What's the point of the good alignments or overall ever doing what you find ethnically right if in the end human nature will always take a big shit allover your efforts? What motivates a good guy at all?
Just because you can't make a difference for all doesn't mean you shouldn't make a difference for those you can.
It's saving that family from Orks that makes a difference, not the 4 other families they killed before you got there.
Because human nature doesn't always win.
Back at the dawn of our species, there were only a couple dozen lives that were considered "sacred". You didn't kill those in your family, you didn't kill those in your tribe, everyone else was free game.
Move forward a few centuries and it gets better. Now a couple hundred lives are considered sacred. You don't kill members of your state, you don't kill members of your country.
Move forward even more, to modern day, and society considers almost all human lives to be sacred, and you have permission to kill no-one.
So no, human nature doesn't always win in the end. We can be more, we can be better, and we are accomplishing both as a species.
What's the point of the evil alignments when overall you can always count on a good guy to come along and fuck up your dastardly plans?
No one is ever satisfied. That's the point. It's a constant struggle.
Morality, however, isn't a real thing. It's an arbitrary set of rules, different to each person, and usually with religious roots. It doesn't really exist. You can't sense it in any way. Its just an idea and ideas change.
In the grand scheme of things, feeding the homeless is no 'better' than murdering them because 'better' suggests there's a definite, indisputable measure of morality, which there isn't because morality changes.
Actions therefore can only be judged on how they help the species as a whole. Killing is thought of as 'wrong' and yet nobody bats an eyelid over the amount of killing we're doing in the Middle East to defend truth, justice and freedom and all that jazz.
There are no absolutes. There's no such thing as pure good or pure evil. They're synthetic constructs. Raping a child has some good elements because it brings pleasure to the rapist. You may find that repulsive, but you can't deny it. Making people happy is always seen as an admirable quality.
>nobody bats an eyelid over the amount of killing we're doing in the Middle East
Here's your (you)
A good guy could be motivated not by the outcomes of his actions, but rather by his intentions. I could see a paladin, discouraged by all of the evil in the world, realize that all he ultimately has control over are his intentions, and keep to a strict code of conduct that ignores consequences to ensure good intentions. For example, he might have sworn to never lie, and will therefore not lie to protect someone in danger.
>not fighting against the odds
>not fighting against the impossible
>not doing what's right and honorable just because
>not doing it for the challenge
This is how you disappoint King Arthur anon.
I must not be baited.
Bait is the mind-killer.
Bait is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my bait.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the bait has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Guys, if it actually was ND there'd be a string of replies to 9 different posts and a daemonette in a commissar's hat.
To you, false flagger, I say that, I too hate the namefag but, he already brings enough hate and disrepute his way so, I doubt he needs the help.
The feeling that you did everything in your power to at least try to make a better world. Now you can push the blame on to others.
You could make a case that generally understood usage of it is "common patterns of behavior in humans." From there people project their own feelings about humanity onto the term - "This good thing won't work, human nature will break it," "This evil can't persist, human nature will eventually reject it," so on and so forth.
There's a wide difference between "poorly defined" and "nonexistent", but at this point we're descending into sophistry.
...I know it's the middle of the workday but I feel like I should be swirling a glass of wine next to a fire or something.
A debate about morality turned into an a debate about human nature then into a debate about if human nature is definable then into a debate about sementics and now this
Christ this hurt me to type
Exactly the world view I'd expect from an inflation fetishist. You do not disappoint namefag.
Now if only some paladins would nail you fuckers to the cross one day.
Morality is like fashion. Things come and go, and the only reason "why" is because we are social animals. Right now gay rights and secularism are in, and monarchism and anti-semitism are highly unfashionable. Some things are always unfashionable, like rape, but even that isn't absolute. 100 years ago it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. Different societies have different fashions and moralities, i.e. sweden and saudi arabia could not be more different in dress and moral outlook. In all society there are those who go against the grain, for good and bad, like people who wear trenchcoats and fedoras. While there are broad trends (the spread of trousers), ultimately it comes down to ones taste and the taste of society.
>In the grand scheme of things, feeding the homeless is no 'better' than murdering them because 'better' suggests there's a definite, indisputable measure of morality, which there isn't because morality changes.
And that's where Ethics steps in.
If man stands for himself there's no such thing as good or evil. However, if one or more god(s) exist (like it is the case in most fantasy games) they will define good and evil, though in the case of many gods one has to wonder which of them has the authority to classify the gods into good/neutral/evil/whatever ones, if not for a single uber-god... You get the picture
Because we're not angels, but we can try.
The world will never be made perfect but it can be made better, if you're right and human nature means everything good gradually decays then that just means that good is dependant on another good person coming along down the road and fixing it again then that's achieveable.
No-one's perfect, we all fear, hate, rage and desire sometimes, but it doesn't have to define what we are. We won't ever be angels but we can try to be, to become better than human and do what we know in our heart-of-hearts to be the right thing.
And in a way it makes us better than the angels. A god casting down a demon is another myth to be told around a campfire, a man fighting a great evil and overcoming his own is a legend. And if his achevements fade it doesn't matter because he will have the made the world better, at least for a little while, and his legend will inspire others, people who see what humanity is capable of and strive to to what is right, and as long as the cycle continues, there will always be someone there to fix the world when the imperfections of humanity cause it to crumble.
Even the greatest of heroes will stumble, and they'll fail, because we're not perfect, but it doesn't matter because not being perfect doesn't mean we stop trying.
We're not angels, but some will always try, and the world owes those men much.
>taste and the taste of society
Well no matter what your taste is, it's still a very poor idea to wear a speedo in northern russia or a thick fur coat in the middle of africa. It may be "in" to wear t-shirts in winter but that alone doesn't make it a healthy trend.
Morality, like, fashion may not be set in stone but it's fluid nature is still based on consistent principles. Being robbed, stabbed and rapped is shitty 99 percent of the time for 99 of people and systems that prevent it are welcome most of the time.
Accepting the situational nature of morality means the average person needs to take far more responsibility to get the most out of their society. If it isn't up to god to tell us what to do that it seems natural that the job of managing the people falls into the hands of people themselves. Unlike a a trending outfit, our selection of principles can mean the difference between life, death and misery.
The trend will usually flow to vaguely fit what we think is need as long as we don't interfere. But is a vague fit enough? If there is a chance you or your companions will be left out to freeze do you want to just let things happen as they happen? If our taste has a chance to make or break us it seems we should take it more seriously then we have been. Because society isn't perfect and neither are we.
If your friends wants to wear a t-shirt in December it might be best to hand him coat. No amount of cool is worth feezing to death.
A man walks down the beach, throwing starfish that have been washed ashore back into the sea so they won't dry out and die. Another man comes by, looks at what he's doing, and says
"There's so much beach and so many starfish. You can't possibly throw enough back to make a difference"
The first man pauses to think, picks up a starfish and throws it back into the sea saying.
"I made a difference to that one."
Wouldn't sanctifying life be human nature?
Since when was human nature destroying stuff?
I get a dog and I want that dog to live.. Am I not human? If anything human nature is wrestling control over other things, not destroying them.
I think this space-horse says it pretty well