After reading the First Heretic

[Ashe Darke]

My guess is that its gonna be covered in the book that shows the 40 years he spent with Erebus and Kor Phareon.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The Ultramarines didn't just open fire on the populace for the fun of it. They were there to keep order and evacuate the cities inhabitants to safety. When resistance broke out and people fought against the Emperor's order, what do you expect of super human, super dedicated killing machines?

 

And remember you are seeing the events as they occurred from the perspective of the Word Bearers and the former citizens of that world.

 

Trying to justify unholy worship because the Crusade spans a universe with associated wars and bloodshed completely belittles the accomplishments and purpose of the day.

 

Even by today's standards, we can see the reason behind the Great Crusade and apply moral justifications to it and it's goals, but worship/servitude of evil creatures and the acts committed in their name for personal glory cannot be so easily justified. The is a rational reason behind the Crusade and when a nasty act is committed you can write it off as for the greater good of the future of humanity. Chaos worshipping is generally a purely selfish measure and the nasty things that occur aren't for the good of humanity, but you and a creature of the Warp.

 

So whilst I agree that some of the things that go on in 40K are horrific, that doesn't make Chaos worship and fighting the Crusade comparable in any moral sense on any but the most superficial grounds.

 

And to play devils advocate (how fitting), the Word Bearers didn't sacrifice civilians "for the fun of it" either, but to begin ushering in the truth to a betrayed and deceived Imperium.

[randian]

And to play devils advocate (how fitting), the Word Bearers didn't sacrifice civilians "for the fun of it" either, but to begin ushering in the truth to a betrayed and deceived Imperium.

To the extent the Word Bearers experience joy when performing blood sacrifices, they are indeed doing it "for the fun of it". The Ultramarines certainly didn't find joy in shooting at civilians.

 

The Word Bearers calling measures to protect the Imperium's citizens from being blood sacrifices "betrayal and deceit" is a disgusting inversion of logic and morality. I can think of no higher betrayal than to be slaughtered by your sworn protectors as an act of worship to alien gods. Exactly how does enslaving me, killing me, or summoning daemons to ravage my planet, prove to me the "truth" of Chaos?

 

What exactly is that truth, anyway? Embrace your inner devil, because here lie gods that will approve of any debased and immoral act? beat, murder, and slavery are positive goods? Debasement of one's body and mind leads to enlightenment?

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

And to play devils advocate (how fitting), the Word Bearers didn't sacrifice civilians "for the fun of it" either, but to begin ushering in the truth to a betrayed and deceived Imperium.

To the extent the Word Bearers experience joy when performing blood sacrifices, they are indeed doing it "for the fun of it". The Ultramarines certainly didn't find joy in shooting at civilians.

 

The Word Bearers calling measures to protect the Imperium's citizens from being blood sacrifices "betrayal and deceit" is a disgusting inversion of logic and morality. I can think of no higher betrayal than to be slaughtered by your sworn protectors as an act of worship to alien gods. Exactly how does enslaving me, killing me, or summoning daemons to ravage my planet, prove to me the "truth" of Chaos?

 

What exactly is that truth, anyway? Embrace your inner devil, because here lie gods that will approve of any debased and immoral act? beat, murder, and slavery are positive goods? Debasement of one's body and mind leads to enlightenment?

 

If those are the only gods you know, then the concepts of "good" or "moral" are irrelevant. If said gods take pleasure in blood sacrifice, then unto them blood sacrifice is rendered, and you as the devotee will take pleasure in it because your gods do. This isn't a new concept for humanity, you know. :P

[Captain Idaho]

And to play devils advocate (how fitting), the Word Bearers didn't sacrifice civilians "for the fun of it" either, but to begin ushering in the truth to a betrayed and deceived Imperium.

To the extent the Word Bearers experience joy when performing blood sacrifices, they are indeed doing it "for the fun of it". The Ultramarines certainly didn't find joy in shooting at civilians.

 

The Word Bearers calling measures to protect the Imperium's citizens from being blood sacrifices "betrayal and deceit" is a disgusting inversion of logic and morality. I can think of no higher betrayal than to be slaughtered by your sworn protectors as an act of worship to alien gods. Exactly how does enslaving me, killing me, or summoning daemons to ravage my planet, prove to me the "truth" of Chaos?

 

What exactly is that truth, anyway? Embrace your inner devil, because here lie gods that will approve of any debased and immoral act? beat, murder, and slavery are positive goods? Debasement of one's body and mind leads to enlightenment?

 

If those are the only gods you know, then the concepts of "good" or "moral" are irrelevant. If said gods take pleasure in blood sacrifice, then unto them blood sacrifice is rendered, and you as the devotee will take pleasure in it because your gods do. This isn't a new concept for humanity, you know. :rolleyes:

 

But this conversation came from the moral judgement of our own standards comparing the Crusade and Emperor's actions to those of Chaos worship. On this basis, as myself and randian have pointed out, the two are not comparable in any but the most warped and twisted ways.

 

And judging by the "Imperium" of the time, the concepts of good and moral are relevant as the description of god is alien to those who believed the "Imperial Truth". And even if that weren't the case, there is nobility in choosing to reject a god that embodies suffering, selfishness and other twisted moral facets of the human psyke and setting up your own set of morals as a society is perfectly valid, especially when the alternative is widespread suffering.

 

Or to summarise, Chaos worship is still "bad" as it uses vice instead of virtue (as defined by humanity in the time and "real life") as the motivator and method to achieve it's goals.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

But this conversation came from the moral judgement of our own standards comparing the Crusade and Emperor's actions to those of Chaos worship. On this basis, as myself and randian have pointed out, the two are not comparable in any but the most warped and twisted ways.

 

And judging by the "Imperium" of the time, the concepts of good and moral are relevant as the description of god is alien to those who believed the "Imperial Truth". And even if that weren't the case, there is nobility in choosing to reject a god that embodies suffering, selfishness and other twisted moral facets of the human psyke and setting up your own set of morals as a society is perfectly valid, especially when the alternative is widespread suffering.

 

Or to summarise, Chaos worship is still "bad" as it uses vice instead of virtue (as defined by humanity in the time and "real life") as the motivator and method to achieve it's goals.

 

But you're glossing over the fact that the same Imperium that supposedly upholds "good and moral" are also genocidal and xenophobic amoralists functioning under the blinders of ignorance. Even going by the standard we're presented in the series and ignoring real life altogether, we're still dealing with what's ultimately a non-good and non-moral foundation for the entire human belief system. The Emperor, even while denying his godhood, demands praise and sacrifice in his service, outlined by his laws, and in so doing has set the standard for morality in that age. The Word Bearers, having found different gods with different standard of morality vis'a'vis their demands, simply found another way to pray. You can't hold up one standard and deem it "good" when it's clearly not, nor can you denigrate another for being "bad" because it is; it's hypocrisy in the same sense that Catholic Spain and its hypocrisies condemned the Aztecs to extermination for their practices while committing butcheries of their own across the globe in the name of their own beliefs. There's very little virtue in the Imperial Creed; succumbing to vice is just keeping ahead of the curve.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm not glossing over anything, but if you gave someone the choice between the Imperium or Chaos worship you would find most people (giving a serious answer and not role-playing) would choose Imperium any day.

 

It's not as if every human in the Imperium is a pathetic slave with no exisistance. There are good planets and bad ones. If Chaos had their way then every planet would suck to live on for "normal" humans.

 

Comparing Catholic Spain from our past to what is essentially certified devil worshipping (i.e. Chaos) being ill favoured in comparison to living in the Imperium is absurd, frankly.

 

What you are saying is you think being an Imperialist in 40K is the same morally as being a worshipper of Chaos. If that is the case, then by that notion being a citizen of a Colonial power in the 18th and 19th centuries was comparable to Satan worship, but most people wouldn't agree with you.

 

Whilst there are actions that are nasty committed by the Imperium, on the whole they are an institution that does more for humanity (in the moral sense) than worship of Daemons of the Warp. Not everyone is committing those crimes and alot good is done too. This isn't the case with Chaos Worshippers. (unless there is a novel from the BL which has Abbaddon, who normally is razing a planet to the ground, building an orphanage on a deprived planet instead?)

 

It's the same principle as Germany in WW2. Sure there were those who committed acts of heinous crimes against humanity, but would you tar every German with that brush?

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

It's the same principle as Germany in WW2. Sure there were those who committed acts of heinous crimes against humanity, but would you tar every German with that brush?

 

Not hardly, since the only one tarring everyone over with the same brush in this thread certainly isn't me. The fact remains that neither you nor Randian can divorce your modern-day mentality and objectively view this. The Aztec/Spanish metaphor is precise; from the Aztec point of view, carving out a person's heart was the good and moral thing to do because that's what Quezalcoatl demanded, and the Spanish were heretical monsters with no concept or understanding of what needed to be done to appease, nor did they recognize the honor in being the chosen sacrifice. It's only "vice" from the Spanish POV, just like Chaos is only "vice" to the Imperium's POV. From Chaos' POV, the Imperium is a wasteland of amorality, servitude, and meaningless dogma that erodes the soul. The "vice" there is that godless apathy is a cancer to be excised through enlightenment; while you view Chaos as the degradation of the human soul, Chaos views the Imperium as degradation of the human soul. The methods of enlightenment are handed down by the Chaos gods, and the followers carry out those methods with the vigor of the true believer, because that's what true believers do to earn their reward. Whether it's cutting out someone's heart, or levelling a civilization, everyone's toeing their party line. Morality and goodness are subjective terms to justify objective goals, but in being subjective are ultimately not relevant to the end result.

 

In Grimdarksville, there is no "happy" place. Not in the Imperium, not in the Warp, not in the belly of the Hive Mind, not in the Tau's Greater Good or a Necron tomb. Ergo, saying "Oh, well, it's better to not be slaughtered like cattle to the tune of dark gods but rather live a life of toil from birth to die nameless and forgotten in a hive spire" is just pedantic.

[Captain Idaho]

Get out of it! :)

 

Chaos worship is Daemonancy and spilling blood of innocents for personal power. What Chaos worshippers in the fluff were poor, mis-understood victims of an intolerant society? Persecuted certainly, but then that is because they are the enemy who, when left their own devices universely commit horrific acts on others.

 

I'm afraid it is you who cannot divorce your own views enough to be objective. You are the one who sees no distinction between being slaughtered and a life of toil. I'm betting if you gave people a choice between working for a living and dying horribly for someone elses amusment/power advancement, they will pick the former...

 

The "enlightenment" you are speaking of is purely justification for heinous crimes, nothing more. At least the Emperor strived for something better for everyone.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

The "enlightenment" you are speaking of is purely justification for heinous crimes, nothing more. At least the Emperor strived for something better for everyone.

 

"There are some lies that lodge so deep in the hopes of man that they can never be killed, no matter how many are executed to make the lie true." - Gerard Van der Leun

 

That same argument could be said for Lorgar, or even the Alpha Legion, choosing their side because it was going to be better for everyone to accept it. The Cadians didn't seem to be suffering under the notion that daemonancy and spilling blood was a bad thing; they were thriving quite well RIGHT NEXT DOOR to Daemons R'Us. And to a true believer, those being slaughtered are not innocents, they're unbelievers and an enemy to either be enlightened or slain. If anything, it could be, from the Chaos POV, them doing the "innocents" a favor by releasing them from the bondage of their ignorance and returning them to the Warp from whence they all came. You aren't seriously suggesting that an organization of users and menials is better because it's denying you Heaven, are you? That's not the Emperor "making things better for everyone", that's him blocking you from your afterlife for his own selfishness. ;)

 

And again, you tar all with the same brush. There weren't so many Books of Lorgar because he liked to write, they're there as a Bible for How To Live In Harmony With the Warp. The mindless slaughter schtick is not universal, nor is it even necessary. The Emperor was not so forthcoming with his desires, and the heinous crimes he coerced the species into committing in his name aren't annulled by his denying himself deification.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Get out of it! :P

 

Chaos worship is Daemonancy and spilling blood of innocents for personal power. What Chaos worshippers in the fluff were poor, mis-understood victims of an intolerant society? Persecuted certainly, but then that is because they are the enemy who, when left their own devices universely commit horrific acts on others.

 

The Chaos-worshippers in Legion certainly seemed to be lacking in general evil-ness, despite being Chaos worshippers. They had a functioning society, without the mass sacrifices and random murders that people assume must happen everywhere Chaos is worshipped. Just look at the Norse in WFB, they worship the Chaos Gods, albeit through aspects etc, yet are sane and normal enough for the Empire to be willing to trade with them readily.

 

Chaos worship isn't all soul sacrificing and ritual murder, any more than all Emperor worship being Monodominism. Yes, there are the extremists, which are the Chaos Marines/Warriors, but most Chaos worship is limited to a muttered prayer to Tzeentch before buying a lottery ticket, etc. It sure isn't "Huh, so I'm a member of this Khornate cult now, am I? Weird, I don't feel any... BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! *grabs axe and decapitates 50 civilians*"

[Captain Idaho]

In a purely objective viewpoint, would you rather be a Hiver in Necromunda or worshipper of Chaos, even from the apparent humane society the Alpha Legion fought?

 

Incidently, the societies which aren't as extreme with Chaos worship are that way because Chaos hasn't completely subverted all humanity from it's subjects. Look at what happens when Chaos has complete control. What Lorgar embraced was corruption in it's basest form, not a moderate form of Chaos worship. His choice was one out of desparation and likely tinted with spite.

 

40k has shown us time and again that only a fool worships Chaos under the illusion that Chaos is benevolent. Your soul will be consumed by the Chaos Gods, and sooner or later their true nature will subvert you and your society which embraced them.

 

Otherwise the Eye of Terror wouldn't be a place of hell incarnate, there would be the odd moderate Daemon Prince. Daemonic Possession would not be so horrific. Human morallity would not be irrelevent.

 

It's silly to think Chaos is equal in morality to the Imperium. I understand that for some who don't understand it's true nature or who are desparate enough, it looks like a viable alternative, but to most rational humans they would reject Chaos if they understood it's nature.

 

Lorgar knew what he embraced, at least had a good idea of it, yet he didn't care. His choice was clearly a selfish one, to justify his beliefs and rejecting his "second chance" from the Emperor. His choice was not made because he was deluded into thinking Chaos was benevolent.

[Rik Riorik]

I don't think Lorgar took the path he did because he thought Chaos was benevolent either. But what Khestra is aiming at is saying that Chaos worship as it is, is immoral only for the unbeliever, a tainted existence only because the outsider does not see the eye to eye with the believers percieved notion of the good of Chaos. Even if worshipping Chaos might seem a cruel and perilous way to lead ones life, to the believer NOT worshipping and appeasing the Gods is more dangerous. The dark gods are very much real as are there daemon underlings and whilst you might wish them not to exist, they do. Ignore them at your own peril. Chaos worship might be fuelled by what can be percieved as selfish evil, but it is also driven by necessity. Can you truly judge a necessity as evil or indeed good? And is not all moral standpoints flexible to time and subjectivity?

 

All that said I'd be hard pressed to want to willingly consort with the daemons of the warp myself.

[Captain Idaho]

As human beings our individual societies are still moral or immoral when considered in humanity as a whole. Saying that being a "believer of Chaos" is not anymore immoral than an Imperial citizen fails to take into account the majority view of humanity. The majority of humanity, vast majority in 40K where the population is innumerable, believe it is immoral to behave as a Chaos worshipper, as do most of the Alien races out there, therefore being a follower of Chaos is clearly an immoral choice/situation in the 40K universe. It also happens to be the same view in the modern world.

 

To bring in an example from the real world; the actions by the SS soldiers in the atrocities they committed in World War 2 are still immoral even if their own belief system tells them they are not immoral, because most people outside their own community/society would consider those acts immoral.

 

Look at it another way; if there are 10 Imperial citizens brought up to believe in the Imperial Cult, and 2 of them decide they want to be Chaos Worshipers and perform a ritual that involves the torture and murder of one of the other 8, they are still immoral even if they believe what they were doing was right.

 

So of course moral judgements are subjective, but the goal posts of morality have never changed in the 40K universe since the Heresy therefore being a Chaos worshipper is still immoral. If the future has a universe dominated by Chaos then the rules of what is moral will change, but so far this has not been the case.

 

Can you truly judge a necessity as evil or indeed good? And is not all moral standpoints flexible to time and subjectivity?

 

Judging from what is neccessary becomes much more mired in mud when determining right and wrong, but thankfully the original point was regarding the Word Bearers and their Primarch, so we don't have to make that call. ^_^

 

The Legion and their Primarch were not threatened to follow Chaos so there was no desparate need to save themselves or humanity. Of course, Lorgar thought defeating Chaos was impossible after what he witnessed in the Eye, but then that just shows him how desparate he was to believe any power that welcomed his worship as the truth rather than really wanting to save everyone from being against the winning team. He was certainly not looking at it objectively.

[Kitchen Knife]

I think TFH showed one thing very well:

 

Chaos is so successful in corrupting ideals/ideas/plans, that no one really notices this corruption. The most benevolent plans can be twisted to serve an amorale cause. Amorale from the point of view from a non-believer/non-chaotic living form.

 

 

And regarding the discussion about chaos , here are my two cents.

1. Nearly everyone can be "seduced". Half of the primarchs (more or less the strongest persons in mankinds history) fell. And none of them really planned (at the beginning) to become some sort of half-demon.

 

 

2. Morality describes, in very simple words, the attitude of a group of persons. Regarding the great crusade, the emperor led the biggest possible genocide, butchering everyone who wasn't 1) human and 2) not fond of his ideal of a galactic empire. Big E just walked with a "We are the new master-race and kill all those sentient, cultural and well developed lifeforms (aka aliens/xenos)"-attitude through the galaxy. This idea of humankind as "superrace" is completely amoral, regardless some shallow justifications.

This makes the empire as moral or amoral as chaos. Just depends on the point of view (ask all the killed aliens).

 

 

3. Everyone under the chaotic influence is unhappy and a slave.

Like Khestra said, the people in legion seemed quite happy

 

Or take Angron as an example:

He is a demon-primarch and all pimped up to end lifes in a very savage way. But that was also his purpose in the great crusade. So actually he is doing the same job, but for another boss. And I think he REALLY likes/loves his job.

[Captain Idaho]

Happiness doesn't neccessarily come into it. I'm sure there were SS Troopers stationed at a death camp in WW2 who were happy at their job.

 

You said it though;

 

Morality describes, in very simple words, the attitude of a group of persons.

 

And most people, cultures, and races in the universe dispise Chaos as an amoral entity, therefore the majority regard it as amoral.

 

Even more accutely, Lorgar came from a society (the Imperium) which regarded Chaos as immoral, therefore his choice was an immoral one.

 

No-one denied the Great Crusade had it's own point of immorality, but it isn't a comparable choice for Lorgor to just hop from one to another. His world was built upon the morals set by the Imperium, which is also the morals of the majority of the human race, therefore swapping that for Chaos worship was a terribly immoral thing to do.

[Kitchen Knife]

Happiness doesn't neccessarily come into it. I'm sure there were SS Troopers stationed at a death camp in WW2 who were happy at their job.

 

You said it though;

 

Morality describes, in very simple words, the attitude of a group of persons.

 

And most people, cultures, and races in the universe dispise Chaos as an amoral entity, therefore the majority regard it as amoral.

 

Even more accutely, Lorgar came from a society (the Imperium) which regarded Chaos as immoral, therefore his choice was an immoral one.

 

 

Morality describes the behavior of a group. The size of the group doesn't matter for this.

Which moral is better? The moral from a group of, let's say, 50 people, or that of 5 million? It depends only from the point of view. That is, per se the definition of morality.

 

Lorgar came from a society (Kolchis) which knew more or less nothing about chaos, or what chaos implifies. So his search, as benevolent or knowlege-hungry it started, turned out to be pretty corruptive and made the WB to a chaos-legion. From the point of view of the Emperor and the imperium, it was absolutely amorale. For Lorgar it was, lets say, a happy time, because his search had ended....

[Captain Idaho]

Morality describes the behavior of a group. The size of the group doesn't matter for this.

Which moral is better? The moral from a group of, let's say, 50 people, or that of 5 million? It depends only from the point of view. That is, per se the definition of morality.

 

Lorgar came from a society (Kolchis) which knew more or less nothing about chaos, or what chaos implifies. So his search, as benevolent or knowlege-hungry it started, turned out to be pretty corruptive and made the WB to a chaos-legion. From the point of view of the Emperor and the imperium, it was absolutely amorale. For Lorgar it was, lets say, a happy time, because his search had ended....

 

Actually, Lorgar grew up on Colchis, but he spent over 100 years of his life in the Imperium and lived and breathed the Imperium. His morals were those of the Imperium for all that time, before his telling off by the Emperor.

 

And the size of the group does matter for deciding right or wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right or wrong or any laws or anything. The society Lorgar came from (the Imperium) regarded his actions as wrong (those who knew of his actiuons at least), therefore he would also know that his actions would be considered wrong.

 

Of course, people seldom choose what they perceive as the wrong choice deliberately, but when we consider Lorgar's actions, regardless of how understanding we might be as to why he chose those actions, his actions would be considered wrong from his society therefore he chose what would be considered the immoral choice (right or wrongly doesn't matter).

[Kitchen Knife]

And the size of the group does matter for deciding right or wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right or wrong or any laws or anything.

 

No it does not.

 

Definition (Wikipedia):

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

 

Morality has two principal meanings:

 

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

 

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of an any moral truths, and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

 

 

 

So much for morality, right- wrong and the size of people, who believe in....

[subtlebrush]

My favorite scene other then the exchange between Guilliman and Lorgar in the beginning was on Istvaan. Corax tearing into Lorgar and Curze jumps in grapples Corax, smiles at him and says, "NO" Curzes laughter was as joyless as his smile. " Do not fly away little raven. Stay. We are not finished you and I" So bad ass its ridiculous. Other then Soul Hunter this is my second favorite book out of BL.

[Captain Idaho]

And the size of the group does matter for deciding right or wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be a right or wrong or any laws or anything.

 

No it does not.

 

Definition (Wikipedia):

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

 

Morality has two principal meanings:

 

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

 

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of an any moral truths, and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

 

 

 

So much for morality, right- wrong and the size of people, who believe in....

 

Yes I sit behind my keyboard reeling from the Wikipedia-taught definitions on the word Morality. :P

 

That doesn't change that morality is defined by society and the more people who believe something is moral results in that thing becoming moral. If our entire world thought it was fine to sacrifice every 2nd son born into a family by some horrific manner, then it would become moral.

 

Back to Lorgar...

 

A man who takes an action considered immoral by his society will be either be vindicated as a visionary or with be despised as a deviant with the passage of time. Poetically, history will be the final judge. In Lorgar's case, he has become the latter despite any of his intentions initially.

 

It is a grim irony that Lorgar who wanted to save humanity by welcoming Chaos instead of being it's enemy and being destroyed by it, may have been the tipping point which causes humanities down fall.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

There is no universal right or wrong, there is only what individuals and societies define as right or wrong. Reeling off text regarding definitions and such like is pointless, because they lack context and application.

 

People define what is right and wrong on the whole by meshing their beliefs with what what is considered "normal".. And who defines normal? Society.

[Captain Idaho]

There is no universal right or wrong, there is only what individuals and societies define as right or wrong. Reeling off text regarding definitions and such like is pointless, because they lack context and application.

 

People define what is right and wrong on the whole by meshing their beliefs with what what is considered "normal".. And who defines normal? Society.

 

Exactly. Lorgar's society regarded his actions as immoral therefore he was immoral by committing those acts.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

There is no universal right or wrong, there is only what individuals and societies define as right or wrong. Reeling off text regarding definitions and such like is pointless, because they lack context and application.

 

People define what is right and wrong on the whole by meshing their beliefs with what what is considered "normal".. And who defines normal? Society.

 

Exactly. Lorgar's society regarded his actions as immoral therefore he was immoral by committing those acts.

 

And I didn't even have to make use of my "punching a baby in the face.." metaphor either ;)

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

There is no universal right or wrong, there is only what individuals and societies define as right or wrong. Reeling off text regarding definitions and such like is pointless, because they lack context and application.

 

People define what is right and wrong on the whole by meshing their beliefs with what what is considered "normal".. And who defines normal? Society.

 

Exactly. Lorgar's society regarded his actions as immoral therefore he was immoral by committing those acts.

 

Trying to shoehorn the concept of morality into defining legality is the wrong tack. Morality is subjective; legality is objective. Society defining what is right and wrong and establishing it as "normalcy" for universal judgment makes it law. Lorgar may have broken the law, which makes him wrong, but his actions cannot be deemed immoral, which is evil, from any standpoint save one, and it is by far not universal. The universe as a whole would not judge Lorgar's actions as immoral, because Imperium legality has no bearing on it. The Emperor, by lying, committing genocide, et al, committed an immoral act, but one that was legal. You can't castigate one for immorality and not castigate the other for the same, not when "right and wrong under law" is obviously not the same as "good and evil under morals". The only objective view of the argument you're fronting comes from legality, not morality; pretending they're one and the same smacks of trying to establish a singular viewpoint as having more weight than another singular viewpoint, without context or application, and that logic simply doesn't fly.