more an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. Utilitarianism is prepared to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. This is obviously a much more gray area. Essentially, the morality of a Utilitarianist's action are relative to their results. Example: Do you sacrifice one life to save a thousand? Under Utilitarianism, yes, you do. You're looking to promote the greatest amount of happiness you can, so you weight the actions and the outcomes. It naturally follows that 4000 > 1.


Using that same example in regards to Kantianism, you would never sacrifice anyone for any reason ever. Human life is to be treasured and every person deserves to be treated with that kind of respect.


Edit: Sorry, I guess it kinda did turn into a lecture. >_>

So, what is your response to The Case of the Inquiring Murderer?
 
So, what is your response to The Case of the Inquiring Murderer?

I wouldn't do it. I mean, in Kantianism it's obvious that you should and why. But man, I still wouldn't. That's the thing about Kantianism, it's so strict in its interpretation of morality and ethics. I can get why someone would find a kind of comfort in it, seeing the world in such black and white.  But, I personally think there's some wiggle room to be had.


What about you? Or more importantly, Solia and Mehrunes? :P
 
I wouldn't do it. I mean, in Kantianism it's obvious that you should and why. But man, I still wouldn't. That's the thing about Kantianism, it's so strict in its interpretation of morality and ethics. I can get why someone would find a kind of comfort in it, seeing the world in such black and white.  But, I personally think there's some wiggle room to be had.


What about you? Or more importantly, Solia and Mehrunes? :P

Me personally? I'd tell him where his victim is, then follow him. I'd also warn his victim that the murderer was on his way, and if that wasn't possible, I'd intervene to the best of my ability when he tried to do the deed. This all assumes I couldn't warn proper authorities of course.
 
What is that?

It's a philosophical thought exercise.


A man walks up to you, asking "Do you know the whereabouts of Mr. Smith, for I mean to kill him." You know exactly where Mr. Smith is at the time. How do you answer the question?
 
It's a philosophical thought exercise.


A man walks up to you, asking "Do you know the whereabouts of Mr. Smith, for I mean to kill him." You know exactly where Mr. Smith is at the time. How do you answer the question?

Hmmmm, for me I would need to know more information. is Mr smith a criminal? did he comitt a worse crime? so many questions that I would want to know before disclosing Mr smith's wearabouts
 
Hmmmm, for me I would need to know more information. is Mr smith a criminal? did he comitt a worse crime? so many questions that I would want to know before disclosing Mr smith's wearabouts



Well, that's our point. Within Kantianism, there is only one answer and it is very clear. 


Would it be beneficial if everyone in the world lied? No? Well, there it is in black and white, no other consideration needed.


Though, obviously, not everyone is a subscirber to the Kantian ideology. Like me. :P
 
@avira @zCrookedz @SilverFlight


For the Ascended, it's all about the long game: What is going to benefit people the most, and how to achieve it. Cause and Effect. Can it be done, and how much is it going to cost. Not very complex, if you think about it. Mehrunes knows how to achieve this by using both his intellect and their current state of being.


The Vos have had a bad time trusting others, but The Ascended have a reputation for always looking out for their allies, so there is a one.


They possess a well-developed economy, advanced technology, and a strong military, so there is another.


Their belief system relies on the majority benefiting instead of just themselves, and that's three.


Mehrunes uses these facts, and plays on them through the Coalitions system. A few protests and rally's to show the problems with the Coalitions system, that falls within their right of free speech. Building a supply/habitation platform above orbit means the Vos gain a reliable and philanthropic source of food, which will be protected for an entire year by the Ascended's military (longer if they continue to provide supplies, which is up to them), and they merely have to give 5% of their earnings for that time period to cover the costs.


What does this do? It puts the Ascended in a popular light, that they're much more reliable, and makes the Coalition seem incompetent and ineffective. Cause and Effect.
 
@avira @SilverFlight @zCrookedz


This is damning to the Coalition for a few reasons.


One, The Vos have been in a bind over being exploited for years, and there has not been much done for them. Not even the people that exploited them have paid for it. All of a sudden, a new race like the Ascended comes along, and they start helping them rebuild and regrow, as well as get revenge on those that exploited them (Aka, attacking smuggling rings and pirate bands near the home world.) Basically coming in and succeeding where the Coalition failed.


Two, The Ascended are being heavily restricted due to their culture based on Genetic Research and Military Development. Both have been pushed around and oppressed (at least that is what is viewed in the public eye). It is often said 'birds of a feather flock together' and as both know the pain of oppression, they as species can bond over it, and that bond can easily turn into an anger towards the Coalition that has failed them.


Three, The Ascended always fight for equality and fair treatment, that has been the staple principle of their society for years. Here is a race READY and WILLING to fight for the Vos (and anyone else that needs it) and yet the Coalition paints them as a problem.


In short, the Ascended take action, accomplishing their goals and protecting their allies, and from the main point of view, all the Coalition does is bluster and sit around, allowing races like the Lunishan to continue their barbaric practices, in the name of 'balance'. 


Not to mention, if the Coalition tried to interfere with the Supply/Habitation Platform, a number of things could go wrong.


1. If they tried to prevent it, it would be seen as detrimental towards Vos society, as they're basically preventing them from growing their own food or allowing anyone to help out.


2. If they tried to take over the project, it would be seen as if they were trying to save face and steal another's idea, again not a very popular view point.


3. Since it is being introduced as a Solely Ascended-Vos project, to improve conditions for Vos, the Coalition basically gain nothing from it, but stepping in would put into question as to their legitimacy on authority, but either way earns a lot of good will towards the Ascended.


If you were put into this position, which side would you favor more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you were put into this position, which side would you favor more?



From what I've read and what I understand about the Vos, I actually kind of feel like as long as the habitat is constructed, none of them would really care who constructs it.


Not to mention that it doesn't seem all that simple a proposition in the first place; I'm sure that there would be different amenities provided to such a station, depending on which "side" built it.


Boy, I sure missed a lot while I was out today!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am so wildly excited that the Vos are (hopefully) becoming part of the story even though we have no Vosite characters! Maybe I'll get to bring one in later, we'll see how things develop. Gosh, I'm loving this RP even though we're only a little bit in. <3
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top