I ground myself in my morals with wisdom of Havamal and Nine Noble Virtues of Odinism, so I know this stuff very well. It is quite literally my faith.
That’s an immoral predisposition. And “If no one was hurt how is it wrong?” Is a classic means of alleviating one’s own personal guilt.
With the recognition of honor and condemnation of evil.
“Where you see evil, speak out against it and let your enemies not know peace.” - Havamal
But that’s my very question, how we recognize what is truly honorable and truly evil when there is significant disagreement on it.
Ah but honor and morals are defined by culture are they not?
The Norse veiwed war and raiding as a very important part of life, not only was it a good form of population control, but they also got to go to the best heavan if the proved their worth in battle. During the crusades they had rules of war, one of which is that the winner can indeed execute entire cities of people, and the Samurai of Japan viewed loyalty to their masters as more important then the well being of others.
Hell the English still honor Oliver Cromwell, despite the fact he committed actual genocide on the Irish.
Point is, the morals of the time and people define honor, and many horrible people are still honored for the good they did as well.
No. Feudal Japan still had laws. Kiri-sute gomen allowed people of the Samurai to bypass the law by killing someone in cold blood to protect thier personal sense of honor. Do you see the difference?
Modern examples of honor-killings arise from the same desire to protect the status of that families honour thus their place in society and approval of their peers. To them that family honour is more important than law and morality and drives them to do the unspeakable. What is it you find objective about this?
I wouldn’t assume undead Delaryn will bear much resemblance to living Delaryn.
There isn’t though, because we all have an innate understanding of good and evil, and humans, as a social species, structure their societies around certain moral codes of conduct (honor) ground oneself in their moral convictions and weed out the unjust by the means of integral mob rule.
This is not just the legal system, this occurs natural among several social species, like wolves and most apes.
Not necessarily, there are innate senses of right and wrong.
Not really, it was something done out of desperation. Norse culture and society was centered around agriculture and craftmanship.
Also a misconception, battle has little to do with Valhalla, battle was just emphasized because of the time period. However, entry into Valhalla is afforded to brave men and women. You can combat an illness bravely.
They do not, people just lack integrity and the disciple to act honorably.
A perversion. As I said, disagreements of morality comes from people making justification for their knowingly wrong actions. Selfishness is the culprit, not honor.
Well, plenty of people have been killed and hurt in the pursuit of “doing the right thing” and have had entire societies agree with them. So if you call morality objective, right is right, wrong is wrong, what does either of those actually mean?
Alleviating one’s own guilt? If I don’t think I did anything wrong why would I feel guilty?
But, in the example provided, you did do something wrong and you know you did something wrong.
You don’t think there’s genuine disagreement in the world about what is right and wrong?
Minor note, I’m curious where you think this innate understanding comes from.
No, I think it is all disingenuous. Perhaps unwittingly, but disingenuous none the less.
I believe it is evolutionary ingrained into social species. Strong morals, empathy and compassion makes for a better society, and thus a greater chance of survival.
I was curious so I googled the nine noble virtues, and what do you do when two of those come into conflict with one another? If you have two people who come to two different conclusions when both believe whole-heartedly that they’re doing the right thing, how does someone determine which was more honorable than the other?
Can you give me a specific example?
Seems like a delusional opinion, but to each their own.
Fair enough. I would agree with this part, to an extent. If not the conclusion drawn from it.
It is not a perversion it is just that particualr culture’s honour. Bearing an insult from a lower class was dishonorable to Samurai.
This is basically a essentialist vs constructivist debate.
How could I know something is wrong? Just have a good or bad feeling? Because people told me it was wrong? Because there is a rule against it?
Actually, disregard my last post. Thinking about it a little more, I don’t think it’s fair to use a personal family experience in an internet debate like this, and I feel like it comes off as more of an attempted “gotcha” moment. I feel kinda gross having used it this way, and I’m sorry.
And thus, it will never be resolved. I’m kind of sorry threads apparently don’t cap at 500 on the new board, as this one has gotten far away from its original (and to me, more interesting) subject.
I play both my Alliance and Horde characters equally. I like the Zandalari story, especially the princess’ story. But I can’t stand anything to do with Nathanos Blightcaller. He’s too condescending.
And the whole story line where they murder NPCs and raise them as Forsaken, it’s absolutely cruel. The taunting way they treat them. I can see how that could traumatize a player if they were struggling with the loss of a loved one in real life. When I did the Captain Amalia Stone story the first time I had to log off in disgust. I know she’s just an NPC but I could not empathize with that at all.
I’ve heard the idea being discussed before, I just can’t remember the academic name. That there’s some moral truth we’re working towards. Something like that.