An intresting view on Law and Chaos (WARNING: LONG!) [Archive] - Wizards Community

An intresting view on Law and Chaos (WARNING: LONG!) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
shadowflamedancer
12-02-04, 03:55 PM This morning in one of my classes we had a reading from a book called "How Good People Make Tough Choices". I thought it would be pretty silly, but it was actually quite interesting. I also thought about how it could be applied to the Law/Chaos spectrum of alignments. In fact, thinking about how your PC would use any of these thinking methods would deepin the roleplaying of any character, no matter what the alignment. Any way, this is the part I was specifically thinking about, but if you want to read the whole chapter it can be found at http://www.globalethics.org/pub/toughchoices.html
Anyway, this outlines three basic ways of making moral and ethical decisions. Now granted that most of us probably use a unique mix of these, but PCs are made of extremes, so have at it. Please tell me what you think. Mabey we could even get a good discusion going on.

Ends-based thinking. Known to philosophers as utilitarianism, this principle is best known by the maxim Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It demands of us a kind of cost-benefit analysis, determining who will be hurt and who helped and measuring the intensity of that help. It is the staple of public policy debate: Most legislation, these days, is crafted with this utilitarian test in mind.

At the heart of this principle is an assessment of consequences, a forecasting of outcomes. Philosophers typically refer to utilitarianism, in fact, as a form of consequentialism--or, more precisely, as a teleological principle, from the Greek work teleos, meaning "end" or "issue." Why? Because you cannot determine the "greatest good" without speculating on probable futures. Hence the "ends-based" label: Utilitarianism examines possible results and picks the one that produces the most blessing over the greatest range.

Rule-based thinking. Often associated with the name of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this principle is best known by what Kant somewhat obtusely called "the categorical imperative." Kant put it this way: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Simply put, that means, "Follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow." In other words, act in such a way that your actions could become a universal standard that others ought to obey. Ask yourself, "If everyone in the world followed the rule of action I am following, would that create the greatest good or [in Kant's words] the greatest `worth of character'?"

This mode of thinking stands directly opposed to utilitarianism. Arguing that consequentialism is hopelessly flawed--how, after all, can we ever imagine we know the entire consequences of our actions?--the rule-based thinker pleads for acting only in accord with fixed rules. Never mind outcomes: Stick to your principles and let the consequential chips fall where they may. Based firmly on duty--on what we ought to do, rather than what we think might work--it is known among philosophers as deontological thinking, from the Greek word deon, meaning "obligation" or "duty."

Care-based thinking. Putting love for others first, this third principle comes into play most frequently in the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would like them to do to you. It partakes of a feature known to philosophers as reversibility: In other words, it asks you to test your actions by putting yourself in another's shoes and imagining how it would feel if you were the recipient, rather than the perpetrator, of your actions. Often associated with Christianity--Jesus, after all, said, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matt. 7:12)--it is in fact so universal that it appears at the center of every one of the world's great religious teachings. While some philosophers (including Kant) have disputed its standing as a practical principle, it is for many people the only rule of ethics they know, deserving consideration for the moral glue it has provided over the centuries.
Melpomene
12-02-04, 04:06 PM Yup, sounds about right.

Mill, the herold of utiltarianism, also warmed that it was not a cry to anarchy, and harolded lawful concepts as a means of counterbalance. This would seem to be indicative of utilitarianism as a chaotic ideal, at least in a self-sufficiant sort of way.
TommyBlack
12-02-04, 04:11 PM Being an ethicist, I have been thinking about something to this effect. Here's the way I break it up:

Neutral Good: utilitarians. They care about increasing goodness, regardless of methods or caring about the individual's rights.

Chaotic Neutral: lockeans. They champion individual rights and will only support a structured government if it exists in order to allow the individual to more freely pursue his own goals.

Neutral Evil: hedonist egoists. They only care about their own goals, and will stab a baby if it's the sort of thing they like to do.

Lawful Neutral: kantians (from a universalist reading). The important thing is to have rules that are internally consistent and universal.

Of course, all of the 'corner' alignments would be trying to follow two of these rules at the same time, and thus would sometimes come into conflict. And True Neutral, having none of these arbitrary standards, would probably have to refer to something like Aristotle's Virtue Ethics.

This seems to conform to the sorts of examples of behavior I've seen.
Kyy'Dakh
12-02-04, 04:39 PM I think this is a good way to look at alignments, and a lot more eloquent than how I've tried to put it.

I'm CG: For a lot of issues, I'm utilitarian, but there are a number of times when my C overrides my G, namely in matters of individual rights, such as freedom of speech. Though there are a lot of people I'd rather have gagged for the greater good, my C (thankfully) points out the many ways such utilitarian thinking can end up being counterproductive.

I've took one Ethics course a while back, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.
EatFlan
12-02-04, 04:49 PM Lawful Neutral: kantians (from a universalist reading). The important thing is to have rules that are internally consistent and universal.

damn you've pegged me!
shadowflamedancer
12-06-04, 03:42 PM What exactly is this 'kantain' that you are talking about. If you could give a short definition I would greatly appreciate it.
Kyy'Dakh
12-06-04, 03:46 PM Rule-based thinking. Often associated with the name of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this principle is best known by what Kant somewhat obtusely called "the categorical imperative." Kant put it this way: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Simply put, that means, "Follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow." In other words, act in such a way that your actions could become a universal standard that others ought to obey. Ask yourself, "If everyone in the world followed the rule of action I am following, would that create the greatest good or [in Kant's words] the greatest `worth of character'?"

Kantian, as in of or pertaining to Immanuel Kant.
EatFlan
12-06-04, 03:50 PM i find it amusing that you started this thread, posted everything on it, yet didn't understand a term defined in it.

SP
afromonkey
12-06-04, 04:10 PM I would say that utilitarians fall within a much wider spectrum than just neutral good, with most of the being more neutral or possibly evil than good. Surely 'the ends justify the means' is not the creed of a neutral good being?
Kyy'Dakh
12-06-04, 04:10 PM *double-takes* Wow. Must take a special talent to perform an oversight like that.
Callista
12-06-04, 06:09 PM I would say that a neutral good being would say that the ends can override the means, but only to a certain point. For example, a neutral good person probably wouldn't have a problem with stealing from a corrupt merchant (the means) in order to feed his starving kids (the ends). However, he'd have a big problem with killing that merchant (the means) in order to inherit his wealth (the ends).

A big "means to an end" example I see in a lot of games is genoicide of a "usually evil species"--say, orcs--which would probably accomplish a good goal, saving more lives than are taken. But that's where you have to draw the line: The people who kill the orcs--especially the not-yet-old-enough-for-alignment children, as well as the few Neutral and Good orcs--are going to become evil if they just follow orders.

And, what's more, their influence will spread: Kill an orc because he's evil? Well, it's been done, and we're better off without 'em: Let's kill kender, too, because they're annoying; dwarves, because they don't appreciate the finer things in life.

Great way to turn a whole society evil... Remember the nazis?
Dreaming_in_the_void
12-06-04, 06:50 PM Chaotic Neutral: lockeans. They champion individual rights and will only support a structured government if it exists in order to allow the individual to more freely pursue his own goals.

Yep, he was always about refuting the right of the monarch to rule, but he also wanted to champion liberty... I see him more as CG.

As Kant also would have us treat all humans as "An end unto themselves" rather than just a means, I might slide him "up" the moral scale and place him as LG.

Machiavelli is hard to place. Lawful in that he believed in a strong ruling class, chaotic in that the ends were more important than the means (screw how we do it, just get it done... no real procedural integrity)... not really sure where to put him. Good and Evil mattered less to him than control, so like a forerunner of Nietzsche I think he'd be neutral in that respect. Any thoughts on where to place him?
TommyBlack
12-07-04, 09:51 AM Yep, he was always about refuting the right of the monarch to rule, but he also wanted to champion liberty... I see him more as CG.

"champion liberty"... that's exactly why I associated it with chaotic. Someone chaotic neutral should only support a government if it allows for individual freedom. No need to slide him up to good for that.

As Kant also would have us treat all humans as "An end unto themselves" rather than just a means, I might slide him "up" the moral scale and place him as LG.

Note: I wasn't trying to say "given our preconceptions of alignment, here is what I think Kant is," I was providing dimensions in ethical terms which I thought might approximate alignment in such a way that one might say "wow, good and evil make a lot more sense now!"

Given that, I wasn't saying Kant himself is LN, but rather the universalist reading of Kant is a LN philosophy. Rules that can be universalized and logical coherence supercede any traditional conception of good and evil.

Here's how the dimensions break down in these terms:

Lawful: rules must be effective rules which can be applied equally to everyone
Chaotic: rules can only be supported when they allow for greater freedom
Good: everyone counts for one, and nobody more than one, and everyone should help everyone else.
Evil: I count more than anybody, and I do whatever I can to further my immediate goals.
True Neutral: The good life is found in the mean between extremes (virtue ethics)
shadowflamedancer
12-07-04, 03:46 PM i find it amusing that you started this thread, posted everything on it, yet didn't understand a term defined in it.

SP

Sorry for my oversight. I'm only familiar with Kant in passing, and I have never heard the 'kantian' for of the term. Any way, I'm glad I've managed to start a nice disscusion
DrWorm
12-07-04, 05:02 PM Lawful: rules must be effective rules which can be applied equally to everyone
Chaotic: rules can only be supported when they allow for greater freedom
Good: everyone counts for one, and nobody more than one, and everyone should help everyone else.
Evil: I count more than anybody, and I do whatever I can to further my immediate goals.
True Neutral: The good life is found in the mean between extremes (virtue ethics)

I have always had a slightly different view of Good and Neutral than you have stated.
Good: Everyone else counts as slightly more than me, and the needs of the many do not nessisarlily out weigh the needs of the few.
Neutral: Each person is of equal value, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

In my view an idealistically good society would never choose to expend an individual for the greater good, as that expense places a "spiritual" mar on the goodness of society as a whole. Paradoxically, though, the individual in question would most likely be inclined to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

P.S. No I am not a Trekkie or trekker...just the language that was handy.
Dreaming_in_the_void
12-07-04, 06:25 PM Note: I wasn't trying to say "given our preconceptions of alignment, here is what I think Kant is,"

My apologies. Rereading the post you're doing a spot on job of it too.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shadowflamedancer 12-02-04, 03:55 PM	This morning in one of my classes we had a reading from a book called "How Good People Make Tough Choices". I thought it would be pretty silly, but it was actually quite interesting. I also thought about how it could be applied to the Law/Chaos spectrum of alignments. In fact, thinking about how your PC would use any of these thinking methods would deepin the roleplaying of any character, no matter what the alignment. Any way, this is the part I was specifically thinking about, but if you want to read the whole chapter it can be found at http://www.globalethics.org/pub/toughchoices.html Anyway, this outlines three basic ways of making moral and ethical decisions. Now granted that most of us probably use a unique mix of these, but PCs are made of extremes, so have at it. Please tell me what you think. Mabey we could even get a good discusion going on. Ends-based thinking. Known to philosophers as utilitarianism, this principle is best known by the maxim Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It demands of us a kind of cost-benefit analysis, determining who will be hurt and who helped and measuring the intensity of that help. It is the staple of public policy debate: Most legislation, these days, is crafted with this utilitarian test in mind. At the heart of this principle is an assessment of consequences, a forecasting of outcomes. Philosophers typically refer to utilitarianism, in fact, as a form of consequentialism--or, more precisely, as a teleological principle, from the Greek work teleos, meaning "end" or "issue." Why? Because you cannot determine the "greatest good" without speculating on probable futures. Hence the "ends-based" label: Utilitarianism examines possible results and picks the one that produces the most blessing over the greatest range. Rule-based thinking. Often associated with the name of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this principle is best known by what Kant somewhat obtusely called "the categorical imperative." Kant put it this way: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Simply put, that means, "Follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow." In other words, act in such a way that your actions could become a universal standard that others ought to obey. Ask yourself, "If everyone in the world followed the rule of action I am following, would that create the greatest good or [in Kant's words] the greatest `worth of character'?" This mode of thinking stands directly opposed to utilitarianism. Arguing that consequentialism is hopelessly flawed--how, after all, can we ever imagine we know the entire consequences of our actions?--the rule-based thinker pleads for acting only in accord with fixed rules. Never mind outcomes: Stick to your principles and let the consequential chips fall where they may. Based firmly on duty--on what we ought to do, rather than what we think might work--it is known among philosophers as deontological thinking, from the Greek word deon, meaning "obligation" or "duty." Care-based thinking. Putting love for others first, this third principle comes into play most frequently in the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would like them to do to you. It partakes of a feature known to philosophers as reversibility: In other words, it asks you to test your actions by putting yourself in another's shoes and imagining how it would feel if you were the recipient, rather than the perpetrator, of your actions. Often associated with Christianity--Jesus, after all, said, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matt. 7:12)--it is in fact so universal that it appears at the center of every one of the world's great religious teachings. While some philosophers (including Kant) have disputed its standing as a practical principle, it is for many people the only rule of ethics they know, deserving consideration for the moral glue it has provided over the centuries.
Melpomene 12-02-04, 04:06 PM	Yup, sounds about right. Mill, the herold of utiltarianism, also warmed that it was not a cry to anarchy, and harolded lawful concepts as a means of counterbalance. This would seem to be indicative of utilitarianism as a chaotic ideal, at least in a self-sufficiant sort of way.
TommyBlack 12-02-04, 04:11 PM	Being an ethicist, I have been thinking about something to this effect. Here's the way I break it up: Neutral Good: utilitarians. They care about increasing goodness, regardless of methods or caring about the individual's rights. Chaotic Neutral: lockeans. They champion individual rights and will only support a structured government if it exists in order to allow the individual to more freely pursue his own goals. Neutral Evil: hedonist egoists. They only care about their own goals, and will stab a baby if it's the sort of thing they like to do. Lawful Neutral: kantians (from a universalist reading). The important thing is to have rules that are internally consistent and universal. Of course, all of the 'corner' alignments would be trying to follow two of these rules at the same time, and thus would sometimes come into conflict. And True Neutral, having none of these arbitrary standards, would probably have to refer to something like Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. This seems to conform to the sorts of examples of behavior I've seen.
Kyy'Dakh 12-02-04, 04:39 PM	I think this is a good way to look at alignments, and a lot more eloquent than how I've tried to put it. I'm CG: For a lot of issues, I'm utilitarian, but there are a number of times when my C overrides my G, namely in matters of individual rights, such as freedom of speech. Though there are a lot of people I'd rather have gagged for the greater good, my C (thankfully) points out the many ways such utilitarian thinking can end up being counterproductive. I've took one Ethics course a while back, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.
EatFlan 12-02-04, 04:49 PM	Lawful Neutral: kantians (from a universalist reading). The important thing is to have rules that are internally consistent and universal. damn you've pegged me!
shadowflamedancer 12-06-04, 03:42 PM	What exactly is this 'kantain' that you are talking about. If you could give a short definition I would greatly appreciate it.
Kyy'Dakh 12-06-04, 03:46 PM	Rule-based thinking. Often associated with the name of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this principle is best known by what Kant somewhat obtusely called "the categorical imperative." Kant put it this way: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Simply put, that means, "Follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow." In other words, act in such a way that your actions could become a universal standard that others ought to obey. Ask yourself, "If everyone in the world followed the rule of action I am following, would that create the greatest good or [in Kant's words] the greatest `worth of character'?" Kantian, as in of or pertaining to Immanuel Kant.
EatFlan 12-06-04, 03:50 PM	i find it amusing that you started this thread, posted everything on it, yet didn't understand a term defined in it. SP
afromonkey 12-06-04, 04:10 PM	I would say that utilitarians fall within a much wider spectrum than just neutral good, with most of the being more neutral or possibly evil than good. Surely 'the ends justify the means' is not the creed of a neutral good being?
Kyy'Dakh 12-06-04, 04:10 PM	double-takes Wow. Must take a special talent to perform an oversight like that.
Callista 12-06-04, 06:09 PM	I would say that a neutral good being would say that the ends can override the means, but only to a certain point. For example, a neutral good person probably wouldn't have a problem with stealing from a corrupt merchant (the means) in order to feed his starving kids (the ends). However, he'd have a big problem with killing that merchant (the means) in order to inherit his wealth (the ends). A big "means to an end" example I see in a lot of games is genoicide of a "usually evil species"--say, orcs--which would probably accomplish a good goal, saving more lives than are taken. But that's where you have to draw the line: The people who kill the orcs--especially the not-yet-old-enough-for-alignment children, as well as the few Neutral and Good orcs--are going to become evil if they just follow orders. And, what's more, their influence will spread: Kill an orc because he's evil? Well, it's been done, and we're better off without 'em: Let's kill kender, too, because they're annoying; dwarves, because they don't appreciate the finer things in life. Great way to turn a whole society evil... Remember the nazis?
Dreaming_in_the_void 12-06-04, 06:50 PM	Chaotic Neutral: lockeans. They champion individual rights and will only support a structured government if it exists in order to allow the individual to more freely pursue his own goals. Yep, he was always about refuting the right of the monarch to rule, but he also wanted to champion liberty... I see him more as CG. As Kant also would have us treat all humans as "An end unto themselves" rather than just a means, I might slide him "up" the moral scale and place him as LG. Machiavelli is hard to place. Lawful in that he believed in a strong ruling class, chaotic in that the ends were more important than the means (screw how we do it, just get it done... no real procedural integrity)... not really sure where to put him. Good and Evil mattered less to him than control, so like a forerunner of Nietzsche I think he'd be neutral in that respect. Any thoughts on where to place him?
TommyBlack 12-07-04, 09:51 AM	Yep, he was always about refuting the right of the monarch to rule, but he also wanted to champion liberty... I see him more as CG. "champion liberty"... that's exactly why I associated it with chaotic. Someone chaotic neutral should only support a government if it allows for individual freedom. No need to slide him up to good for that. As Kant also would have us treat all humans as "An end unto themselves" rather than just a means, I might slide him "up" the moral scale and place him as LG. Note: I wasn't trying to say "given our preconceptions of alignment, here is what I think Kant is," I was providing dimensions in ethical terms which I thought might approximate alignment in such a way that one might say "wow, good and evil make a lot more sense now!" Given that, I wasn't saying Kant himself is LN, but rather the universalist reading of Kant is a LN philosophy. Rules that can be universalized and logical coherence supercede any traditional conception of good and evil. Here's how the dimensions break down in these terms: Lawful: rules must be effective rules which can be applied equally to everyone Chaotic: rules can only be supported when they allow for greater freedom Good: everyone counts for one, and nobody more than one, and everyone should help everyone else. Evil: I count more than anybody, and I do whatever I can to further my immediate goals. True Neutral: The good life is found in the mean between extremes (virtue ethics)
shadowflamedancer 12-07-04, 03:46 PM	i find it amusing that you started this thread, posted everything on it, yet didn't understand a term defined in it. SP Sorry for my oversight. I'm only familiar with Kant in passing, and I have never heard the 'kantian' for of the term. Any way, I'm glad I've managed to start a nice disscusion
DrWorm 12-07-04, 05:02 PM	Lawful: rules must be effective rules which can be applied equally to everyone Chaotic: rules can only be supported when they allow for greater freedom Good: everyone counts for one, and nobody more than one, and everyone should help everyone else. Evil: I count more than anybody, and I do whatever I can to further my immediate goals. True Neutral: The good life is found in the mean between extremes (virtue ethics) I have always had a slightly different view of Good and Neutral than you have stated. Good: Everyone else counts as slightly more than me, and the needs of the many do not nessisarlily out weigh the needs of the few. Neutral: Each person is of equal value, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In my view an idealistically good society would never choose to expend an individual for the greater good, as that expense places a "spiritual" mar on the goodness of society as a whole. Paradoxically, though, the individual in question would most likely be inclined to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. P.S. No I am not a Trekkie or trekker...just the language that was handy.
Dreaming_in_the_void 12-07-04, 06:25 PM	Note: I wasn't trying to say "given our preconceptions of alignment, here is what I think Kant is," My apologies. Rereading the post you're doing a spot on job of it too.