Are Second Generation Chaos Astartes "Evil"?

[*Furyou Miko]

Ugh. Only mathematicians can prove things because the only kind of indubitable proof is a mathematical proof - everyone else can just provide evidence.

 

Thing is, maths <i>is</i> a language. Mathematics is the language we have developed to describe the world around us. If mathematics was a physical law like the 'can't prove evil' camp is implying, you would be able to change reality by throwing equations at it directly. You can't. You have to change something physical, and then describe that change as a mathematical variable.

 

Like good and evil, maths will only endure in its currently understood form until all the mathematicians are dead. Sure, some future society might create a language to describe the world that has striking similarities to modern mathematics, but it won't be mathematics. It'll be blobleblbodle or something and describe stuff in terms of... well, you know what? I can't write what it might describe stuff as on an ASCII keyboard.

[Sheesh Mode]

Right. But as far as we are concerned, as a species good and evil are real things. Even if they are simply concepts it is a gross underestimation to assume that alone makes them irrelevant. It is much the same as downplaying a symbol. 

 

But, in answer to Volt's original question: the morality of a given marine, loyalist or chaos, is entirely dependant on their actions. It's feasible for renegades who have not become physically - and by extension spiritually - corrupted to turn away from the Chaos God's and begin committing good acts. However, the Imperium being what it is will still treat them as a major threat. 

 

It would be the same as comparing the Marines Malevolent to the Salamanders. On the one hand you've a chapter who has no consideration for human beings and will attack the enemy even if it could potentially harm civilians. While on the other hand Salamanders will go out of their way to protect civilians and put themselves at great risk to ensure others survive. The Salamanders are a rare example of an Imperial force conducting a good act, while the Marines Malevolent are more typical of astartes. 

[ElectricPaladin]

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.

 

No no no. I never said if it can't be proved scientifically it doesn't exist. I said that if it can't be proved scientifically then you can't scientifically prove that it exists... which is actually pretty much a tautology. And things that you can't prove exist, well... you look pretty stupid arguing that they must exist.

 

This is where subjectivity is interesting and important. If you can argue that a belief in evil is important or useful - that it has utility - well, that's an interesting argument. But that's not what anyone in that camp is doing. What I have read so far - and this is a busy thread, I've probably missed or skimmed a post here and there, so maybe I missed something - is a wide variety of flawed arguments that evil does exist.

 

In other words, just because you can't prove a thing doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It might exist. There might very well be a celestial teapot. In the realm of things that can't be proven, it's more interesting to argue their utility than it is to beat our heads against the impossibility of proving them.

[Wade Garrett]

Meanwhile, your position seems to be that only math is real (imaginary numbers and all), that the only fundamental difference in the history of the world and a game of Civilization is the former is more detailed, and something about the universe being all clockwork .

 

(I may have missed a few things, but the last time I bothered to check we'd moved away from the Newtonian "everything's the predictable grinding of universal gears" to "well, this is confusing" quantum chaos.)

[ElectricPaladin]

Meanwhile, your position seems to be that only math is real (imaginary numbers and all), that the only fundamental difference in the history of the world and a game of Civilization is the former is more detailed, and something about the universe being all clockwork .

 

(I may have missed a few things, but the last time I bothered to check we'd moved away from the Newtonian "everything's the predictable grinding of universal gears" to "well, this is confusing" quantum chaos.)

 

Hm. No, I didn't say that only math is real. I said that only things that can be proven... can be proven. Things that can't be proven are still very important, but that doesn't mean that they can suddenly be proven. Just because it's important to you doesn't mean that we get to talk about it like it's a certainty when there is no objective proof for it.

 

Many people misunderstand the idea of quantum chaos. The fact that a significant portion of the universe is probabilistic rather than completely certain does not mean that the universe is entirely loosey-goosey and everything you can imagine exists. Proof is still a thing.

[Wade Garrett]

Well, no. Quantum is a thing, therefore unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster is silly, fair enough.

 

But when you start talking about clockwork, (in my mind) you imply that something is predictable and deterministic, and that (taken to an extreme) everything is running in its inexorable, inescapable groove, and from there we arrive at something like secular Calvinist theology. (I don't actually recall you putting forward a philosophy of full blown determinism, but the whole idea is a white whale of mine so I figured I'd start harpooning away preemptively.)

 

Whereas once you introduce some uncertainty into the system, life gets interesting again.

 

And if I can be serious for a moment...would you say that the so called "imaginary numbers", which mathematically can't exist but get treated as if they do anyway, are real or not? I'm not trying to set a rhetorical trap here, I'd genuinely like to get your opinion.

[TrashMan]

I'd say it doesn't matter in the long run, since brainwashed or willing, the giant murder-machine is still a giant murder-machine and has to be stopped.

[Volt]

Ugh. Only mathematicians can prove things because the only kind of indubitable proof is a mathematical proof - everyone else can just provide evidence.

 

Thing is, maths <i>is</i> a language. Mathematics is the language we have developed to describe the world around us. If mathematics was a physical law like the 'can't prove evil' camp is implying, you would be able to change reality by throwing equations at it directly. You can't. You have to change something physical, and then describe that change as a mathematical variable.

 

Like good and evil, maths will only endure in its currently understood form until all the mathematicians are dead. Sure, some future society might create a language to describe the world that has striking similarities to modern mathematics, but it won't be mathematics. It'll be blobleblbodle or something and describe stuff in terms of... well, you know what? I can't write what it might describe stuff as on an ASCII keyboard.

No, even if mankind dies and another species pick it up, it will still be math. It may be called something completely different- but as it is the law of reality itself, one plus one will always equal two. That will never change unless the very fabric of reality is rewritten and changed. Also, just because something is a physical law doesn't mean it can "change the universe". Large mass will generate gravity, this is an absolute. Mankind can certainly manipulate gravity, but we can't change it, same with math. Math was and always will be there- it's the fully objective, unbiased observation of reality and how reality works like clockwork.

 

Meanwhile, your position seems to be that only math is real (imaginary numbers and all), that the only fundamental difference in the history of the world and a game of Civilization is the former is more detailed, and something about the universe being all clockwork .

 

(I may have missed a few things, but the last time I bothered to check we'd moved away from the Newtonian "everything's the predictable grinding of universal gears" to "well, this is confusing" quantum chaos.)

 

The only reason why quantum physics is confusing and chaotic is because mankind currently lacks the computational ability to fully realize it. But remember, even raw chaos can be written as a formula.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm a science teacher, not math, but I'll do my best. My understanding of imaginary numbers is that they are real, they just represent concepts that regular, everyday 2 + 2 math struggles with. A real mathematician can say more.

[*Furyou Miko]

No, even if mankind dies and another species pick it up, it will still be math. It may be called something completely different- but as it is the law of reality itself, one plus one will always equal two. That will never change unless the very fabric of reality is rewritten and changed. Also, just because something is a physical law doesn't mean it can "change the universe". Large mass will generate gravity, this is an absolute. Mankind can certainly manipulate gravity, but we can't change it, same with math. Math was and always will be there- it's the fully objective, unbiased observation of reality and how reality works like clockwork.

t remember, even raw chaos can be written as a formula.

No.

 

Maths is the language through which we attempt to describe the workings of reality. It does not define anything, because we are not god.

[depthcharge12]

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.

 

That disseminates into what are truths, and if in fact, there are any :)

 

So far I've found there to be very few absolute truths - even math has a way of bending 0! =1 but there will always be situational truths.

 

I'm biased I must admit that I can't fathom the point of not having any moral truths and that everything is permitted. While morality might depend on where your standing from, there are quite a lot of things that people everywhere will find abhorrent (unless they have a serious mental instability or screwed up brain chemistry).

 

Ethics is a wonderful course for those who haven't had the pleasure of taking it :P

 

There are such fallacies taught in math that 3/3 equals 100%, when in reality, it doesn't.

 

...and don't even get me started on the concept of nothing/0 and infinity

[*Furyou Miko]

Infinity divided by zero is minus one. Graph math say so, because the gradients of perpendicular lines divided y over x equal minus one, and the graph's axes have a gradient of infinity and zero respectively.

[depthcharge12]

Infinity divided by zero is minus one. Graph math say so, because the gradients of perpendicular lines divided y over x equal minus one, and the graph's axes have a gradient of infinity and zero respectively.

Yup math gets silly fast.

 

Infinity and zero are nearly the same thing - they are more of concepts than actual numbers. Math cannot express beauty, love, or moral understanding. Math simply is.

 

Which is why it's useful to keep around all the philosophers despite certain scientists claims ;)

[Wade Garrett]

Infinity divided by zero is minus one. Graph math say so, because the gradients of perpendicular lines divided y over x equal minus one, and the graph's axes have a gradient of infinity and zero respectively.

And from this I conclude that Lovecraft was right, maths are black magic, and its practicioners need to be stopped before somebody scribbling on a dry erase board at Cambridge opens a portal to lost Carcosa and we're all eaten by the King in Yellow.

:p

[Kol Saresk]

Going way back to the original question, I will say this. What modern society remembers as the "Hitler's Youths" were essentially a large number of young boys who were indoctrinated in the Nazi philosophy via a program directly analogous to the Boy Scouts of America and were later on inducted into the German Army when they had grown up. In effect, they were second generation Nazis.

 

They were also held accountable for their war crimes even though most of them believed that what they had done was the right thing to do.

 

In parallel, Second Generation Chaos Space Marines are Hitler's Youths while the First Generation Chaos Space Marines are the Nazi Party. They have been brainwashed to do the same things as they people who brainwashed them, but they still have access to varying philosophies and thus must be held to the same standards.

 

As for good and evil, it is an undeniable fact that for much of human history, there are certain acts that have been deemed "wrong" and it is only by a cultural shift of "being necessary" that those acts are no longer considered wrong. For example, the Aztec Empire. Despite human sacrifices, murder was still a crime. I believe science currently tries to explain this instinctual ethics(?), essentially that morality and ethics are genetic traits. Which seems somewhat flawed at the core, but that's why it's still a theory I guess.

[Conn Eremon]

Forgive me if I'm not remembering my sciences right, but if it's a theory, doesn't that mean it's accepted? I know the general use of the term is for untested educated guesses, but in scientific fields that would be a hypothesis, and a theory is formed at the testing's conclusion.

 

That doesn't mean it is right or set in stone, but it makes me wonder what you mean by "but that's why it's still a theory."

[ElectricPaladin]

Going from a theory to a law is a very high bar, and we have begun to encounter phenomenon that cannot be verified to the point that this barrier can be crossed. For all intents and purposes, most theories are either true, or mostly true, or true-with-qualifications.

[Kol Saresk]

Forgive me if I'm not remembering my sciences right, but if it's a theory, doesn't that mean it's accepted? I know the general use of the term is for untested educated guesses, but in scientific fields that would be a hypothesis, and a theory is formed at the testing's conclusion.

 

That doesn't mean it is right or set in stone, but it makes me wonder what you mean by "but that's why it's still a theory."

That's the gist of it. "It can't be proven conclusively wrong and it makes logical sense so it will be at least an accepted truth until it either be proven conclusively true or false." For example, gravity is undeniably true. That's why we have the law of gravity. But when it comes to the function of gravity, or how it exists and works, that we are unsure so we get Newton's original theory of it being proportional to mass, and then other theories like gravitons which relate to string theory and so on. Essentially, theories are "proven true by general assumption", as I saw one article written by Stephen Hawking put it.

 

Relating back to my post, it is undeniable certain things have always been deemed wrong, even if with a slanted view. But it is unknown how humanity has always carried this sense of "right and wrong", "good and evil" and "morality and ethics". Is it instinctual? Genetic memory? Just a simple teaching that was determined by the first groups of homo sapiens and has simply managed to carry on to modern times? Could it be the work of a deity or deities? That's where the theories come in. I could be wrong but the currently most accepted in the scientific community is "instinct", that we just instinctively know certain things are right and wrong and that it is simply how environmental conditions affect our views that determine why it is able to vary so greatly from person to person and culture to culture.

[ElectricPaladin]

 

Forgive me if I'm not remembering my sciences right, but if it's a theory, doesn't that mean it's accepted? I know the general use of the term is for untested educated guesses, but in scientific fields that would be a hypothesis, and a theory is formed at the testing's conclusion.

 

That doesn't mean it is right or set in stone, but it makes me wonder what you mean by "but that's why it's still a theory."

That's the gist of it. "It can't be proven conclusively wrong and it makes logical sense so it will be at least an accepted truth until it either be proven conclusively true or false." For example, gravity is undeniably true. That's why we have the law of gravity. But when it comes to the function of gravity, or how it exists and works, that we are unsure so we get Newton's original theory of it being proportional to mass, and then other theories like gravitons which relate to string theory and so on. Essentially, theories are "proven true by general assumption", as I saw one article written by Stephen Hawking put it.

 

Relating back to my post, it is undeniable certain things have always been deemed wrong, even if with a slanted view. But it is unknown how humanity has always carried this sense of "right and wrong", "good and evil" and "morality and ethics". Is it instinctual? Genetic memory? Just a simple teaching that was determined by the first groups of homo sapiens and has simply managed to carry on to modern times? Could it be the work of a deity or deities? That's where the theories come in. I could be wrong but the currently most accepted in the scientific community is "instinct", that we just instinctively know certain things are right and wrong and that it is simply how environmental conditions affect our views that determine why it is able to vary so greatly from person to person and culture to culture.

 

 

Theory is more than that. It also means that there is overwhelming evidence, both observed and experimental, for the theory.

[Carrack]

Most sociopaths, not just CSM aspirants, have rather horrific backgrounds. This may explain why they commit evil actions, but does not excuse the action or make the action itself any less evil.

 

Some actions are just evil, not because any society says its evil, but the action by its nature is evil. For example, if you define murder as the unjust killing of another sentiment being, than no circumstance, upbringing, etc. will make murder any less than an evil act.

 

Many of the examples given by previous posters of evil societies where youths were raised to commit evil acts in ancient Terran myths, are unfortunate, but still evil. The Moral Relativist views ultimately lead to tyranny, for throughout the millenniums, strong individuals can change a society's views on what is good and evil.

Ultimately either morality is irrelevant, which seems fairly bleak, and puts humanity in the same moral state of animals, or morality is present in nature.

These are just my opinions and I will be the first to tell you I don't know s--, a stuff.

[Emperors Immortals]

As to Kol's point on natural morality, read up on Pinker the neurocognicist and Harris as well. They have a lot to say for an ethics born from natural human emotional experience.

 

There's also Foucault writing about the problems inherant in the assumption of humans being

1 blank slates, tabula rasa. We are not born unformed, we have instinct and emotional experience from before birth.

2 Noble Savage, the idea modernity is the reason we are a society disconnected from nature

3 morality born from authority, whether god is a remnant of the role our parents played in our infancy or not, the majority of people consistently express a desire for trade and peace rather then conflict and excess.

 

Lastly, I don't see it mentioned but as a moral nihilist you surely cannot believe an individuals actions can be moral or not outside a legal definition. Actions can be judged, but again need an ethical/moral Law, with actions not legal being evil.

 

And as I've been schooled, quantum cannot be "solved" like other maths as its a process and not a event. May need someone else qualified for that one though.

[Phantomzero17]

It's going to always come down to differences warband to warband as well as to where an individual draws the line for evil.  Are these neophytes going to see themselves as right?  Do they believe that only through Chaos can humanity hope to overcome the myriad of alien threats that are assailing it and own the galaxy?  After becoming Astartes are they really only in this for survival?  Have they heard the voice of Tzeentch?  The whispered promises of Slaanesh?  Felt the rage of Khorne or the blessings of Papa Nurgle?  Do they crave power?  Or do they want none of this but seek out war as it's the only thing that makes them feel alive?

 

Sometimes I feel questions like this don't quite get at what it is to be chaos.  But then again I may just be delusional.  And that's just so wonderful about chaos any one of us can be right and wrong at the same time.

 

One of my favorite characters to absolutely poorly write text documents, and leave them on my desktop, for is my warbands sorceror.  The Lords of Tempest have suffered poorly over the years and their remnants eventually have had to recruit as centuries dragged on.  Due to some vision or insight the 17th Company dropped out of the warp and assaulted a black ship carrying a tithe from a hive world.  A child taken from this raid is now forced see gang wars, sickness, death, and far worse in the bowels of a VIII legion war ship. His few contacts with the outside world coming after he has aged enough for impressment into the legion.  His only real way of continuing to survive has been to give up his free will to others.  From being sent to the black ship, to living in the mortal decks, to his training as a neophyte, to his induction as an Astartes his whole life has been moving on prison to prison.  I wrote this in the thread "How do you see your legion?" by Loesh.

 

So then what keeps this band of marines together is it their Nostramo heritage?  No, not with the Terran origins of some of the legions marines but even less so now with the recruits that have been taken in the years they've been fighting the long war.  And what is the legion really to those souls now pressed into service, these slaves to circumstance?  Not all of them were criminals, thieves, rapists, or murders like their now brothers in arms.  How have they taken to the legions doctrines and thirst for vengeance against an Imperium that they didn't build, that they weren't wronged by, and that they didn't really lose a gene-father to?  Is it the Captain himself, the self titled Molossus, who keeps this merry band together?  Though he is a product of my creation I somehow doubt that.  This is the VIII Legion he didn't come to power through depth, leadership, or integrity.  No that oily *cuss* cheated his way through every honour/murder duel he could on his way to command.  Then I think I comes down to the wish to survive, and the want to do harm simply because they can.  From many places they may have come but they are Astartes and they are all bred for war.

 

So for now they stand in Midnight Clad.  They cover their armor in trophies, lightning, terror marks, bronze/iron chains, and occasionally red hands.  They will run from every fight they cannot win, and taste the fear of every mortal race they can sink their claws into.  They are the Night Lords of the 17th company and from blackest night, they come.

 

Enslaved to a memory of a primarch, to cause he did not willingly choose, his whole life is a prison but facing death and pain keeps the doubts at bay.

 

Now I think this view will vary from marine to marine, as well as the neophytes I swear I'll eventually figure out how I want to model, but some are in it for the power they now have, others just want to survive, and some are still here just because their brothers are here.  I wouldn't quite call all of that evil.  Would you?

 

Edit:  changed they're to their.

[Trevak Dal]

With the way that Space Marines in general are made taken as very young children and indoctrinated after a series of "trials" that usually involve fighting other aspirants to the death and doing other Hunger Games type stuff.

 

That's Loyalists.  What about the Traitors?  It's probably worse by a lot of degrees.  And depending on the Warband, it may be even worse on them as their individuality is crushed or outright destroyed to make a Chaos Marine.

 

And lets not forget-as a Slave Child, they can either go Up or die like their parents did.

 

About the only instances I can think of where there might be a new group of Chaos marines that drop flags and try and sneak back into the Imperium of man would be if  they were Schola Progenium students taken during a raid and made into Astartes, and SOMEHOW their loyalty and belief in the Emperor and the cause of the Imperium survived the indoctrination of whatever warband, and the psycho surgeries that went into making them a Space Marine.

[Wade Garrett]

Question:

 

Where does this assumption that for an Astartes to be "not evil" is to come crawling back to the Imperium come from?

 

Are the Carcharadon's slaughters somehow more "righteous" than those of the World Eaters? Do the victims of the Marines Malevolent reach up and forgive them because they're loyalists? Is the cruelty and butchery inflicted by the Dark Angels, Iron Hands, Minotaurs, Flesh Tearers, and their kin somehow sanctified because it is committed in the name of the Emperor, not the Chaos Gods?

[Kol Saresk]

The Inquisition believes so. :P