Are Second Generation Chaos Astartes "Evil"?

[Demus Ragnok]

The failure here is in trying to apply concepts from our understanding of reality and humanity, onto a setting in which it is possible to spill enough blood to bring an actual physical daemon into existance.

 

The same as comparing Astartes tactics to Navy Seals. The two realities are so far removed that the question just falls flat.

 

Just my opinion.

[Lord Commander Scrymgeour]

as Ragnarok just said, it's rather difficult to port our own notions of good and evil onto a fictional being (in service to unfathomable beings) 38 thousand years away.

I think it's pretty clear however that the acts committed by the 2nd gen CSMs are indeed evil (by modern paradigms). However that being said, there's not really that many good deeds on any side.

[Sheesh Mode]

Right. One of the major failings of 40k's lore in my opinion is it's inability to write about peace. In a Galaxy at War^tm there is a heavy emphasis on the constant conflict that fills the 41st millennium, that every world in every system is in danger and faces annihilation from innumerable horrors across the void. It repeatedly states the possibility of extinction is such a reality that the sacrifice of trillions of lives on a daily basis is entirely rational. To the point of ad nauseum the degradation of the human race is justified as a necessary evil, with each writer attempting to out do the rest in terms of shock value and torture porn. 

 

Yet none of them have given a detailed account for the Imperium while at peace. Everything focuses on unnecessary cruelty across the Galaxy and the purposeful disregard for human life. It leaves 40k feeling shallow and irrelevant but avoiding topics like mercy, peace, and love. There isn't a point to the fighting when it avoids those basic human emotions which form the drive for human actions. People don't kill for nationalism. Not really. They kill for the people next to them so that they both survive. Not some crap like "FOR THE EMPRAH" and people die for a planet they will never see, let alone are certain exists. 

[Volt]

Right. One of the major failings of 40k's lore in my opinion is it's inability to write about peace. In a Galaxy at War^tm there is a heavy emphasis on the constant conflict that fills the 41st millennium, that every world in every system is in danger and faces annihilation from innumerable horrors across the void. It repeatedly states the possibility of extinction is such a reality that the sacrifice of trillions of lives on a daily basis is entirely rational. To the point of ad nauseum the degradation of the human race is justified as a necessary evil, with each writer attempting to out do the rest in terms of shock value and torture porn. 

 

Yet none of them have given a detailed account for the Imperium while at peace. Everything focuses on unnecessary cruelty across the Galaxy and the purposeful disregard for human life. It leaves 40k feeling shallow and irrelevant but avoiding topics like mercy, peace, and love. There isn't a point to the fighting when it avoids those basic human emotions which form the drive for human actions. People don't kill for nationalism. Not really. They kill for the people next to them so that they both survive. Not some crap like "FOR THE EMPRAH" and people die for a planet they will never see, let alone are certain exists. 

 

Except the USSR was doing the exact same thing as the Imperium is doing in M41 during WWII. It's a war of survival. Which are very good at motivating human beings to fight.

 

Plus, nearly every single Imperial citizen is a brainwashed virtual robot, often even slaves with zero choice in the matter at all. Even the planets not activley engaged with Xenos or Chaos are still suffering from petty civil wars in the lower levels of the Hives, Hive Lords attempting to assassinate or humiliate rival Hive Lords in family wars, piracy, or just the average Imperial life, which is working a twelve hour job if they're lucky at a Manufactorum with zero regard for their safety. Then there's the Imperial Cult as well, which also ensures the citizens are religious zealots.

 

The happiest normal imperial citizen in 40k would be the most miserable guy working in an office cube in real life.

[ElectricPaladin]

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven. 

 

Just because we cannot currently analyze or conceptualize evil on a mathematical scale does not mean it does not exist...

 

For the record, I see what you're doing there, and it's a very compelling argument, but I'd like to point out that this really fails as a standard for truth. You can't prove that you don't have a very small banana inside your head. It doesn't get in the way of your brain functioning, because it's always been there - your brain has just learned to work around it. But it's there, a banana, inside your head.

 

You can't prove it's not there, right?

 

Scientifically, if you can't prove it is there, that doesn't mean it's not... that just means that you can't prove that it's there!

 

That's where the nuance of my point is. I'm not saying evil doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I don't know that it does exist, and that I don't find it useful to create it existence via my personal interpretation of the world, because I don't find that it does a good job of modeling the things I encounter.

 

If I contrast this with, say, "love" or "gravity," I see an important difference. I can't prove that love exists, either, but as a framework for certain interactions and relationships, it does a very good job of leaving me moved, inspired, and energized to live my life in a way that I find satisfying. Gravity, on the other hand, seems to exist whether I chose to accept it or not, and the idea of gravity as I have been taught it does a good idea of modeling the reality I am presented with, so I've decided to believe in it.

 

In other words, my personal standard for truth is:

 

1) Does it seem to exist wether or not I believe in it?

2) Does its existence help me to model/predict reality accurately?

3) Does believing in it make me happier/healthier/stronger/better?

 

If any of those are true, then I believe in it.

 

If not, then I reserve judgment.

[*Furyou Miko]

Philosophical concepts like Evil exist because people have created and described them. They're mutable, because what they mean depends on who is describing them, but because they're artificial constructs used to describe ephemeral concepts, the aren't the kind of thing that can be proved or disproved, believed or disbelieved.

 

You can choose to believe that there are no people that Evil describes, but you cannot choose to disbelieve in the concept itself - it exists because it has been defined.

[ShadowHaunt]

You know, there is, actually, an avenue for those second or third generation chaos astartes to redeem themselves, at least in theory.  It may not even be known to them - certainly not to all of them - but in the right situation, they could certainly be pointed towards it.

They could join the Deathwatch, as Black Shields.  Those who apply as Black Shields are not questioned about their past.

 

I'm not saying it's a common occurrence, and but it's certainly viable enough to base a story on.

 

I'd imagine that someone more thoroughly steeped in the lore than I am could point to one or more other sub-factions in the Inquisition that might find use for a repentant renegade.

[Volt]

 

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven. 

 

Just because we cannot currently analyze or conceptualize evil on a mathematical scale does not mean it does not exist...

 

For the record, I see what you're doing there, and it's a very compelling argument, but I'd like to point out that this really fails as a standard for truth. You can't prove that you don't have a very small banana inside your head. It doesn't get in the way of your brain functioning, because it's always been there - your brain has just learned to work around it. But it's there, a banana, inside your head.

 

You can't prove it's not there, right?

 

Scientifically, if you can't prove it is there, that doesn't mean it's not... that just means that you can't prove that it's there!

 

That's where the nuance of my point is. I'm not saying evil doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I don't know that it does exist, and that I don't find it useful to create it existence via my personal interpretation of the world, because I don't find that it does a good job of modeling the things I encounter.

 

If I contrast this with, say, "love" or "gravity," I see an important difference. I can't prove that love exists, either, but as a framework for certain interactions and relationships, it does a very good job of leaving me moved, inspired, and energized to live my life in a way that I find satisfying. Gravity, on the other hand, seems to exist whether I chose to accept it or not, and the idea of gravity as I have been taught it does a good idea of modeling the reality I am presented with, so I've decided to believe in it.

 

In other words, my personal standard for truth is:

 

1) Does it seem to exist wether or not I believe in it?

2) Does its existence help me to model/predict reality accurately?

3) Does believing in it make me happier/healthier/stronger/better?

 

If any of those are true, then I believe in it.

 

If not, then I reserve judgment.

 

Just to point out though, you could have just raised the point of Russell's Teapot instead of having to write the definition. It's a wonderful weapon in any critical arguments against circular logic, baseless claims, and general wish to disprove the existence of unicorns.

 

Also, when the hell has a mutated Chaos Space Marine become a Deathwatch Black Shield? Black Shields aren't meant for Chaos Space Marines, they're meant as an organization for loyalists like Garviel Loken in M31 or a loyalist Astral Claw who refused to side with Huron. But a CSM walking up with barnacles growing over his armor and great horns sprouting from the ceramite will be answered with a bolt to the head for his troubles.

[ElectricPaladin]

 

 

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven. 

 

Just because we cannot currently analyze or conceptualize evil on a mathematical scale does not mean it does not exist...

 

For the record, I see what you're doing there, and it's a very compelling argument, but I'd like to point out that this really fails as a standard for truth. You can't prove that you don't have a very small banana inside your head. It doesn't get in the way of your brain functioning, because it's always been there - your brain has just learned to work around it. But it's there, a banana, inside your head.

 

You can't prove it's not there, right?

 

Scientifically, if you can't prove it is there, that doesn't mean it's not... that just means that you can't prove that it's there!

 

That's where the nuance of my point is. I'm not saying evil doesn't exist. I'm just saying that I don't know that it does exist, and that I don't find it useful to create it existence via my personal interpretation of the world, because I don't find that it does a good job of modeling the things I encounter.

 

If I contrast this with, say, "love" or "gravity," I see an important difference. I can't prove that love exists, either, but as a framework for certain interactions and relationships, it does a very good job of leaving me moved, inspired, and energized to live my life in a way that I find satisfying. Gravity, on the other hand, seems to exist whether I chose to accept it or not, and the idea of gravity as I have been taught it does a good idea of modeling the reality I am presented with, so I've decided to believe in it.

 

In other words, my personal standard for truth is:

 

1) Does it seem to exist wether or not I believe in it?

2) Does its existence help me to model/predict reality accurately?

3) Does believing in it make me happier/healthier/stronger/better?

 

If any of those are true, then I believe in it.

 

If not, then I reserve judgment.

 

Just to point out though, you could have just raised the point of Russell's Teapot instead of having to write the definition. It's a wonderful weapon in any critical arguments against circular logic, baseless claims, and general wish to disprove the existence of unicorns.

 

Also, when the hell has a mutated Chaos Space Marine become a Deathwatch Black Shield? Black Shields aren't meant for Chaos Space Marines, they're meant as an organization for loyalists like Garviel Loken in M31 or a loyalist Astral Claw who refused to side with Huron. But a CSM walking up with barnacles growing over his armor and great horns sprouting from the ceramite will be answered with a bolt to the head for his troubles.

 

You know, I hadn't actually heard of Russell's Teapot before.

 

The funny thing is, I'm not an atheist. It's just that I find the faith of my ancestors and a belief in God to be useful to me, rather than assuming that it must be true. There are many different kinds of truth in the world, and "true because it enlivens me" is pretty good, as truths go.

[Tiberius Cato]

Black shields are for anyone. Loyalist, renegades, and thrice-damned astartes seeking redemption. An astartes approaches the watch captain and pledges himself to the Emperor, and the captain accepts. No questions asked. Now, that doesn't mean they'll pass initiation. Every member is screened and hypno-indoctrinated before they even get a drop a black paint on their armour; it is here were the thrice-damned astartes will be found out and his life is in the of an inquisitor. A more radical inquisitor would allow him to live, using the astartes to learn more of his heretic brethren. If the Deathwatch is not sent to do something about that astartes former brethren than the information passes through the inquisition until those who are the mail about His fist are sent in to cleanse and banish.

 

But this is all highly unlikely, because turncoat heretics will be outright murdered 999.999.999/1.000.000.000 times.

[Spazmonkey]

Evil is is very subjective.

Evil is applied to conditions based around the society in question

 

By our current standards the loyalists are as evil as chaos.

 

If they follow the laws and requirements of their society, then they are good and law abiding by their standards.

Be you loyal or chaos.

 

By current earth standards wiping out an entire planet just because they are aware of chaos is an evil act.

Or sending thousands to death very day to keep one man alive...

 

Tell the xeno species that were wiped out during the crusades just for wanting to live as they had for thousands of years that the imperiam is not evil.

 

Personally I think the imperiam is every bit as evil/good as Chaos, just a different side of the same dice.

The loyalist side just happens to be the side I fight for.

[Emperors Immortals]

On a related note, I finally saw Hotel Transylvania last night with the kids.

 

They are now proficient in moral justification and perspective as an ontological argument.

 

Serious, that film deals with this question very well.

[Slips]

Hotel Transylvania surprised me when I watched it on the plane. Surprisingly ok/good.

 

But...back to if Chaos Marines that have always been Chaos Marines are "evil" (for it is but a point of view).

 

Imo, no. Its a point of view as I just said. I mean, objectively/subjectively speaking, both the Imperium and Chaos sacrifice MILLIONS of lives a day and treat it as totally normal. This is the Grim Darkness of the far Future. There is no true good guy.

 

The only "good guys" are the people you side with.

[Spazmonkey]

If you had to pick to be an average Joe, would you pick the  loyalist or Chaos....

Either way seems like a bleak existance likely to end in brutality.

 

Out of all the races as far as freedon goes and life quality you would almost have to go Orc, at least they love what they do and are honest about exactly what they are. 

[brother_contagion]

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven.

On the same side of the coin, you also can't give someone a bucket full of numbers or languages, they're concepts. You can show me 3 rocks, but you can't show me the number 3. You can show me the written form of English and tell me how the language developed, but you can't measure it in inches. In the same way, just because you can't have a "bucket of evil/good", doesn't mean these concepts don't exist. If that were true mathematics couldn't exist and we wouldn't have the universe. Not everything in existence has to pass the scientific method to be a reality, otherwise you have to throw the laws of logic out the window (which 40k does with abandoned).

 

The 40k universe is completely arbitrary. It's a universe full of blood thirsty creatures and must conquer and kill, with little regard for their fellow man (Ork, Tau, Eldar, etc). Betrayal and treachery on constantly on the forefront of every race's mind, and they are only loosely held together by their cause that if any one of them were seen to deviate they would be killed/tortured asap. So, regardless of who's who or what's what, everyone is demonstrably evil, from an outside point of view.

 

From an inside point of view, like someone else said, it's whoever's side your on is the good guy or bad guy. Morality is very relative in 40k.

[Sheesh Mode]

 

Right. One of the major failings of 40k's lore in my opinion is it's inability to write about peace. In a Galaxy at War^tm there is a heavy emphasis on the constant conflict that fills the 41st millennium, that every world in every system is in danger and faces annihilation from innumerable horrors across the void. It repeatedly states the possibility of extinction is such a reality that the sacrifice of trillions of lives on a daily basis is entirely rational. To the point of ad nauseum the degradation of the human race is justified as a necessary evil, with each writer attempting to out do the rest in terms of shock value and torture porn. 

 

Yet none of them have given a detailed account for the Imperium while at peace. Everything focuses on unnecessary cruelty across the Galaxy and the purposeful disregard for human life. It leaves 40k feeling shallow and irrelevant but avoiding topics like mercy, peace, and love. There isn't a point to the fighting when it avoids those basic human emotions which form the drive for human actions. People don't kill for nationalism. Not really. They kill for the people next to them so that they both survive. Not some crap like "FOR THE EMPRAH" and people die for a planet they will never see, let alone are certain exists. 

 

Except the USSR was doing the exact same thing as the Imperium is doing in M41 during WWII. It's a war of survival. Which are very good at motivating human beings to fight.

 

Plus, nearly every single Imperial citizen is a brainwashed virtual robot, often even slaves with zero choice in the matter at all. Even the planets not activley engaged with Xenos or Chaos are still suffering from petty civil wars in the lower levels of the Hives, Hive Lords attempting to assassinate or humiliate rival Hive Lords in family wars, piracy, or just the average Imperial life, which is working a twelve hour job if they're lucky at a Manufactorum with zero regard for their safety. Then there's the Imperial Cult as well, which also ensures the citizens are religious zealots.

 

The happiest normal imperial citizen in 40k would be the most miserable guy working in an office cube in real life.

 

Necessity does not negate morality. Are you going to tell me that the humans in one part of the world are not capable of feeling pain and suffering like humans in another part of the world, or even empathising with them? Consider The Sorrow of War, All's Quite on the Western Front, and War by Sebastian Junger. 

[Brother Captain Achilles]

 

 

Although I am a moral and existential Nihilist

 

F*&%ing Nihilists man, say what you want about the followers of chaos but at least its an ethos.

[Tenebris]

Let's say you have a thin-blooded astartes runt which was recruited into the Space Spaghetti chapter. He is taken from his family or somehow forced into a trial where he potentially has to kill, if he is good at killing and his body and mind are relatively healthy he will be genforged into a towering, brainwashed killing machine. His whole concept in life will be to smash things to pieces and hopefully enjoy a healthy hobby while on pause from the extensive training which will occur across his centuries long life.

 

Is he good, is he evil? Matters not, as long as this geneforged monster kills for the Emperor and the Imperium of Man he is "good", at least the Imperial society will see him as good. But bar public opinion and who he kills he is still essentially a brainwashed, indoctrinated killing machine, in this case a "good" Frankenstein. Does he know that? No probably not, for his whole universe is his chapter and his orders, and his position in the hierarchy of his chapter. If the chapter goes bonkers there are good chances that he would be considered a heretic too, good chances indeed.

 

On the other hand you have probably a similar young male. His upbringing unless it is on a Chaos World (rarely since it would probably corrupt his genome) is very similar to the male recruited into the loyalist chapter. He still has to kill or outsmart his way into the ranks of the space marines and if he is healthy and sane enough he will be geneforged into an astartes. Much like his loyalist counterpart he is also indoctrinated, though unlike the loyalist neophyte he is inducted in a cult or simply given the basic indoctrination and from there on he will go on to do quite similar things to his loyalist brother. He will kill stuff and as long as he would kill stuff that his Chaos Lord points at or the Dark Gods demand he will be considered a paragon among his kind, good. Again his whole world will be his warband, his hierarchy in the warband and the command of his Lord. If his warband is of a religious sort he will worship the only deity he knows or deities. The only difference is that perhaps unlike his loyalist counterpart he is not shielded in ignorance and he is actually capable to make something of himself on his own device, either by following the creed of a god, contend in the trials of leadership and so on... but this is simply ambition and the use of the Chaos gifts for ones purpose and achievement of personal goals.

 

Both "brothers" are neither evil nor good, both are monsters, geneforged monsters who perceive things in a very inhuman way. Both are killers, mass murderers, most certainly posses a very violent and aggressive character (they would not make astartes otherwise) and both are indoctrinated according to their little world, their chapter or their warband.

 

Now tell me is the second marine, the "chaos" marine really evil if the only thing he knows is life in the warband which created him, his life as a warrior of Chaos punctuated only by small bouts of personal ambition here and there? 

[Volt]

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven.

On the same side of the coin, you also can't give someone a bucket full of numbers or languages, they're concepts. You can show me 3 rocks, but you can't show me the number 3. You can show me the written form of English and tell me how the language developed, but you can't measure it in inches. In the same way, just because you can't have a "bucket of evil/good", doesn't mean these concepts don't exist. If that were true mathematics couldn't exist and we wouldn't have the universe. Not everything in existence has to pass the scientific method to be a reality, otherwise you have to throw the laws of logic out the window (which 40k does with abandoned).

 

The 40k universe is completely arbitrary. It's a universe full of blood thirsty creatures and must conquer and kill, with little regard for their fellow man (Ork, Tau, Eldar, etc). Betrayal and treachery on constantly on the forefront of every race's mind, and they are only loosely held together by their cause that if any one of them were seen to deviate they would be killed/tortured asap. So, regardless of who's who or what's what, everyone is demonstrably evil, from an outside point of view.

 

From an inside point of view, like someone else said, it's whoever's side your on is the good guy or bad guy. Morality is very relative in 40k.

 

...

 

Your post makes absolutely zero sense as math is an observation of the universe. Concept of Good and Evil simply don't exist without sentient beings to create them. Math meanwhile will continue to exist past humanity, as math is simply mankind's understanding of the universe. It will still exist, just that there's nothing to record it.

[Wade Garrett]

All right, I admit it, this is probably because I'm an uncultured bumpkin who feels that algebra should be banned as torture by the Geneva convention, but I fail to see how 2 + 2 = 4 is some sort of transcendent ideal that exists independently of the ability of reasoning beings to tally it up.

 

Not to mention that the idea of math as the language of the universe makes me want to smirk irreverently and ask who exactly the universe is talking to, and what about.

[brother_contagion]

 

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven.

On the same side of the coin, you also can't give someone a bucket full of numbers or languages, they're concepts. You can show me 3 rocks, but you can't show me the number 3. You can show me the written form of English and tell me how the language developed, but you can't measure it in inches. In the same way, just because you can't have a "bucket of evil/good", doesn't mean these concepts don't exist. If that were true mathematics couldn't exist and we wouldn't have the universe. Not everything in existence has to pass the scientific method to be a reality, otherwise you have to throw the laws of logic out the window (which 40k does with abandoned).

 

The 40k universe is completely arbitrary. It's a universe full of blood thirsty creatures and must conquer and kill, with little regard for their fellow man (Ork, Tau, Eldar, etc). Betrayal and treachery on constantly on the forefront of every race's mind, and they are only loosely held together by their cause that if any one of them were seen to deviate they would be killed/tortured asap. So, regardless of who's who or what's what, everyone is demonstrably evil, from an outside point of view.

 

From an inside point of view, like someone else said, it's whoever's side your on is the good guy or bad guy. Morality is very relative in 40k.

 

...

 

Your post makes absolutely zero sense as math is an observation of the universe. Concept of Good and Evil simply don't exist without sentient beings to create them. Math meanwhile will continue to exist past humanity, as math is simply mankind's understanding of the universe. It will still exist, just that there's nothing to record it.

 

 

Mathematics are conceptual, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, which is my point. Just because something is conceptual, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

EDIT: What I mean to say is, mathematics is how we express the make up of the physical world around us. We could have come up with any set of symbols and ways to express them in a logical way, but the essence of mathematics would have been the same. Like you said, it's a language, and languages are a conceptual expressions.

 

"Good" and "evil" are also conceptual, and the concept of it exists universally. Much of the most basic understandings of what is "good" and what is "evil" are held across all walks of life, such as stealing and murder or helping others less fortunate than yourself. There are variations, but that just shows the human dynamic of being limited in what we can know and/or the use or misuse of knowledge.

 

So again, just because something isn't physical and merely conceptual, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Volt]

All right, I admit it, this is probably because I'm an uncultured bumpkin who feels that algebra should be banned as torture by the Geneva convention, but I fail to see how 2 + 2 = 4 is some sort of transcendent ideal that exists independently of the ability of reasoning beings to tally it up.

 

Not to mention that the idea of math as the language of the universe makes me want to smirk irreverently and ask who exactly the universe is talking to, and what about.

There is no difference between computation and reality. Especially when you get to high level math you start to realize that the universe itself is just a giant machine that runs on clockwork. The only difference between a simulation and the universe is how incredibly refined the universe is, down to the quarks and even lower. Are you familiar witht he Monty Hall problem?

 

 

 

 

Context: my two favorite philosophers are Camus and Spinoza, and I'm pretty fond of Kant. I don't really see much evidence - in the world of evidence - of the intrinsic meaning or value of anything. However, I do believe that as the only meaning-making machines out there, we (ie. humans) have the power to assign value to whatever we like. When we do this together, building a consensus, it's called "culture." However, none of these things are real. They don't exist in the same way that shapes, colors, sizes, weights, mass, natural laws, and the like, exist. You will never show me a bucket full of "evil," but you can show me the math that proves what stars are made of or the fossil record that shows how we came to evolve to our current shape.

 

So I suppose, in the end, your definition of evil as as good as any other, ultimately subjective idea of what constitutes "bad" and should be avoided and/or punished. That's fine. But while I use my life to create what I want to see in the world, while I tell stories about the things that I want to be real, I can only believe in what can be proven.

On the same side of the coin, you also can't give someone a bucket full of numbers or languages, they're concepts. You can show me 3 rocks, but you can't show me the number 3. You can show me the written form of English and tell me how the language developed, but you can't measure it in inches. In the same way, just because you can't have a "bucket of evil/good", doesn't mean these concepts don't exist. If that were true mathematics couldn't exist and we wouldn't have the universe. Not everything in existence has to pass the scientific method to be a reality, otherwise you have to throw the laws of logic out the window (which 40k does with abandoned).

 

The 40k universe is completely arbitrary. It's a universe full of blood thirsty creatures and must conquer and kill, with little regard for their fellow man (Ork, Tau, Eldar, etc). Betrayal and treachery on constantly on the forefront of every race's mind, and they are only loosely held together by their cause that if any one of them were seen to deviate they would be killed/tortured asap. So, regardless of who's who or what's what, everyone is demonstrably evil, from an outside point of view.

 

From an inside point of view, like someone else said, it's whoever's side your on is the good guy or bad guy. Morality is very relative in 40k.

 

...

 

Your post makes absolutely zero sense as math is an observation of the universe. Concept of Good and Evil simply don't exist without sentient beings to create them. Math meanwhile will continue to exist past humanity, as math is simply mankind's understanding of the universe. It will still exist, just that there's nothing to record it.

 

 

Mathematics are conceptual, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, which is my point. Just because something is conceptual, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

EDIT: What I mean to say is, mathematics is how we express the make up of the physical world around us. We could have come up with any set of symbols and ways to express them in a logical way, but the essence of mathematics would have been the same. Like you said, it's a language, and languages are a conceptual expressions.

 

"Good" and "evil" are also conceptual, and the concept of it exists universally. Much of the most basic understandings of what is "good" and what is "evil" are held across all walks of life, such as stealing and murder or helping others less fortunate than yourself. There are variations, but that just shows the human dynamic of being limited in what we can know and/or the use or misuse of knowledge.

 

So again, just because something isn't physical and merely conceptual, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

Except it isn't a concept. It's a language formed from observation, and the scientific process. This for example is why formulas are not "invented", but discovered. They're an integral part of the universe, as the universe runs on clockwork. Unlike morality, or emotion at all, math is objective and fully unbiased. The only part of morality that actually exists is the tiny stands of DNA in social animals that cause morality to happen in the first place so civilization can exist, as sociopaths are horrible at building civilizations and morality is an evolutionary advantage.

 

Plus, you can't have an equation that isn't true. Math isn't subjective.

[Wade Garrett]

Math isn't subjective?

 

This is a area where "well, there actually isn't any such thing as a square root of negative one, but for the purposes of solving this problem we're going to pretend there is" is a thing.

 

Where one is expected to envision such nonsense as perfectly straight lines that extend to infinity in both directions.

 

And then there's pi. Whose decimal trails on absolutely forever, but we have collectively agreed that 3.14 is close enough for a viable answer.

 

This isn't a science, it's a bloody humanities course!

[ElectricPaladin]

Guys. "I don't understand it" =/= "it's soft and gushy and subjective." That's a hell of a logical fallacy if I ever read one!

[brother_contagion]

Never said math is subjective, I said it was conceptual. What it sounds like you're saying is that, if it can't be measured or pass the scientific method it can't exist, which is a misnomer of the term conceptual to mean subjective. Or it's the assumption that all that exists is physical, with no room for metaphysical realities or delusions. If actions are instinctive and not based on an objective morality, then evil or good and right or wrong (no matter the severity or magnitude) are of no more consequence than waves rolling over the beach or exhilarating as a fly dying. It places suffering and happiness in the same boat of meaninglessness, because that's what animals do. And any ruling on what is right or wrong between and across people groups is completely arbitrary and or no consequence. However if there is room for the metaphysical to exist, then there is the possibility for objective morality which would necessitate that all people groups to understand a certain thing to be wrong or right universally. By allowing the metaphysical to be a reality, it also allows for delusions which would account for variations between what that objective morality might be. Just because metaphysics aren't necessarily clear cut like, say, mathematics is, doesn't diminish its existence.