Child-of-the-Emperor Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'll settle on that. And what of the rest of my comment? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Read the average Chaos novel, read the Word Bearer novels or Dead Sky Black Sun, could you tell me in any way shape or form would those guys consititue as ''good'' in any way. Currently we are examining if the Chaos Gods are evil; you were suggesting that both Chaos Gods and followers are evil and then back up your argument by asking me to find a 'good' in the Chaos literature. If that wasn't the case then i don't understand why you included the above statement. It doesn't fit. That's not what I said, I was saying that the chaos gods must be evil as they do not do anyhting remotely good in those novels. I don't know how you misinterpreted that. You have completely bamboozled me. I don't understand your logic. In your original post you said that if the actions of the marines aren't 'evil' i should be able to find 'good' in the chaos literature. I said this was nonsense as good and evil aren't 'exclusively or events'. i.e. just becuase their actions aren't evil does not mean they are good. You then said i misinterpreted what you said and then stated that chaos gods must be evil because i can find no good in their work. Now i must once again state that good and evil are not 'exclusively or events.' i.e. just because one isn't present does not mean that the other is. For example i walk to the shops to buy some bread. Is that a good action? Of course not. So by your logic it must be evil? How absurd! Tzeentch daemons are pretty evil by their actions would you not say? Those same daemons are formed from Tzeentch, Tzeentch created them with full knowledge of thier actions. Thus he is evil. Tzeentch was part of the Chaos gods who corrupted Horus and startes a massive war that led to the state of Mankind as it is today. That was an evil act and the gods did it and gloried in it. Tzeentch acpets sacrifices in his name. Unlike the Emperor he does not need it to survive, and unlike the Emperor he can tell people ot stop killing in his name. Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Regarding Tzeentch; In short, no he can't stop people killing in his name. He is a concept of change. He did not establish the concept. Your reasoning needs to go deeper to understand why this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Child-of-the-Emperor Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think he has bowed to our undeniable logic :wink: :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think he has bowed to our undeniable logic :P ;) Lets raze some worlds in celebration :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think he has bowed to our undeniable logic :P ;) Lets raze some worlds in celebration :D No I just took a break, will reply in two seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Read the average Chaos novel, read the Word Bearer novels or Dead Sky Black Sun, could you tell me in any way shape or form would those guys consititue as ''good'' in any way. Currently we are examining if the Chaos Gods are evil; you were suggesting that both Chaos Gods and followers are evil and then back up your argument by asking me to find a 'good' in the Chaos literature. If that wasn't the case then i don't understand why you included the above statement. It doesn't fit. That's not what I said, I was saying that the chaos gods must be evil as they do not do anyhting remotely good in those novels. I don't know how you misinterpreted that. You have completely bamboozled me. I don't understand your logic. In your original post you said that if the actions of the marines aren't 'evil' i should be able to find 'good' in the chaos literature. I never said that. read my posts again. That was not my intent, were did I say there was good in chaos? I asked you to find ''good'' in chaos books, it was a retorical question since they all commit very evil acts. Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Read the average Chaos novel, read the Word Bearer novels or Dead Sky Black Sun, could you tell me in any way shape or form would those guys consititue as ''good'' in any way. Currently we are examining if the Chaos Gods are evil; you were suggesting that both Chaos Gods and followers are evil and then back up your argument by asking me to find a 'good' in the Chaos literature. If that wasn't the case then i don't understand why you included the above statement. It doesn't fit. That's not what I said, I was saying that the chaos gods must be evil as they do not do anyhting remotely good in those novels. I don't know how you misinterpreted that. You have completely bamboozled me. I don't understand your logic. In your original post you said that if the actions of the marines aren't 'evil' i should be able to find 'good' in the chaos literature. I never said that. read my posts again. That was not my intent, were did I say there was good in chaos? I asked you to find ''good'' in chaos books, it was a retorical question since they all commit very evil acts. Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. I think you're just pulling my leg now :mellow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Lodbrok Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Read the average Chaos novel, read the Word Bearer novels or Dead Sky Black Sun, could you tell me in any way shape or form would those guys consititue as ''good'' in any way. Currently we are examining if the Chaos Gods are evil; you were suggesting that both Chaos Gods and followers are evil and then back up your argument by asking me to find a 'good' in the Chaos literature. If that wasn't the case then i don't understand why you included the above statement. It doesn't fit. That's not what I said, I was saying that the chaos gods must be evil as they do not do anyhting remotely good in those novels. I don't know how you misinterpreted that. You have completely bamboozled me. I don't understand your logic. In your original post you said that if the actions of the marines aren't 'evil' i should be able to find 'good' in the chaos literature. I never said that. read my posts again. That was not my intent, were did I say there was good in chaos? I asked you to find ''good'' in chaos books, it was a retorical question since they all commit very evil acts. Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. I think you're just pulling my leg now :ph34r: I hope he is otherwise I am going to use my Machiavelli and Plato books to burn him at the stake. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Child-of-the-Emperor Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. I still cant believe you are ignoring our posts!!! Read through Page 3 and 4 again... You just keep saying because they commit 'evil' acts (in some peoples eyes) they themselves are 'evil'... I have explained why they cant help but act in such ways, and something with no free will CANNOT be described as evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Let me explain it to you... You asked them to find good in chaos texts, because they wouldn't find any... Now this suggests that your saying that the book is full of evil. Now they disagree because they think things (actions or intents) can be good/evil or sometimes none of the above... what might be called neutral. An example of this was buying bread... an action most would not consider good or evil. Also there is a game called D&D It splits people into different categories such as the following. Lawful good, Chaotic evil, true neutral, chaotic good and so on and so forth. Now what people may be arguing is that chaos gods as far as this kind of classifying would be applied are Chaotic neutral... they do not argue that they cause chaos but they do not have the evil intention or do not have any/much free will in that regard. So to make that very short: Just because something is not good, doesn't automatically make it evil. Also your statement about killing Mankind.... means you make a number of assumptions... such as Mankind is good or at least killing them is bad, however if mankind was evil would wiping them out not be a good action? Please try to take into account that this mankind is a fictional mankind that is intended to have derived from us but is not in fact us and if you look at the Imperium you could compare it to the likes of Russia under Stalin and Germany under Hitler both of who have been branded evil(I'm not saying Germany and Russia were evil but it takes more than one 'evil' person to do all that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. I still cant believe you are ignoring our posts!!! Read through Page 3 and 4 again... You just keep saying because they commit 'evil' acts (in some peoples eyes) they themselves are 'evil'... I have explained why they cant help but act in such ways, and something with no free will CANNOT be described as evil. What are you talking about? If Tzeentch is technicaly neutral and hs nature as Natural Evil, and we have both agreed on the latter what are you arguing about? Why are you pressing this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Read the average Chaos novel, read the Word Bearer novels or Dead Sky Black Sun, could you tell me in any way shape or form would those guys consititue as ''good'' in any way. Currently we are examining if the Chaos Gods are evil; you were suggesting that both Chaos Gods and followers are evil and then back up your argument by asking me to find a 'good' in the Chaos literature. If that wasn't the case then i don't understand why you included the above statement. It doesn't fit. That's not what I said, I was saying that the chaos gods must be evil as they do not do anyhting remotely good in those novels. I don't know how you misinterpreted that. You have completely bamboozled me. I don't understand your logic. In your original post you said that if the actions of the marines aren't 'evil' i should be able to find 'good' in the chaos literature. I never said that. read my posts again. That was not my intent, were did I say there was good in chaos? I asked you to find ''good'' in chaos books, it was a retorical question since they all commit very evil acts. Child-of-the-Emperor and myself have provided a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'm not sure what else i can do other than to re-address all of the points you continue to ignore. Ignore? you and I have diffrent opinions. If it commands an army of daemons, slaughters entire sectors, and plots the doom of makind I would say that it's actions are pretty dammed evil and chaos is evil in way way or another no matter how you look at it. I think you're just pulling my leg now :devil: I hope he is otherwise I am going to use my Machiavelli and Plato books to burn him at the stake. :) Did'nt Machiavelli thought it was better to rule by fear? Did'nt Plato though a caste system was the best form of goverment? To me both of then seem a little archaic. Besides what do they have to do with Warhammer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Child-of-the-Emperor Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What are you talking about? If Tzeentch is technicaly neutral and hs nature as Natural Evil, and we have both agreed on the latter what are you arguing about? Why are you pressing this? What we are saying is that: Tzeentch and the other Chaos Gods cannot be considered 'evil' - as they have a very limited free will, as they are embodiment of particular emotions they have to act in accordance to those emotions, thats what they are. (Khorne has to kill, maim and murder, Tzeentch has to plot and scheme in infinite ways which will inevitably involve killing people, Nurgle has to corrupt things, and Slaanesh has to strive for pleasure and perfection in all aspects - They have NO choice!) and as i have explained beings with a limited or no free will cannot be classed evil. Your argument it seemed was that Tzeentch was Evil because he committed seemingly evil acts, eg. killing people. But as i have explained they cannot choice not to kill people as its involved in their emotions. Also beings that commit evil acts, are not necassarily evil themselves! Ok? Debate over? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The differentiation between Moral Evil and Natural Evil you mean? Moral Evil is that committed by sentient beings and free will (all mortals races, etc in the case of 40k), Natural evil being natural evils like natural disasters (not evil in and off themselves, but the consequences are considered 'evil' by many), The Warp gods could be classed as a Natural Evil, that i would have no problem with, as although their sentient, they have limitied Autonomy. Alright, debate over. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The differentiation between Moral Evil and Natural Evil you mean? Moral Evil is that committed by sentient beings and free will (all mortals races, etc in the case of 40k), Natural evil being natural evils like natural disasters (not evil in and off themselves, but the consequences are considered 'evil' by many), The Warp gods could be classed as a Natural Evil, that i would have no problem with, as although their sentient, they have limitied Autonomy. Alright, debate over. :D Lets get the beers in :yuck: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Lodbrok Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No Machiavelli didn't believe it was better to rule in fear but he believes if you can't rule by popular sovereignty you must then rule by fear or give up your power. Machiavelli was big about there being no good or evil ways of ruling just what is necessary to keep the state operational or to keep one in power his book was basically a how to in regards to uniting Italy. So yes it does have something to do with the debate in that you have two philosophers who do not believe in a set good or evil. Thus the reason for burning you at the stake with those books for an added dose of irony. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democratus Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Also your statement about killing Mankind.... means you make a number of assumptions... such as Mankind is good or at least killing them is bad, however if mankind was evil would wiping them out not be a good action? Please try to take into account that this mankind is a fictional mankind that is intended to have derived from us but is not in fact us and if you look at the Imperium you could compare it to the likes of Russia under Stalin and Germany under Hitler both of who have been branded evil(I'm not saying Germany and Russia were evil but it takes more than one 'evil' person to do all that). This is an argument ad adsurdum, and holds no water. It posits that no actions can be defined as evil and yet is used in a debate to determine if something is evil. If one says that there is no such thing as evil then their part in the discussion is over because they have abandoned the basic premise. If one asks if X is evil, the question presupposes that evil exists. Otherwise there is no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Also your statement about killing Mankind.... means you make a number of assumptions... such as Mankind is good or at least killing them is bad, however if mankind was evil would wiping them out not be a good action? Please try to take into account that this mankind is a fictional mankind that is intended to have derived from us but is not in fact us and if you look at the Imperium you could compare it to the likes of Russia under Stalin and Germany under Hitler both of who have been branded evil(I'm not saying Germany and Russia were evil but it takes more than one 'evil' person to do all that). This is an argument ad adsurdum, and holds no water. It posits that no actions can be defined as evil and yet is used in a debate to determine if something is evil. If one says that there is no such thing as evil then their part in the discussion is over because they have abandoned the basic premise. If one asks if X is evil, the question presupposes that evil exists. Otherwise there is no question. That makes absolutely no sense. You must be able to define evil to say, with certainty, that it exists. If you cannot define evil then how can you apply its principles? You cannot build a sound argument on an assumption. Anyone can, and should, be able to hold it to ridicule. I want to build a plane, yet i have not established the concept of gravity. I have simply assumed that it doesn't exist. What do you think will happen to the plane? Another example: I want to build a bridge to an island. I cannot see the island but i believe it exists. What do you think will happen to the bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 And before you question my participation in this event allow me to establish why I did debate this issue without evil being truly defined. I see this argument as a step. I do not have a problem with assumptions being made in the beggining as long as they are addressed and clarified before the conclusion is made. A number of times i asked people to define what they meant by evil and i was simply given examples instead of evil 'in itself'. I then countered the examples given to establish a theory on Tzeentch and his morality. I understand why assumptions are made but you cannot draw a sound and meaningful conclusion from them. This is why dialectic is essential. If you've ever read 'The Republic' by Plato, whenever he is asked a question he goes on a lengthy dialogue to ensure everyone is one the same page so that hey can understand his answers. Whenever he makes an assumption he always revisits it to clear up the issue before drawing a conclusion. I would hope that with so many questions raised about good and evil people would question their own intuition of the concepts. Although we have reached a sound conclusion on the topic in question i believe people can go on from this and learn a lot more about good and evil 'in itself'. So to summise; if left unclarified, assumptions are very dangerous and will more often than not ruin the idea rather than perfect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 And yes i am at work, hence the frequency of replies :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spareknikov Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 And before you question my participation in this event allow me to establish why I did debate this issue without evil being truly defined. I see this argument as a step. I do not have a problem with assumptions being made in the beggining as long as they are addressed and clarified before the conclusion is made. A number of times i asked people to define what they meant by evil and i was simply given examples instead of evil 'in itself'. I then countered the examples given to establish a theory on Tzeentch and his morality. Clever. I applaud your technique. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Caerolion Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 While you might be right, Marchosias, the Chaos Gods are ever-changing. Sure, we have to define evil to debate whether it exists, but here's the problem. The definition of evil is never the same, from one moment to the next. The Chaos Gods are reflections of us. While your description of them as Natural Evil might be partially right, you're ignoring the fact that they are us! Read the Realms of Chaos books, with a Tzeentch Champion falling in love with a peasant girl from his village. Chaos also reflects our positive aspects, but GW has unfortunately over-simplified Chaos in recent years. If Chaos is Natural Evil, then thats calling us evil too. Think of it this way. Chaos has many aspects, seperating the "good" and "evil" personalities. Now, which ones would be more likely to send daemons into the mortal realms to achieve goals? Positive-Slaanesh is much more likely to watch over the simple aesthetes that praise his name, and so on. The reason we hear so much about Evil-Chaos is because thats the side of Chaos that interferes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marchosias Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 While you might be right, Marchosias, the Chaos Gods are ever-changing. Sure, we have to define evil to debate whether it exists, but here's the problem. The definition of evil is never the same, from one moment to the next. I completely agree. The ambiguities of good and evil are not lost on me. But Democratus made the point that those who hold that good and evil do not exist cannot enter the debate. That's why asked for clarification on what he and others meant by the term evil. They defined it through examples which myself and others were then able to debate. The Chaos Gods are reflections of us. While your description of them as Natural Evil might be partially right, you're ignoring the fact that they are us! Read the Realms of Chaos books, with a Tzeentch Champion falling in love with a peasant girl from his village. Chaos also reflects our positive aspects, but GW has unfortunately over-simplified Chaos in recent years. If Chaos is Natural Evil, then thats calling us evil too. I love the contradiction here, that Gods are men. While i do not hold the 4 Chaos powers to be Gods 'in themselves' (see earlier post regarding creation of Gods through emotions) i see them as something different from men. If you think that a worshipper is the same as a deity then there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Think of it this way. Chaos has many aspects, seperating the "good" and "evil" personalities. Now, which ones would be more likely to send daemons into the mortal realms to achieve goals? Positive-Slaanesh is much more likely to watch over the simple aesthetes that praise his name, and so on. The reason we hear so much about Evil-Chaos is because thats the side of Chaos that interferes. This point has been debated to death. Please see earlier posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutt-Man! Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Simple answer with complex workings involved. The concept of Evil is in the eye of the beholder. If there is no eye to behold, there is no evil. We all are just resceptors for our brains to make sense of everything. Especially the meat sacks we call flesh. There is no evil in reality, its just a matter of perspective. A perspective that tries to make sense of existence itself. I lost myself at the end there. Hah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Delias Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS BACK!!! Anywho, to at least the question of what good and evil are, there is a very simple answer: Good is Evil is These in effect are undefinable qualities, because, left to singular entities as we are, it is up to us to define this in it's effectual form, and to find comminality among others in how they think and feel, with the massed idea of the thought of good and evil, and the difference between, one can say that they are in effect one in the same... Simple fact is that they are wrong. Example: Man kills man, this, in a broad sense of what others look at would be defined as evil. Now, put them into a situation: both men are at a bar, they get into a heated argument, Man A goes out to his car to get a gun, at which point he shoots Man B. However, as the strings of fate are pulled, had Man B NOT been shot, He would have got into his car, drunk, and tried driving back home, more than likely not noticing the broken down van with a family of four in it, thusly ramming into it at high speed and killing all or most of a relatively 'innocent' family. So, what is more evil? Was the evil action planned? Would he have in fact hit the van or would he have simply turned the corner at the intersection before for the shortcut home? Tzeentch's answer: "All according to plan." In the end, it is up to each and every one of us to define our own moral compass, and therefore what good and evil actually are... Therefore, in lies the deeper question of what is chaos to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NielsPeter Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think it's quite simple, at least in a general sense. Evil is arrogance and unethical conduct, and this is exactly what Chaos represents: Violence breeds violence, manipulation breeds manipulation. Chaos is the death of wisdom and ethics. However bear in mind that the Imperium commits all the same sins in equal or greater measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.