The Dragoon Saga (Sabres of Infinity, Guns of Infinity, Lords of Infinity) - General Discussion




There are actions that the vast majority of sensible people will consider to be evil, regardless of what religion, country, or doctrine they follow.


That one person might declare something Good and another person declare that Evil isn’t exactly proof of anything about anything outside their heads.

Not everyone likes the taste of liver, but that doesn’t make beef liver purely a construct of my brain.


The majority of people used to not have a problem with slavery. So would slavery not be “evil” within the 18th Century?

Exactly. But it is proof that there is not one objective doctrine of what explicitly entails of what “good” and “evil” are. I say they are an opinion determined by the individual.


It’s proof that people don’t agree on the definitions, it’s not proof of whether or not there’s any true answer to begin with.

I’m open for philosophy’s sake to the argument that there isn’t one, but the mere fact that you and unoriginal_username don’t agree is separate from anything that would prove one thing or another.

People have been known to have different perceptions of things that do have an actual answer, like whether or not it’s possible for a given airplane design to fly, after all.


I am not proclaiming there is proof that it is 100% completely factual, But it is what I find most likely based on the current information I have at my disposal.


Morality is a socially constructed consensus which exists so we can have commonly-agreed upon ideas of how to behave towards each other without tearing the tenuous network of symbiotic relationships we call “society” apart.

Long ago, most societies decided that arbitrarily murdering another individual over a personal grudge or material gain or any other sort of personal reason is harmful to the cohesion of a society: that sort of thing leads to blood feuds, cycles of revenge, a society cannot band together for collective gain if everyone is nursing a grudge. Therefore, most societies have agreed that murder is “bad”.

Likewise, long ago, most societies decided that aiding others of your society in need serves to increase trust and community loyalty among the person being aided, and therefore, charity within your social group is “good”.

When the circumstances which societies find themselves enmeshed in change, their values also have to change. My society (read: Canada in the 21st century) has different ideas of good and evil than say, 18th century Russia, because the circumstances of my society are vastly different, and the people of my society have adapted their codes of morality to support a multipolar, multicultural society based on liberal democratic values, because that’s the sort of society the circumstances of the world around us have led us to create.

I believe that certain values within that framework are “good” because they (theoretically) lead down a road in which the security and high standard of living I currently enjoy can be maintained, and improved. I believe that certain other values are “evil” because they are a direct route towards destroying my society and the public goods it presents. Likewise, this framework judges certain aspects of other cultures as “evil”, even if the inhabitants of that culture did not see them as such. We do so because we do not want to see our own society take on the aspects of those past societies. This isn’t a decision I’ve made by my lonesome, but a broad consensus made by the members of my society, including those who instilled in me a support for this framework in the first place.

“Good” and “Evil” exist. I don’t consider them objective, but their subjectivity is neither as fluid, nor as individual as a would-be ubermensch would insist they are.


It wasn’t viewed as evil by the standards of the time. Of course by our modern western standards it is now evil.

But just because the entire human race has never collectively agreed on what actions should be considered evil does not mean that evil itself does not exist.

But you’ll find that most nations have some common ground. Actions committed directly at the expense of others without serving a higher cause are often considered evil. Walking up and murdering someone in the street for no reason (without any political, racial, religious, etc. motivation) is something that will be considered evil regardless of where you are, save for a tiny amount of examples which would be the rare exception to the rule.

On the flip side, it’s really hard to spin giving food to an orphan as “evil”, even if you’re someone who is opposed to charity out of a matter of principle.

“Good and evil do not exist” completely disregards the fact that there are truly benevolent (and also truly malevolent) people out there in the world.


But determining whether or not they are benevolent or malevolent is up to the individual, while some societies may reach a majority consensus on certain individuals, the “opinion” of that society may drastically change within a few hundred years where they view the same people that we see as benevolent as malevolent, and that future society may contain 20 billion people which is far larger than our current world population, and thus their determined majority consensus would dwarf ours. I agree with @Cataphrak, He worded my thought process better. When I say “good” and “evil” do not exist I am directing my claim within the context of objective reality.


If you don’t mind the question - is this why you’re a consequentialist or was it more the other way around?


That’s not really something I’ve thought about consciously. It probably is. As someone born in an anarcho-capitalist hellscape where “drinkable tap water” is about as realistic a prospect as “owning a unicorn ranch”, I learned to appreciate the public goods a stable, passably functioning western liberal democracy had to offer pretty early on.


There is no way that the murder of an innocent without cause will ever be seen as benevolent, just as there is no way that giving to the innocent without expecting anything in return will be seen as malevolent. And if that ever does happen, then we’re dealing with a situation where the society as a whole has become evil.

I do agree that good and evil are mostly subjective, but it is not completely subjective. There is still some objectivity to it.


There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Not everyone would agree with that, of course. But not everyone would entirely disagree, either.


That’s our main problem in this discussion I think - context is incredibly significant when considering the good or evil inherent in a person’s deeds.

If you heard “Muffy killed a child” you’d be like “whoa Muffy none of that please,” but if you heard “Muffy killed a child who had a gun and was shooting at people,” you’d be like “hey nice Muffy good job homie you saved some lives today.”



A “glass half-full” type of guy could easily flip that around to say:

“There is no such thing as guilt, only degrees of innocence.”

It just doesn’t sound as cool because it’s not edgy enough.


I disagree, It is completely possible, though unlikely, If circumstances demand for humanity to view murdering an innocent without cause to be “good” and for it to be a requirement for survival than evolution would allow it, though that would take a LONG time and our society would probably work in a completely different framework, unlikely but possible. I also don’t agree that good and evil or mostly subjective, they are completely subjective.


Even then it wouldn’t be regarded as benevolent. It would still be regarded as a “necessary evil.”


He could.

But I’m not aware of any moral systems based on the premise that there’s no such thing as guilt, whereas there are definitely moral systems - IRL even - based on the idea that to some degree we’re all at least a little morally defective.

Of course, “Middle class American isn’t aware of.” could be his ignorance speaking.


If circumstances demand for humanity to view murdering an innocent without cause as “good” for the sake of survival, then it would not be without cause.

Everyone who does bad things does them for a reason. Whether others can understand or justify that reason is another matter entirely.


If I may echo this by quoting someone wiser than myself:
“Evil is always having reasons.”


Either way, it’s still wrong. Both innocence and guilt exist.

I don’t know how I failed to catch that.