Raildex verse (A Certain Magical Index, A Certain Scientific Railgun, A Certain Scientific Accelerator)

You asked if other people found it appalling, I'm just explaining why I don't and why Touma's interpretation of morality isn't crazy. Yes, he's an incredibly unrealistic saint in terms of morality, but people who subscribe to the polar opposite of deontology, utilitarianism, can be just as unrealistic. I'm not trying to convince you to like Touma here, of course. I sure as hell don't subscribe to deonotology (or utilitarianism, for that matter. I have trouble picking an ethical framework to abide by, because everything I've been exposed to seems to lead me to abhorrent conclusions).

Also, I'd like to clarify: I do not think what Othinus did was anything other than evil. I did, in fact, compare her actions with regards to torturing Touma to Accelerator and the Sisters. I just can't bring myself to say that she cannot have redemption for it.

KSPAM: Subjective reality is wrong. The majority of professional philosophers - people whose job is to study these questions and to get into debates with other educated individuals, people who are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and well-read on the topic than us, and have been exposed to copious amounts of arguments for both sides of the debate - are in agreement that moral realism is the way to go.

Or, to put it another way: if two people disagree about what is right or wrong, then at least one of them is wrong. Moral claims are either true or false.

I'm not going to argue this point to you, because it's never worth it. All I'll say is that you should read more on the topic (check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on moral realism for a good primer, and probably some good references for other stuff to check out), and that if you continue to try and argue that morals are subjective, just know that you're in disagreement with a very large number of knowledgeable people.

Also, the fact that someone follows Blue-and-Orange Morality does not in any way say anything about whether or not we - who by definition don't follow that morality - consider them to be evil.

edited 16th Apr '14 5:18:58 PM by clockworkBabbage

My apologies if I came across too strongly, Clockwork. I am speaking from my point of view, and I admit that I can be rather inflexible when it comes to certain issues. I respect your opinion even if there are parts I don't agree with.

Don't worry about it - I'm not actually trying to argue that you're wrong, remember?

...I am probably going to rant a bit. I know I'm late, but better late than never.

I disagree completely with you. And that includes the points you bring up later.

Mainly, how you have this view that forgiveness has limits is totally alien from my viewpoint. It probably has to do with my Christian upbringing, but I always believe that forgiveness is the most noble act to do as it gives a chance for atonement. You on the other hand seem to have adopted the “once a criminal, always a criminal” mindset. Your mentality is just as weird to me as Touma's is to you. It is more hard to forgive

First off, you are still hung up on Accelerator's actions during the Level 6 experiment? I mean, yes, it was a manslaughter, but after all this time, despite the fact that the author has pointed out many times that the guy believes he cannot redeem himself completely, that he is fighting to protect good people like Last Order, Yomikawa, Yoshikawa, and the Sisters from darkness, that he saved the Network, that he struggle to destroy the law of the mocking the weak people by the strong, you still can't find it in you to at least stop judging him? That's one inflexible position.

I mean, you would have a point if he didn't feel any regret, problem is that he does. I'm not saying to forgive him for the manslaughter of 10,031 young girls, you are well within your right to consider the act amoral, but at least aknowledge that there are different factors, like how Aleister is basically behind it all, how the scientists cheerfully proceed, how the Sisters themselves willingly participated in the experiment? The Level6 Experiment had many actors, not just Accelerator, and without diminishing his responsibility, I think we need to look at everything before going “he is a monster who deserves to die!” Yes, it was a tragedy, but I think getting worked up over only one person who carried the act, instead of the ones behind it all is...childish. Get angry at the situation, not only one aspect.

Going back to my previous point, Accelerator wants to atone for his actions. You don't aknowledge at least that? The fact that he's struggling so hard to change himself is worthy of both praise and respect. He could have given up at any opportunity and just settled back into his old ways, yet he did not. Going down that road is no easy feat; the road of redemption is a broken, beaten, bumpy path to tread down. While he has a long way to go before he can forgive himself for all the lives he has taken, he's still walking down that same path towards the same goal the entire time.

What would you have wanted? That Accelerator was killed? Would that bring back the Sisters? You are not okay with Accelerator's Heel-Face Turn since you don't think there's coming back from killing 10k people? So, if Accelerator only had to kill one Sister, you would be totally OK with forgiving him? I'm asking because people have a tendency to ask for blood when there is more than one victim, when the number shouldn't actually make it worst, it's supposed to be the act of killing itself. There is no “after a certain point, redemption stops being possible”, because that implies murder is actually OK as long as you don't kill too many people.

And that's why I, ultimately, don't get you. To go back to one of your example, you said you wouldn't lift a finger to save a rapist from being lynched by a mob, for example. What exactly does that solve? What does the rapist dying resolve? I am going to tell you what, nothing, all it does is temporarily satisfies your (or the mob's) schadenfreude. Everyone is happy, feel self righteous to have taken justice into their own hands, people can go around boasting how they served the greater good...now what? Are the girls the guy raped still traumatized? Yes. Will this set an example to other rapists, and there will be no rape ever? Hum, no, I think not. That's why capital punishment is useless among other things, criminals don't expect to get caught. If they did, they would not commit crimes in the first place. The decision to commit criminal acts, or other transgressions which could result in punishment, is always a gamble, and the severity of the punishment may be enough to deter some, but there will always be those who believe that they will escape punishment. In the end, retribution's only purpose is cathartic, it appeals to the worst side of human nature, our sadistic capacity for taking satisfaction in another's suffering. It becomes questionable whether the punishers are really morally superior to the perpetrator. At this point, you have to ask yourself what gives you the right to judge him.

I would go as far as to say that people with Manichean, black-and-white morality such as you are the whole reason behind why capital punishment still exist. It's just knee jerk reactions over rationality, really.

I know you would say “how the killer feeling remorse erase what the atrocities he did”? You would be right, it doesn't. However, the simple fact that he would be allowed to live to come to regret his actions is definitely a better option than killing him and not letting him the chance. A killer/rapist/criminal might decide to do good if given the chance, to atone for his past crimes. If he is dead? We would never know, we killed him to feel good for one moment, and left emptiness behind.

From an utilitarian point of view, the possibility for the criminal to do some good is definitely higher if he is, you know, alive.

Have you read The Count Of Monte Cristo? Do read it, it illustrates perfectly how desire for revenge and thirst for blood is ultimately pointless in the end. While you're at it, go read Les Miserables as well to see what a forgiven criminal decides to do of the rest of his life (hint: he does quite some good when given the chance).

Now the main points: Othinus and Touma. You do know your position on this is a bit hypocritical, right?

Let me explain: Othinus used her powers to change reality an unknown number of times, according to her whims, her selfishness changing the lives of billions of people so that she would feel good. Now, at the end of the volume, she is powerless, the Fairy Spell is slowly killing her, and now the entire world decides to kill this single person to create peace and eliminating evil. Despite the fact that Othinus is actually no longer a threat.

What makes this situation right, exactly? Because it is the majority? So when the majority decides on the fate of a minority, it is right to you? Because what I see is just another type of selfishness, not some “justice” being delivered.

And you are actually wrong about the motivations behind Touma's actions. You may think his point of view is too radically different from your own, but your bias actually blinds you this time, because this situatin has nothing to do with Touma forgiving her, or wanting to save her “just because” as usual. It's a lot simpler and selfish: he understands her. Or rather, he has enough insight to see just what is wrong with this situation. The world they come back to is basically Version Alpha, with the end results of Version Omega. Remember those chapters? What they had in common is simple: “everyone” makes it acceptable for one person to suffer/die, so the rest can be happy. See nothing wrong with that? It's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas all over again. It's security/peace/justice/bullshit over the life of one person. And Touma lived through it, why would he let someone else suffer the same, and then go his merry way? Pretty sure anyone would be uncomfortable with leaving someone else to a fate they barely avoided. It would leave a bitter taste.

For you someone killing 10k is evil!, but somehow the entire world ganging up on one girl who is no longer a threat is acceptable? What? Is that not an atrocity? Oh, I get it, she did it, so they have to payback? Leaving aside that rewriting reality is not actually killing people (the only people who actually died, in regards to Version Omega anyway, were the ones already dead to begin with), two wrongs don't make a right. Taking "an eye for an eye" just results in two mutilated people instead of one. You can't stomach the fact that Othinus made an Heel-Face Turn, after all the atrocities she committed? Well, too bad for you, that's something called remorse. Do you keep long grudges too? Do you still resent that kid in kindergarten who stole your Legos? And no, Othinus is not a Karma Houdini, I doubt a Karma Houdini would willingly let herself die, most don't even regret their actions.

Rant finished, peace out.

edited 21st May '14 12:51:01 PM by allfictions

Pictured above: an excellent example of what I was referring to. The morality of man is not a simple construct. It has layers and layers of complexity, and much like the turtles, it's just more layers all the way down. Nature's morality = simple. Man's morality = a 777x777x777 rubik's cube.

@clockwork: You misunderstand me. In human society, there must be a right and a wrong, because that's how we organize ourselves. That's how we govern ourselves. But true morality, objective morality, the morality of the universe, is not bound by these same restrictions. Someone must be wrong in human morality, the bitch of the matter is sorting out who. Which is why in human morality, what's right and what's wrong almost always depends on how many people support each side of a given argument. The majority will always win, and history will cite them as being right, no matter what conclusion they may have come to.

edited 16th Apr '14 6:03:41 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

I do understand what you're saying. The problem is, it's wrong. Your arguments are not actually reasons for why morality is not objective, but just reasons why figuring out what that is are hard.

Again, my response: do some reading. People have been asking these questions for far longer than we've been alive, and have made many arguments both for or against your position. It's worthwhile to check it out - either you'll get convinced otherwise, or you'll encounter more robust arguments that support your position you can use.

I understand that and I'm certain I will do some such reading in the future, but what you're either not understanding or refusing to accept is that I believe that agreeing on one common morality that would apply to everyone is not just difficult, it's impossible. Not the fake kind of impossible used for exaggeration either, literally impossible. As in it can't happen without forfeiting everything that makes our species what it is, up to and including our own individuality and self-awareness. That's what I'm driving at.

tl;dr the premise of a single common morality is a flawed one

edited 16th Apr '14 6:51:40 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

That's a pretty ambitious claim there, man. Can two people agree on morality? If so, why not three? And then four? And then, eventually, every person? Where's the cutoff point, and why?

And again, you're misunderstanding the claim you're making: saying that humans cannot agree on morality says absolutely nothing about whether or not moral realism is true, which was what your argument about Othinus not being evil was based on.

But if we don't know if moral realism is real or not, then what's the point of it? It's essentially a non-factor in any argument regarding morality until someone can prove it exists, much like a certain other abstract concept people like to harp on about. And can two people really agree on what is and isn't moral? Can you really sit two people down at a table, lay out a list of laws, and have them agree on a course of action for every possible permutation of a violation of those laws?

"Common morality" is an illusion propagated by the shallow agreements small groups of people make on wide-sweeping statements regarding morality. It may seem like two people are capable of sharing the exact same view of morality, but I guarantee that if you delve deep enough, you will find a point of contention between them, some possible permutation which they cannot agree on a course of action for.

edited 16th Apr '14 7:08:40 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

Let's back up a second here:

Moral realism is not "The Objective Morality." Moral realism is, essentially, the claim that there is an objective morality. Therefore, moral claims are either true or false, and therefore meaningful. Disagreement about whether or not a moral claim is true/false (for example, your contention that we personally, cannot truly know what is good or evil) in no way changes the fact that a moral claim is still meaningful. This is why doing reading now is important, as opposed to continuing to argue your position while currently not knowing the full story: this exact thing is explained in the SEP article on moral realism, which itself is pretty much an introductory text. Your arguments have not been refuting moral realism at all.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Your entire argument for why Othinus is not a complete monster was that Othinus is following some Blue-and-Orange Morality, and that therefore we cannot meaningfully say that she is evil. You have yet to provide a convincing argument as to why an individual cannot say that. They might be wrong, or proving their position might require a lot of work, but this does not change the fact that they can say that and have it mean something.

Arguing that someone is wrong to consider someone evil requires a lot more work than simply saying we cannot agree on what is moral, so none of our statements about morality are meaningful (remember, moral disagreement does not in any way conflict with moral realism).

Why? How can you possibly make that guarantee? There is literally no reason that the statement "There exist two people with the same moral views" is inherently false. This is also without even considering the fact that two people with identical views except for one point of contention could be persuaded to change their mind.

Remember, your claim was that it was absolutely impossible for two people to hold the same view. This is, again, an extremely ambitious claim and it requires a hell of a lot more evidence than your simple guarantee. Impossible means that I shouldn't even be able to properly conceive of two hypothetical people with the same views. What you need to do here is say why that hypothetical situation is somehow contradictory.

...Of all the threads here which could have had such an in depth discussion about subjective and objective morality, I would not have thought of this one.

(Morality is subjective by the way. I mean, it might be objective, but that's not provable. Morality being subjective on the other hand is the null hypothesis, and thus should be assumed true, in lack of testable conflicting evidence.)

I know right? I knew the latest volume was quite something, but to trigger an intense philosophical debate...

On the contrary, Sabbo, philosophers generally think that the burden of proof is on moral subjectivity, not moral realism. When you make a statement about morality you intuitively think it has meaning - it's the default position, and adopting the position of moral subjectivity generally requires an argument to convince you.

With regards to philosophy and ethics, the intuitive position is actually the null hypothesis (if that term even can be properly applied to philosophy).

And yeah, a thread on the internet about a dumb-but-enjoyable anime is one of the last places I'd have expected to be arguing philosophy.

I'm...well, extremely hesitant to jump in here, just wanted to point out two things.

One, I was pretty sure Accelerator's whole character development was about rejecting redemption and good/evil as things he needs to worry about. He just tries to live a simple life at this point, he doesn't think redemption for himself is possible. He saves the Sisters because he wants to.

Two, Touma is kind of explicitly insane. I mean Aiwass basically straight out said he doesn't even really have any morality, he just does what he feels like and other people call it good. Hell, he even told Accelerator that if he wanted to destroy everything he should go ahead and do it. He's more for people doing what they actually want to do than anything else. He just rarely thinks people actually want to do bad things.

@allfiction:

Yes, I have this point of view that forgiveness has limits. You don't like it. You don't have to. I accept your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Objective morality requires a base - a point from which it can be objectively and definitively compared or measured. Or more simply speaking, "what caused morality to exist?" For subjective morality, this is simple: Nothing; its existence is a coincidence. For objective morality, the only logical answer is that God (or a being/existence definable as such) is the creator of morality*. And of course, God (and other similar existences) is/are unprovable.

Ergo, subjective morality is the null hypothesis.

.

*I have a half hour Youtube video I could link regarding this, but we're getting far enough off topic as it is.

Problem: your argument can be used to disprove any abstract concept that can be considered to have objectivity. Like, say, logic itself (and I've actually seen theists try to use that exact argument applied to logic to prove that God must exist). Is logic not real, either?

Also, the statement that the only explanation for why an objective morality exists is God is an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't think of a different reason does not mean that no other cause exists, or even that the existence of objective morality can't itself be coincidental. Notice here that your argument sounds remarkably similar to attempts to prove that God exists because God is the only logical reason for the creation of the universe (a question that is, in all honesty, probably outside the scope of questions that science can answer. We can't look back before the Big Bang).

Actually, my argument is one I've used before as a counter to theists. They posited the "if morality is objective, then God must exist" part, then I poked a hole in that by saying that they gave no evidence that morality is indeed objective.

As I mentioned, for morality to be objective - for there to be definite "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" things to do or ways to think - they must, by necessity, have an unchanging base from which they can be compared. Lacking this base, morality would be subjective, by definition.

I think you missed the point, which is that by your argument I could just as easily claim that logic is subjective. What objective basis is there to accept that NOT true = false, or true AND false = false? All we have is intuition and experience. And yet we don't claim that logic is a mere social construct that could hold differently for an alien culture, we think it's universal.

Also, again, the assumption that the only possible basis for objectivity being God is simply incorrect. Here's an overview of another possible basis, for example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/#NonFac

Comparing logic and morality is stupid. They're two completely different things which operate under their own unique sets of assumptions.

Not to mention you can prove logic. Logic is the heart of proof itself. If you've run fifteen tests that all say that doing X will result in Y, then logic dictates if you do X again, you'll get Y. If you run the test again and get Y, then congratulations, you've just proven logic isn't subjective.

edited 17th Apr '14 12:02:05 AM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

Logic, by definition, is objective. The same cannot be said for morality, which might be objective but it might not be - its definition dictates nothing on that matter.

That section of that article does not propose what the basis for objective morality is, it just says that it probably is objective, and lists the ways in which a number of other philosophers agree.

Also remember that in my first post on the subject I said "a being/existence definable as (God)", and did not reference any specific god.

edited 17th Apr '14 12:20:20 AM by Sabbo

I think I'm going to leave this here...

I just want to point out that, speaking as a philosopher, trying to prove your point by appealing to authority makes you sound really really stupid.

Also, logic isn't absolute. There are different systems of logic that can reveal different conclusions because they frame the facts differently.

edited 20th Apr '14 12:19:10 PM by Clarste

Better hurry and archive while you can.

Apparently, NT and the Side Stories will stay.

EDIT: Well, the long awaited large picture of the cover is here: look at that◊

edited 21st Apr '14 1:51:28 PM by allfictions