Is this Lawful Good?
As originally envisioned by Gary Gygax, yes.
>>47917275
That's Lawful Evil with some serious delusions.
>>47917275
lolno
>>47917275
True Justice such as the kind that does not exist on earth would not ask for Mercy, because everyone gets exactly what they deserve.
I suppose you could say it exists in mundane transactions it's just if you and friend agree to trade cards that are of equal value both in terms of online resell and intrinsic emotional value to the two of you, but that misses some deeper subtext
>>47917275
Every single thing he says is correct.
>>47917275
The victim often asks for the guilty to suffer more than they deserve so no, it's not Good at all, just Lawful.
>>47917573
Gygax pls go
>>47917275
no that's lawful stupid
>>47917573
>everything is zero-sum!
>>47917275
Depends On The Setting.
If the Gods of Goodness in your narrative have no attachment to mercy or compassion, then this is reasonably LG. If you as a storyteller aren't personally that into Ayn Rand, then this is Lawful Neutral.
>>47917608
Necessarily.
>>47917275
Pretty sure it's just the same guy who puts up the Spoony threads and "The Goddess is a Succubus" threads every single day now, guys.
>>47917275
The punishment of the criminal has no effect on the victim. Mercy isn't cheating them out of anything but vengeance, which is evil.
>>47917275
>>47917661
No, that is a philosophically inclined and competent lawful evil ruler. I'd vote for him if the idea of voting was ethically defensible in the face of his superior ruling abilities which it is obviously not.
>>47917743I still think the idea of a redeemed succubus turned Good-aligned goddess has merit, as long as there's nothing even vaguely resembling a vore fetish involved.
Morality systems are and always have been completely idiotic and unneeded.
>>47917275
He is completely correct... IF you can objectively determine what a just punishment actually is. The argument seems to be based on the idea that we KNOW what is justice in any given situationand know for a fact who the guilty are, which is another matter entirely, and thus can determine the exact punishment that is what he deserves. In that situation, to treat him any better would be harming the victim, BUT treating him any WORSE would be cruelty.
However, in the real world, we do NOT know what is actual justice, we can just make our best guess based on the present moral values of society. It then becomes a balancing act of mercy and vengeance. Mercy is not an evil in this case because without it, our punishments would surly be too cruel. Likewise without any form of retribution, we could not protect any potential victims. That does not make the entire concept of either mercy or vengeance evil, just lack of moderation of either is unjust.
>>47917804
There's no way that this isn't the single most Lawful Netural philosophy ever conceived. Letting punishment fit the crime, with no concern for what the victim or perpetrator wants/feels is the definition of LN.
I can definitely confirm that Mercy treats the guilty better than he deserves.
>>47917275
It's bullshit justifications for Chaotic Neutral, at best.
>>47917996
Incorrect. LN does not care about justice or punishment, only that the rules are obeyed.
The concepts of justice or punishment would be irrelevant in a perfectly LN society because the only way such a society could exist is if it consisted entirely of robots, golems, psionically enslaved people, bound entities or programmed/bound undead.
Justice and punishment are concepts that require free will, something that cannot exist in a perfectly LN society. Since all DnD alignments are extremes to the absurd, if a concept cannot exist at the alignments extreme then it is incomparable with that alignment.
>>47917275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7EKZ32ODQ
>>47918815
>LN does not care about justice or punishment, only that the rules are obeyed.
This. Remember that punishment often has the effect of increasing crime rates among the punished.
>>47917275
Oh look, this meme again
>>47917275
Justice is ultimately a good oriented concept, so yes, albite a very harsh version of it, one that toes the line. Alignments should operate in broad strokes, rather than very specific things. In my opinion, Good means you actively want people to be better off and are willing to go out of your way to help people, neutral means you won't don't care that much and won't go out of your way to help people, but you're also not going to just fuck people over for your own benefit, and evil means that you'll willingly fuck people over for your own benefit. The Law-Chaos scale, in my opinion, should function as a general approach or philosophy. Lawful good means believing that the the well formulated legal systems are the best way to create a good society, Chaotic good means that you think laws generally get in the way of having a good society, and neutral good means you don't really lean either way. When it comes down to finer details, as has been said, it's going to depend on the setting.
>>47919044
>Justice is ultimately a good oriented concept
Define justice, please.
>>47917930
Good post.
>>47919164
The specific definition is irrelevant. People can disagree over what is just, but these disagreements are disagreements over morality, and the fact that morality is seen as important is what makes justice good.
>>47917275
About as Lawful Good as her.
Posting objectivist characters.
>>47918951
>>47919044
If 'mercy' is by definition a good concept and by definition incompatible with 'justice' then in the extreme the only alignment compatible with perfect and fair 'justice' is Lawful Evil.
The only way true justice and mercy can be incompatible in a LG system is if the victim (or 'society' for "victimless" crimes) is allowed to enact the penalty. In that case you have the victim holding the whip or executioners blade and deciding if they will spare them and/or enact a lesser penalty thus allowing both justice and mercy.
For crimes with a specific 'victim' this is possible with a LG society and a LE society as well. For crimes without a specific victim (besides stuff like treason) it is impossible unless you have a democratic vote (usually LG but not always) or a arbitrary ruling (usually LE but not always) from an authority.
Logically the only way Mercy AND Justice can exist is in either a LG or LE society that ignores victimless crimes entirely.
While both can do so in theory, in practice LE societies are the ones that give zero fucks about victimless crimes, LG societies think the idea too chaotic to seriously consider the idea. So in practice LE is better than LG because it protects you with Justice but gives you the option (and right) to practice mercy without infringing on your right to justice.
In practice LE can reconcile these ideals, LG does not.
>>47919619
I'm not asking for an example of something just, I'm asking for a definition of justice. If we're going to say that justice is a meaningless word, it's silly to call it good or harsh or anything but meaningless.
>>47919669
>If 'mercy' is by definition a good concept
I'm not entirely certain that's true, but I'll go with it.
>and by definition incompatible with 'justice'
I'm pretty sure that's false.
>then in the extreme the only alignment compatible with perfect and fair 'justice' is Lawful Evil.
That doesn't follow.
It's LE
Mercy is unlawful, because you choose to under-enact the law. But depending on circumstances it might be good. Or evil, like if you are asked to kill an evil wizard who wants to blow up the world and you are being like nah.
If you think law is wrong, the lawful course of action is to modify the law. Not uphold it arbitrarily.
>>47917275
>Implying that people are always 100% righteous or evil, and therefore that their actions are consistent with their inner character 100% of the time.
>Implying that mercy can't be justice at the same time in a surprisingly broad number of cases, related to previous one.
>Therefore that there are only those extremes as false disjunction, and not realizing that most virtuous procedure is often a mixture of both.
>Implying that such an imperfect concept of justice can't be misinterpreted with ease
>Implying that victims can't be compensated if the criminal does not suffer
>Implying that the concept of justice isn't defined, affected heavily and deliberately by power structures like family, tradition and state in different ways but following the same principles (Sharia, U.S system, ANY law).
>Implying that justice and mercy are universal concepts that everyone can understand perfectly at all times, and can be applied perfectly regardless of circumstance
>Implying that they can be even the same for everyone under the same system
>Implying that victims can't be merciful.
>Implying implications of Agustinian morality.
Nope. That is clearly lawful evil (involuntary, narcicist, controller, neutral tendencies).
>>47918951
Wrong, punishment only increases the crime rate only when the punishment does not fit the crime and every effort is made to prevent the person from ever reintegrating back into society.
>>47920283
The primary purpose of punishment is to give people a good reason to not commit crimes to begin with. Without punishment you can choose to not commit crimes, sure, but it will put you at major disadvantage.
>>47920283
>punishment only increases the crime rate only when the punishment does not fit the
When does the punishment ever fit the crime? Laws are written so that "good people" can feel good about making sure that "filthy criminals" get fucked in the ass. Gods are even worse than humans about this shit.
>>47920328
The majority of criminals need social workers and guidance, not a cell. All the latter does is suck up money and not solve the problem. You don't get rid of rotten food by throwing it in the freezer.
>>47917275
It's an incredibly self-righteous lawful neutral.
>>47920404
What the majority of criminals need is a round of 7.62 and a ditch in Redding.
>>47917275
That man is the most literal of lawful good. He is and strait with his law while only doing good with good intentions.
>>47920404
OK, let me explain my point. Imagine a society in which everyone steals. You don't, so in the end, this makes you poor. Laws have to written so people who steal get punished so you don't necessary lose the race for abstaining from anti-social behaviour.
Sure, people who have no other way to live but crime need help, but that's another point.
>>47917582
Thats not different. Beating a child for no reason vs. beating him for reason, but not beating him more then needed as the punishment dealer. The fact that the victim demands more then is just almost calls for punishment on them with law being the abused Vitim.
>>47917743
I think your wrong. But I only am certain.
>>47920462
Technically all anti-stealing laws do is solidify the wealth in the hands of those who stole fastest, first, and most greedily.
Like the people after the plagues hit. They stole it fucking rich after all the law men died, and stayed that way for a long, long while.
>>47917801
A man steals from me my food. It is just that I get it back. But mercy let's him keep it so he can feed his family while mine starves.
>>47918357
It's literal lawful of the most lawful being lawful. How the fuck do you find even a little bit of chaotic in that?
"So I'm eating this ham sandwich with only ham and bread. I think babies and swords are in it cuz my lack of reason.
>>47919006
Define a meme? And now go to meme base? I'm one with you ya fucking rock.
>>47920499
That requires an entire additional system in addition to a punishment system to ensure you get your goods back.
Getting your things back is entirely unrelated to the level or strictness of punishment.
>>47920489
That's not exactly the point I made. Classes usually don't compete with each other outside troubled periods. Workers compete with workers, aristocrats with aristocrats and laws exist to give non-distruptive people the edge they otherwise would lack.
>>47920542
So taking the food he took and giving It to the Vitim isn't park of the punishment?
>>47920566
I dunno, I'd say one of the biggest reason for laws is to prevent the workers from competing with/tearing apart in the streets of aristocrats.
Especially laws about assemblage of groups and shit.
>>47920499
A man fucks your wife. The law says they both should get stoned to death. Logic says that won't fix anything and won't make it any less likely to occur in the future (at least with that specific wife and man). Instead you ask him to stay the night so you can watch, you fucking dumbass cuck.
>>47920568
not unless you want to have the cop themselves go do it, requiring extra cops due to product recovery taking time away from patrols.
Or you create a paralell-to-enforcement industry like social workers or something, effectively creating a net weight on society as a whole to ensure the proper goods get shipped to the proper people via the proper channels.
And then all the expensive corruption-checks that need to be in place to ensure such items are not stolen by the workers themselves would ensure nothing valuable or cash-like is returned. Hence why you don't ship any cash directly in the mail.
It's easy to say "people should get the shit back that was stolen", but entire industries spring up around the question of "but who has to get off their ass and make sure that happens?"
>>47920585
There are two kinds of laws really. Once is indeed imposing will of ruling class, but I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about crimes that benefit the criminal but cost everyone else, like theft or murder and gave my opinion on purpose of punishment.
Lawful good probably wouldn't have laws of the first kind.
>>47920605
I'm kind of a hardcore capitalist over here, and I sort of feel like people doing those crimes regardless of the steep consequences means there is a significant problem in the economic forces going on that are more important than whatever it was they stole, or the justice of the matter, and must be attended to.
>>47920605
>Lawful good probably wouldn't have laws of the first kind.
You don't get into a position with the power to write the laws if you're Lawful Good, at least not with all sorts of concessions and backroom deals with non-LG people. And at that point you're not really LG anymore.
>>47919754
If you don't think mercy is a good concept nor do you think it comparable with justice than what do you think?
You seem to be denying both justice and mercy, accepting one or the other is just fine but rejecting both labels you a monster and/or a sociopath.
>>47920631
Fixing society is all good but that doesn't mean you should dismantle the law.
You don't give people with cold immunodepressants because the real problem is them not putting on warm clothes.
>>47920462
>>47920605
Theft might as well be defined as "things that endanger rich peoples' status." Somehow it's not theft if your profiting from a world- and generation-spanning price fixing scheme to ensure that employees don't get paid even remotely close to the value that they add to the company, but it is theft if you make a copy of something for your own personal enjoyment, without profiting from it or claiming it as an original work.
>>47920725
after certain thresholds, more significant or taxing law enforcement is just a weight on society, and directly taking money from feeding starving orphans or whatever the optimal use for money seems like at the time.
See the US prison industry for boondoggles of law that are much more expensive to maintain and perform than the benefit they provide. So much money has been wasted keeping hippies in jail.
Which makes them EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than they were out of jail!
While we banter, mercy and evil seep into the hearts of more victims!
>>47917275
Depends on how big an asshole your DM and/or the current crowd posting on /tg/ is.
>>47917275
Hey lawful good poeple, tell me what is just punishment for stealing a loaf of bread!?
>>47917275
No. That fucker is neutral at best.
>>47917275
Lawful Evil at it's finest.
>>47921886
Removal of the hands.
>>47921886
Return its full worth. (You stole a fresh loaf you return a fresh loaf) and a lot on the wrist and threat of community service if further crime continues.
All that at the average. But I can change from land to land city to city or county to country.
>>47921886
Whatever local law is established for the punishment of such a behaviour recieves precident. If the Paladin feels the law is excessive or unjust, they may intercede as they feel necessary. This is the perogative of being LITERALLY THE CHOSEN ARBITER OF JUSTICE AND PUNISHMENT BY GOD.
Lawful Neutral for me.
This goes right down the fucking toilet if the victim asks for mercy on the behalf of the guilty. Lawful Neutral at best, going downward rather than upward.
>>47921886
Could vary. Cutting off the hands would be much too severe punishment, particularly for a laborer without any servants; you'd basically be killing someone like a farmer, or a petty craftsman.
Some time on the stocks would do him some good. Caning or public lashing might do if they were unable to repay the baker financially. Indentured servitude to the baker might also work, though general community service under the watch of a guard might be more appropriate if the guilty party has a violent past. You could also cut off a finger. Maybe some time in a cell, if one is available? There are plenty of options that don't involve destroying a man (or woman).
A good example of Lawful Good at least in my eyes would be this.
Someone is running from ogres and needs to cross a bridge, you've been ordered to stop anyone from crossing the bridge.
I as a lawful good character, let the fleeing person pass placing them under the care of a companion until the circumstance can be verified, I then ask/kill said ogre.
After confirming the persons story, regardless if I decide to let them stay or not I will present myself before the justice. And await my punishment.
Thoughts?
>>47917582
That is completely beside the point made in OP's argument.
Asking for the guilty to suffer more than what would be just is very obviously unjust and thus not what OP's pic is talking about when it talks about justice.
>>47917275
Lawful (Evil)
>>47922361
Making people suffer at all might be just, but it is not good.
Justice is just what people feel is just or the law determines to be just.
Both are intrinsically disconnected from what is good in the grand scheme of things.
From the criminals standpoint what he did was most likely just, while from the victims standpoint punishing the criminal a lot would be just, while from societies standpoint, the optimal thing would be somewhere in between.
Who are you to decide whose opinion does not matter? Why would someone going against arbitrary laws forfeit the right to have their opinion matter?
Plus the really good people in history and legend were always very clear about not seeking retribution. Buddha, etc, and Jesus didn't even mind being killed.
Perfect good would have no place for retribution or punishment, because people could be instantly reformed. This is not possible in our world.
Perfect lawful would have no place for mercy, because every punishment would be perfectly matching the crime. This is not possible in our world.
This means that if someone has absolutely no place for mercy they are less good than the best possible lawfulness would be in our world.
Which would make them Lawful (Evil).
End of proof.
>>47919685
You know, the concept itself could be very noble, but I can't find a suitable example.
>>47922225
You forgot the effort expended in catching the bread thief.
>>47920598
>A man fucks your wife.
He deserves as much harm as he inflicted. He is now your wife.
>>47921886
Misread that as "What's the punishment for SELLING a loaf of bread"
Taxes.
![on-crimes-punishments-cesare-beccaria-paperback-cover-art[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PYJ9pyZ.jpg "on-crimes-punishments-cesare-beccaria-paperback-cover-art[1].jpg")
>>47922462
>Justice is not good
>confusing Justice and justice.
>confusing Justice and retribution
>what is the social contract?
Have you considered that reabilitation and education can be goals for a sanction? Or do you think that no parent that punishes his child can be Good?
May I suggest a good read? It's available for free on the net.
>>47922322
That's Lawful stupid as fuck.
>it's "/tg/ bites the ancient bait" episode
I honestly expected most anons to call OP out on his shit.
>>47920499
No, it is only your vengeance driving you to want your food back once you are made aware that he is just trying to feed his family. It is up to you if you have mercy towards the man or not and allow him to keep your food. Justice need nothing to do it.
>>47917523
/thread
>>47919664
Objectivism is objectively terrible
>>47917275
LE is the best alignment.
>>47917523
/thread
>>47917930
>lack of moderation of either is unjust.
>>47921886
5 YEARS FOR WHAT YOU DID
THE REST BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO RUN
YES, 24601!
>>47925408
rehabilitation is not just.
it shows mercy instead of punishment.
if someone kills someone else the family of the victim could think that just 'rehabilitating' the killer is not justice.
so yes, justice is best characterized by "an eye for an eye"
Plus
a) social contracts are non existent. no contract can be valid where one of the signing parties has no choice to abandon it. so social contract theory is an inadequate description of the situation in the world
b) no matter what social contract you enter, if it deals with 'punishments' for crimes, it's more concerned with being lawful than being good.
>>47920530
In this situation Mr. A ensured a man fell off a building for being a criminal, which isn't legal, but Mr. A knows he knows better.
>>47921886
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jp_MKI_6w
On a more realist note it matters who you are stealing from and what the conditions are. If it is from a grocery stall in a market ( those guys were poor IRL) and it was during a food shortage that would be rather bad. That guy's family is likely living on unsold produce. By stealing under those conditions you are literally taken food out of the mouths of a poor yet productive ( at lest one of them have a job) family.
>>47926093
>rehabilitation shows mercy instead of punishment.
Read the book, please. It's really the foundation of modern criminology.
In legal terms, expiation is rehabilitation through punishment.
Also, Talion is a very imperfect form of compensation, so it's not the best characterization of Justice at all.
>a)
Exile
>b)
One could say it(s because a contract is inherently lawful. Because punishing Evil is usually considered an attribute of Good.
Please find me a single example of a group not dealing with infractions via punishment.
>>47925693
Asshole = Asshole
>>47926568
Why would i want to read that book?
Expiation is rehabilitation trhough punishment? what???
a) you can't. you'd have to accept the social contract of another country. and you're unable to go into exile while not an adult
b)
>punishing Evil is usually considered an attribute of Good.
totally wrong
this is what i was saying
punishing is antithetical to good and everyone who says otherwise is not considering the good of everyone.
>>47917275
please go drink bleach you stupid cunt
>>47917275
It's a great way to create a conflict within a group of good-aligned characters.
>>47917930
Most modern punishment systems have moved away from vengeance since it was considered cruel and inefficient. "Severing a man's hand dooms him to thievery". This was a movement that started in the 19th century.
The current system in most modern countries are built around atonement and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, they aren't very efficient either. Turns out its hard to make crooks not behave like crooks.
>>47921886
You owe two loaves.
>>47917275
What is that and what is supposed to be earned?
>>47927720
>Why would i want to read that book?
Apparently you don't.
However you should, to educate yourself.
>>47929649
Could you actually give me reasons for it though? what is it about? what kind of attitudes does it have?
>>47929868
You really need to be spoonfed?
>wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Crimes_and_Punishments
>the text itself
http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun.htm
tl; dr: Italian lawyer living during the Enlightenment revolutions criminal sanction by thinking about its purposes in regards to the victim, the society and the criminal.
Most people associate the book with the comdemnation of death penalty, but honestly it's a minor point. It explains why there is punishment and which punishments are effective or not at certain things.
It has aged quite well, so it can help you create legal systems all the way from Hammurabi to the modern era (to keep it /tg/ related).
>>47929868
I feel like this attitude, in many ways, puts the failure of our public education system into stark relief. The notion that knowledge is little more than a series of tools to an end, rather than a constant journey of introspection and relentless self-improvement has led to people that don't want to learn unless it's absolutely necessary.
>>47931288
Or, maybe i put it onto you, i just have diverse areas of interest and do not wish to bog myself down with texts about subjects i do not particularly find interesting, especially if the authors of them hold viewpoints that i do not care for and have virtually nil chance of being acceptable under any circumstances.
For example, i could not imagine reading any text that expresses a view pro the death penalty, as any such views would necessarily conflict with basic virtues that i value a lot, and the chance of them bringing new arguments to the table which i haven't considered and deemed insufficient previously, are close to zero.
>>47931451
Right, but this text and this author don't express that view. But before that, one of the primary criteria for you picking up a book is whether it agrees with what you already think? Even giving opposing arguments the time of day is 'bogging yourself down'? I envy you your moral clarity.
>>47931647
>I envy you your moral clarity.
Right? Isn't it awesome.
Honestly would you go and read every bit of young earth creationist literature there is?
No of course you wouldn't because it's rubbish.
Diminishing returns apply.
If you've encountered a lot of viewpoints, the chances that you're going to find new arguments for them are smaller.
It's the same with google. You have to be really desperate to read past the second page of google results.
And yes there are certain topics on which i have a very carefully constructed opinion, and i'm certainly not going to go through the effort of reading something which has little chance of bringing new arguments, but which will depress me because i'd have yet another opportunity to see how some people don't grasp some basic concepts that by now seem trivial to me, especially since it's not an interactive thing and i can't argue with it, i'd just have to fume about how irritatingly dumb it is.
I prefer doing things i actually enjoy (like replying to people on 4chan and tell them my ideas about how to select input) instead of things that i have a high chance of not enjoying, without any recommendation from anyone or any info about the thing itself.
>>47917275
do we have a source for this pic?
>>47931451
>I'm too intellectual to google search
>>47931755
>I'm so hard pressed for time to read quality material I'm on /tg/
>>47921886
Death.
>>47931868
Or rather, forced labour until death occurs.
That's the only punishment aside from summary execution.
Flexibility is key to true goodness. Sticking to your code and morals are required, but understanding that circumstances define and change things is key to actually doing good.
As for good intentions, he does possess them. He wants justice to reign supreme, where the wicked always get their comeuppance. But like any perfect world it's unobtainable. Only by understanding the imperfectness of people can you truly be just.
>>47931864
>>47931813
No.
I'm saying, the points i really care about are very carefully researched and unlikely to change, and especially not without a discussion with a person.
And reading things about points i do not care about is secondary to things i find enjoyable. Like browsing /tg/.
>>47931976
>what I'm saying is there's no point talking to me because I'm convinced I'm so correct I don't need to read or listen, but will still demand other people provide me with information so I can dismiss it
u special anon
>>47932206
>there is no fundamental difference between talking to a person about a topic and arguing with them and reading a book about a topic
>i read all information on topics which i have much knowledge about, despite the fact that i have no reason to believe there is any merit to it
>i also read every single piece of information about all topics i do not care about. all of it.
>i am also immortal and a complete masochist
you go anon
>>47932260
>u ain't going to read the book anyway, so no
>again, 2 smrt 2 read
>2SMRT2READ
>argue on the internet as a mortal who doesn't enjoy pain
its okay
>>47932329
>things
>words
anon
>>47917275
>>47917573
mer·cy
ˈmərsē/Submit
noun
1.
compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
>It just means not being a dick with your power you dumb fucks.
To all the people saying it's Lawful Evil/Lawful Neutral, you agree with the judge giving the rapist a more lenient 6 month sentence out of mercy?
>>47933901
Do you agree with a life mandatory minimum for distribution of marijuana? If you listen to some people the stanford rapist should be castrated, abdicated and then put in prison for life.
Also, daddy rich lobbying a judge for a lenient sentence is a perversion of mercy, not a true depiction. I would look the person who murdered me in the eye and tell them I forgive them.
True justice finds room for mercy.
>>47934592
>rapist should be castrated
To be fair someone's desire to rape would probably go away real quick if that were a law...
>>47935162
That doesn't mean it isn't excessively cruel. The punishment should fit the crime.
>>47935162
Yeah, except nobody goes out committing a crime with the expectation that they'll be caught. Everybody who pre-plans this shit thinks they'll get away with it, and anyone doing it in the heat of the moment isn't exactly considering the consequences either, so they're not really an effective deterrent.
>>47935475
Then they sure as fuck won't rape another bitch. Huh
>>47917275
The definition of MIGHT makes right. Mercy is FOR the weak. Do you believe in evolution? Then you believe that "Justice" is natural law where the strong have every right, and perhaps the duty, to exploit the weak and helpless.
A divine sense of Justice, which recognizes that man does not have control of the circumstances into which he is born; his intelligence, height, appearence etc, is the antithesis of this.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2nSkVEcKOU
>>47935518
We should just institute the death penalty for every crime , no one can commit crime while dead.
>>47935963
Your not wrong. Buts that's clearly a retarded attempt at exaggerating. But hey if you can enforce that then good on ya. My paladin might have a word to say about that though.
>>47917275
I'm more interested in what he considers earned and unearned. those seem far more arbitrary than good v evil.
>>47935585
Evolution doesn't even imply that, or mercy wouldn't be something humans evolved to value so highly. Ignorant Philistines make the worst trolls.
>>47917275
The fallacy is that it is victims who are "due" the punishment of the guilty. This is false and not how society works. We employ judges and acquire impartial juries to make sure no one is ever at the victim's "justice" as all personally wronged humans will want more harsh punishments than may be necessary.
This is the problem with bullshit black and white thinking.
>>47922225
>>47922225
Explain to me how a person so poor they have to steal fucking bread is going to return its value? That's Lawful Neutral, you fucking idiot.
A Lawful Good solution to the problem is have the person work in soup kitchens while getting free meals. It repays society: lawful. It helps the needy and prevents that person from stealing again: good.
Stop being an idiot. God I fucking hate alignments. They can turn the smartest of people into pure idiots.
>>47917275
No. It's a rather stunning example of lawful netural
>>47917275
I suppose he would be if he also happened to be completely omniscient.
>all this justice vs mercy talk
Man the divine dilemma was a good read right guys
>>47937551
How is he supposed to work off the value if we give him free food? Who pays for the food? And did the guy who had food stolen from him get any food? If you make someone work to pay off the Dept I give them for working then isn't that just slavery? Isn't slavery fucking evil and wrong?
Fucking god I hTe ignorant idiots who go on about lawful and good when they can't think of anything but themselves.
Fuck it lets be Communist and work like slaves mindless without choices or freewill and be sheep for each other. No one would abuse that right?
Ya fucking dumb cunt
>>47937551
That man owns his life and body. God has made that worth more then bread I assure you.
Just put him in the mines for a day. The state loves free labor.
>>47917275
>>47917523
It's a perfectly reasonable way to RP Lawful Good.
The player is evoking the code of honor for the vengeance paladin.
To be defined as Lawful Evil, he would have to be intentionally skewing it for his own ends.
>>47917582
He says you don't grant mercy, he doesn't say you punish according to the victim.
He's Lawful Good; with a severe focus on Lawful.
>>47925845
You're a light in the darkness of this thread anon.
>>47917275
LG the law is good and should be upheld
NG i wish to do good
CG the laws are written but the thieves who use taxes to pay for oppression
LN the law might not be good but its better than the chaos and disorder and its better to keep law than to protect the week who might be crushed by it
NN i dont care for laws but i dont want to go through the hassle to brake them
CN the law doesnt apply to me. i'm better than it
LE the law exists so that those who are smart may take advantage of / enslave the week minded instead of relying on brute strength and barbarity
NE the world is at my disposal and all i need to do is figure out how to make it work for me. i must use the law to my advantage but in order to accomplish that i must briefly step out side of it
CE i'm in if for me and there nothing anyone can do to stop me.
>>47938143
Close enough.
>>47917275
you sound like draco before solon came around to fix his shit
![49394[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RarYcOU.jpg "49394[1].jpg")
>>47937996
Lawful Evil isn't just self-interest, it also includes using the letter of the law or some personal code to justify getting your jollies off on hurting people.
>>47938296
"Getting your jollies off hurting people"
Isn't that a self-interest?
I know when I get my jollies off I do it for other people that's for sure! Or was it for me?
>>47938143
basically laws and morals are separable. they make a 2 denominational plain in which everyone fits some where on. judo-cristion society has associated law with good but that isn't necessarily always the case. a good example is dictatorships. just look at all the shit with north koria.
Nope. It's lawful neutral.
There is nothing good about a lack of compassion empathy, or concern for your fellow man, regardless of his nature or type, victim or not.
Anyone claiming it's lawful good is actually lawful evil.
>>47938369
Sure, I guess, in the same way that giving a beggar change to feel good about yourself is also self-interest. At that point you're in fairly abstract territory, though.
The point was that a LE doesn't commit evil just to gain power or wealth or prestige or whatever. Sometimes they just want to be a dick for the sake of being a dick.
>>47938488
LE could be law no mater the cost
>>47919685
>>47938554
It could be, it depends on the law and the justice system, as well as how passionate the character in question is about administering punishments. LE could be anything from a vigilante killer, a hanging judge, or a beat cop who enjoys clobbering drunks. Hell, it can be something as small as a manager who writes you up because you forgot to give one customer a plastic bag.
>>47938446
Should I have compassion and empathy for the Satan and the demon Lords? Should I have compassion for my fellow men Eve. The ones who do necromancy and murder/rape/Rob/pillage and destroy without reason? Or should I ask them nicely and tell them don't do it again or I'll ask again!
>>47938446
When people tried to kill Hitler where they not good men? Should they have had more compassion, empathy, or concern for Hitler? I'm sure if we ask nicely he will stop.
Ok boys well let him off this time I'm sure he won't do it again.
>>47917801
>vengeance, which is evil.
It's not.
>>47938972
Having compassion and empathy doesn't mean you have to be an idiot or self destructive. A serial killer, mass murderer, or monster isn't any less of one just because you happen to have the capacity for empathy. Compassion should and did drive the need to protect others from people like Hitler.
Only an idiot would try to make the claim that having any empathy or compassion makes you stupid.
>>47938951
>>47938972
I don't know, should you instead be an unfeeling, heartless monster and judge people for every instance of every failure to be compassionate and empathetic to others and ill them for not being properly human?
That's literally how stupid you sound.
>>47939004
>>47939019
I'm not saying a lack of empathy or compassion is stupid. But not having it for someone who is evil isn't bad.
Not everyone deserves compassion or empathy. Killing bad people is a good thing. It is within lawful GOOD to have no compassion for Hitler.
>>47938972
Killing Evil != Good
Stopping Evil = Good
This is the simplicity. The subtlety of methodology lies in circumstance.
>>47938972
I feel like some people arnt seeing my sarcasm...>>47939019
>>47931451
>I only read things that reinforce my present worldview
What's the point? Why bother educating yourself even partially if you already know it won't affect your own opinion on the subject? Why bother arguing your point if you know you're never going to change your own mind? What makes you so sure you're correct, despite having done less comprehensive research on a topic than the person or people you're arguing with? Just because you're inherently better or more intelligent?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that by not entering the discussion with an open mind you're not actually contributing anything. You're just helping to create an environment where people yell at each other despite knowing full well that neither will ever be converted.
You might want to check out this link and the first few comments and at least give a bit of thought to it. It's a little dry but not particularly long:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/
>>47939090
Damn this nigga gets it. If only more prone understood perspective. I'll read your link my man.
Respect.
>>47929064
Why?
>>47920598
Nigger what the fuck kinda laws do you have? In America you give everything to your friend then divorce the bitch so she can't take half and live a single man life. Euro fag cuck.
>>47919669
Mercy is chaotic good and justice lawful good. How hard it is ?
>>47939165
In europe you divorce and she doesn't get anything because she's at fault.
>>47939176
my wife never fucked another man cuz we dont cuck in america so i might be wrong in how divorce works. im glad you euro fags have a full understanding.
>>47925693
It's fine when you realise it leads to a regulated market democracy. As most people have very little chance to reach the top it is in their interest to have a form of government that will place restrictions on the behaviour of those who gain power and influence. Democracy is the form of government with the most to fear from the anger of the people therefore it is logical that anyone who believes that the interests of the mass public will align with their own more commonly than any other group will should seek to create a democratic government that will seek to prevent public anger.
To do this it makes sense for the government to regulate any activity that may become disruptive to the lives of the population but as the people who make up the government need votes and assuming they will act in their own best interests it is in their best interest to identify sizeable groups and offer them incentives to put them in power.
From here it is logical for those with power and influence to be seen to work within the regulations as it will likely lead to greater trust in their products (this is most important for financial institutions like banks as no one would give their money over if they didn't believe they could force the bank to return it), in the event of a company risking a disruption to this framework of safeguards it is ethically responsible to boycott its goods and in the event of other members of its customer base lacking the integrity to do the same it is in my interest to have the currency creator (remember that we only have a currency because someone is regulating it) take action to force the boycott.
In summary outside of small number of free market extremists who don't understand the concept of self interest most people would expect Objectivism to lead to a regulated market and special interest groups.
>>47920029
Not if you build the capacity for mercy into the law when writing it.
>>47939825
The only way off the top my head to put mercy into Law is a court system with judges. and as that is part of the law the OP is implying that Mercy is part of doing less then what the court ordered. the only good way to apply mercy is when it dose apply but the LAW is the upmost important part and is more important then mercy. i wont and will not let a murderer or rapist run free out of mercy or give them any less of a punishment then was issued by the court.
>>47935963
Why wait? Judge Death was right.
>>47939884
Except you forget that the burden of proof can make a mess out of that type of system. Falisifying reports, records, errors made in the trial and with the evidence...there are hundreds of convicted criminals convicted on incorrectly determined evidence and even falsified evidence. DNA is still getting supposed criminals out because they weren't supposed to be imprisoned in the first place.
You can't have verifiable justice without perfect proof of total guilt.
>>47939912
"perfect proof of total guilt" im sure most people dont feel guilt and some people can be triped into guilt even if they didnt do shit.
im not saying your wrong. but you didnt add anyway to put mercy into the system.
>>47939884
>as that is part of the law the OP is implying that Mercy is part of doing less then what the court ordered
I didn't read OP as being after the court but in the court, if you know the comic in question better than me please educate me but I read nothing in the picture that implied a pre/post court context.
Also parole and appeals both exist as built in ways to give mercy to the convicted.
>>47939933
you have provided a fair point with the appeals and parole. and that is a good thing when used properly.
and the comic in the OP dosnt say anyting about court but it looks to me like it reads that mercy is not punishing someone at all. we have gotten our discussion to the point of balancing rather then a DO or DONT. The OP is focusing more on the good of Justice and says "treats him accordingly" meaning no to much but not to little. i think we can all agree that a full blown MERCY stand point is silly but the complete oposite is just as bad.
But back to the point of the OP. punishing someone at least the minimum and appropriate amount is lawful good.
>>47917275
It is a reason why alignments are retarded and a reminder to play a character and not a fucking alignment.
>values discipline and strength
>stern, merciless and unbending, but just and honest
>believes authority and order are valuable and preferable to chaos
>has high expectations for those who follow him and is unforgiving of mistakes, but holds himself to a very high standard as well
>treats his followers and innocent bystanders fairly, and his enemies ruthlessly
>might or might not go out of his way to help those in need, depending on the circumstances
>is quite honorable generally speaking, but is a pragmatist first and foremost
Is this character LN?
>>47940261
could go LN or LG
>>47940275
How could the behavior I described be considered LG?
I had doubts as to whether or not the character was LN or TN, but it didn't cross my mind that he could be LG
>>47920443
He let a woman's child fall to his death, while calmly explaining why he did it.
He's a sociopath that needs to live in a world of monsters to make himself look even remotely reasonable.
>>47940281
that charater dose good and helps others when its possible. he is honest. he believes in authority and order.
you can totally pull that off as a LG. he is good and lawful
>>47940281
He's clearly lawful. Whether he is good or not depends on his values.
>>47940295
>>47920443
Mr. A is a dumb idea for a superhero.
>>47940295
i havnt read the comic i based my opinion on the OP posted page. what was the reason he let the woman's child fall to its death? was it a good reason?
>>47922322
bad example.
Being "lawful" doesn't mean you follow orders like an automation.
>>47940332
i wouldnt say BAD example. but your right being lawful dosnt make you an automaton
>>47940329
Name a theoretical good reason for letting a child die.
>>47940313
I think a character would have to truly devote himself to others and be altruistic in order to be considered LG, wouldn't you agree?
On the other hand LN would help sometimes/when possible, and LE would help only if it benefits him.
>>47940319
What differentiates him from a TN character?
>depends on his values
Aside from disliking unnecessary bloodshed and the killing of innocents, I wouldn't say he has any strong moral values. He's harsh and a no-bullshit type of guy, but not an asshole.
Think Stannis Baratheon from ASOIAF if you're familiar with it, only much less stubborn.
>>47940348
it had a demon in it, he would have to let others die to save it, he wasnt physically able to save it, it was gana be kidnapped and raped and used for some evil shit, and probably some more.
>>47940354
i disagree. altruism can be harmful to yourself and as a temple of god for god i am committed to keeping myself able to protect those who are innocent. being good dosnt mean you WHOLE devote yourself to others. it means you do good things and do what you do with good intent.
>>47940383
Then that makes the line between good and neutral even more blurry
>>47917275
Mr. A was the basis for my Lawful Neutral Paladin of Helm.
That was a fun game.
>>47940416
when you make complete opposites yet have a middle then what do you call that "blurry" area? you cant have your alignments go FULL BLOWN ONE SIDED! they are just a description of your character. when your put up brick walls and say "YOU CANT PLAY THATS IM NOT CAPABLE OF SEEING AS ANYTHING THEN WHAT I WANT IT TO BE!!' you just cripple the role play and character development.
Just have good be good evil be evil chaotic be chaotic lawful be lawful and let neutral be something that is between rather then this very specific good and evil but ALMOST ALL ENCOMPASSING neutral.
>>47940354
He is more principled than most. He's LN. CN relies more on impulse, gut feelings, etc. Your guy relies on a standard set of principles. TN is more in between.
If you tie alignments to extra dimensional planes, shit becomes easier. Is this character LG? Well, if he died, would he go to Heaven? If not, not LG.
>>47940450
Okay then. Thanks.
>>47940443
I guess you're right. I just don't see good as a guy who "occasionally" does good.
>>47917275
it is lawful,but it is not good.
>>47940467
i suppose as a guy who occasionally dose good but never dose evil he could be good or neutral. im not saying he HAS to play as one but rather he CAN play as either.
>>47917275
What's his name supposed to mean anyway? Judging from screencaps and descritpions here it may as well be actually "autism", but what's the real story?
>>47940504
I thought it was Authority, but looking at it, it doesn't seem like it. It is possible it was just picked because it was the first letter of the alphabet.
>>47939090
Way to not pay attention to what i said.
Please read it again.
Also, young earth creationists could be said to have researched the biblical basis of their beliefs more thoroughly than you.
Will you now go and read every young earth creationist book there is?
Of course not, but why?
"Do you think you're so much better or more intelligent than everyone else?"
I gave you reasons why some things are unlikely to affect my opinion, and you didn't read/understand them at all. They were simple arguments of efficiency all grounded in rational considerations. You ignored this and accused me of having an inflated ego.
And YOU're calling ME ignorant.
>>47940914
dude you are. YOU said you AVOID! and DO NOT READ OUT OF CHOICE!
YOU ARE IGNORANT! you dumb fucking cunt. your are literally keeping yourself from other perspectives! could you even fucking link a book about any of your god damn opinions? you full blown fucking readtard! sometimes just understanding why people disagree with you helps you understand your own god damn point of view.
that dude wants you to just have an actualy idea on what the fuck other people are saying!
i sure as fuck dont think your even intelligent. MOST of human intelligence comes from our communication. that means speaking and LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING! your saying you specifically do not listen or try to actually understand. that makes you a dumb cunt.
>>47940989
>YOU said you AVOID! and DO NOT READ OUT OF CHOICE!
Again, when was the last time you read Young Earth Creationist literature?
Why? Are you AVOIDING and NOT READOING out of CHOICE?
You're keeping yourself from other perspectives!
>just wants you to have an idea what people are saying
"Dude i won't tell you what my counterarguments are, educate yourself!"
Is not a good attitude, even if they provide me with sources to get my education from.
> speaking and LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING!
All things that talking to a person achieve better than reading a book.
Your point?
>>47941031
nigger i never heard of your book why dont you read hacka buck chuck nut? i honestly assume your literature isnt even real. there is a huge fucking difference from avoiding out of choice and not knowing about some fucktards obscure possible fake book.
who the fuck says they wont TELL YOU their argument? i can assure you listining is apart of educating yourself.
my point is your not reading is apart of not understanding. reading is apart of language you dumb cunt.
>>47941031
an dumb cunt i have read books on creationism.
>>47935585
>Do you believe in evolution? Then you believe that "Justice" is natural law where the strong have every right, and perhaps the duty, to exploit the weak and helpless.
This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution to me.
First, if it's true that "exploiting the weak" is all what evolution is all about, it does not make that any more right simply because it happens. "Believing in" evolution as a true thing, does not mean "believing in" evolution as a moral justification.
Second, that's not even entirely true. Mercy is something that almost undoubtedly evolved in us, so if we abandon a moral tenet that evolved to use the IDEA of "might makes right", we are undoubtedly missing something.
Ultimately, this is probably because there are multiple kinds of strength, and our mercy probably allowed us to focus our evolution more strongly on intelligence and society-building rather than the raw strength needed to avoid being physically dominated.
>>47941113
>there is a huge fucking difference from avoiding out of choice and not knowing about some fucktards obscure possible fake book.
So you're saying that if i showed you YEC literature you would NOT choose to avoid it?
Also, no. I do not think that any book on subjects i care strongly about could offer me any new insight, since i already know a lot about those topics.
Instead i prefer actual DISCUSSION, where it is possible to reply to arguments brought up, or ask if i don't understand something.
>>47941124
Yes but you have not read every single one of them and definitely not the one by the astrophysicist i'm thinking of.
Seriously
>>47940044
>Let us both agree that taking either point to its extreme is stupid.
Ok agreed.
>>47941169
literature is how you talk to people not next to you. when the fuck would i get to talk to Hawking or your random unnamed fuck.
OH NO! you wont let me read your specific book by a specific person who you wont name that wrote a book you havnt linked. on a subject that isnt relevant to the current topic! im not avoiding it your the one keeping it from me you retard. and i wont hunt down this FAKE book that some unreasonable tard posted on /tg/
if you dont fucking read books on subject you care so strongly about because "they wont offer you insite" how the fuck can you possible truly understand them? most people who write books are VASTLY more intelligent then the average person. and the average person is VASTLY more intelligent then you.
>>47941169
You keep bringing creationist literature to back up your argument but that's not really fair.
Science and morality are very different subjects. You can't dismiss a moral viewpoint through empirical tests and observations.
>>47941234
Wait so if i actually posted the book you would have read it?
Are you fucking out of your mind?
If you see a library do you go and read every single book in it from A to Z?
If you go on wikipedia do you read every cross linked article? And each one in those too?
Have you read the entirety of wikipedia yet?
I mean the subjects mentioned there are absolutely relevant to the first article you found, and the subsequent articles. And they're linked right there!
Seriously, i do not care about the whole topic enough to put in the effort of reading a whole book about it, especially since i don't know whether it will just repeat things i already know, or just spout countless outdated beliefs that i already know enough of not to entertain.
And yes, telling someone to fuck off to read a book is less conductive to communication than actually telling them what you want.
>most people who write books are VASTLY more intelligent then the average person
Misconception.
Also, i would still prefer to have their arguments and beliefs summarized and only if i find it to be BOTH new, AND not already obsolete, AND interesting to me would i read a book about it.
I assume you wouldn't want to read countless treatise on how greek gods walk among us.(obsolete)
I also assume you wouldn't want to read the introduction to preschool math again. (new)
I finally also assume that you wouldn't want to read a book about the internal guidelines for large corporate loan risk-assessment strategies for a bank in Croatia. (interesting)
>>47941328
And this is precisely where our viewpoints differ.
Yes i do think that you can do exactly that.
>>47941350
HOLY SHIT NIGGER! you might actually have autism. lets keep it simple. can you even read? do you have someone reading this thread for you and you just tell him what to time? and what teh fuck dude? your a fucking broken record on repeat!
"HERPA DERPA IM RIGHT WITHOUT REASON!" X50
ive meet people in the real world and i know retarded and people with autism and you really do make me think you have autism.
i dont not read those books because i have to prioritize. i have a job and freinds and family and shit man. but guess what nigger! i have read books on greek gods and ive vitied my parents and read my brothers new sciance book to see if there teaching anything differnt and i do read abstract books and wikipedia pages. i understand your trying to autisicly point out that people can read every book but by fucking god man you have to try when possible. and i know your gana say "i have friends and jobs too!" but guess what nigger! everyone dose and most people read books when convenient. and i realy want your not post to not say anything along the lines of "CANT READ ALL BOOKS" or "IM RIGHT AND KNOW ALL THINGS THAT IS THING!" cuz fuck off bitch i bet you barely know a god damn thing about creationism. your not some god damn intelligent person your just a fucking child.
>>47941350
>Yes i do think that you can do exactly that.
Present your thesis
Write a book about it
Do it anon
End all the millennia of discussion on ethics
You got it, we all believe in you
>>47941526
i dont believe in him.
all he is capable of is derailing a thread. i bet at some point he will be like "HA HA! i was only pretending to be retarded!"
>>47929043
>Turns out its hard to make crooks not behave like crooks.
It's really not, in places like Norway where they get it. Other countries half-ass it because they can't bring themselves to let go of vengeance.
I've done community service in the UK, and there really was no clear direction for the program; nobody involved seemed to know or care if we were being punished or rehabilitated. In the end I didn't feel like I'd done anything to pay back my crime, and all I'd learned was that community service only seems to benefit the private companies the government pays to run the programs using taxpayer money.
>>47941560
holy shit i almost forgot what this thread was even about. this thread is going downhill guys.
>>47917275
It's Lawful lawful.
Same alignment as Judge Dredd.
>>47941537
I sure hope not, sarcasm aside saying that you can use the scientinfic method on ethics is a really bold statement and i'd like to know what makes he think so.
>>47941813
i assume an obscure reference to a unnamed book without an author that only he knows.
>>47941560
>Other countries half-ass it because they can't bring themselves to let go of vengeance.
It's not about vengeance. Rehabilitation has its price. Not just money, but comfort, safety, prestige.
Someone who's proven himself criminal once will have a hard time be trusted again with anything.
>>47941560
you ever been to real prison? ive meet people who have and from the stories its a lot of rape stabbing and crying. but hey id trust my life in the hands of a raping crybaby murderer. i volunteer to teach them!
>>47941522
>and what teh fuck dude? your a fucking broken record on repeat!
>
>"HERPA DERPA IM RIGHT WITHOUT REASON!" X50
This bait is too obvious. This isn't fun any more. =(
>i bet you barely know a god damn thing about creationism
kinda do though. that's why i mentioned that one book by that astrophysicist creationist. can't remember his name tho.
>>47941526
>End all the millennia of discussion on ethics
Quite honestly the only reason i can see why Kant and others chose so abslutely convoluted and difficult definitions of good and bad, is because they somehow seemed t think that applicability is necessary for objective definition of right and wrong, whereas if you don't try to immediately come up with rules on how t apply it to everyday life, definitions of morally good and evil behavior are quite simple.
>>47941813
>>47941858
I actually wrote it out further above IIRC. Only people were busy pointing out what an absolute ass i am for refusing to read some old book about the social contract and punishment, after a single person said that i should just go and educate myself, instead of telling me why they believed punishment to be good and mercy to be just.
>>47942118
do you really think you smart in any way shape or form? im done with you your like talking to a wall. half the time you fucking cant read and just say something way the fuck off.
id ask you more about your pretend book that you pretended to read. but i might learn more about your intelligence by talking to a wall.
>>47942118
you have derailed the thread and been nothing but a bumbling moron who cant focus. your a wast and nothing more then physical cancer.
good luck you illiterate fuck.
>>47922462
>>47922369
>>47942118
>>47941813
Huh turns out i did not.
It was another one of these absolutely identical threads posted every other day.
Anyway what it boiled down to was that each individual has his own ranking of what's good to bad circumstances, and the opinions of sapient beings capable of forming them cannot be disregarded and have to be taken into account. In other words averaging the rankings.
(A few people might think that mankind should die, but the overwhelming majority would like to live. And while a lot of people might think that a certain group of individuals should be killed, a lot of people also probably think they shouldn't, and the need to kill is usually lower than those individuals need to exist.)
This is of course not easily applicable in real life since we don't know the rankings of preference of all individuals, much less in a way they sometimes wouldn't admit themselves, but some shortcuts can be taken, because we as individuals are similar enough to assume that our rankings are statistically roughly the same, which essentially boils down to the oldest tenets found in every major religion: Treat others as you yourself want to be treated.
>>47942174
ggthxbye
>>47942187
Well. You know... except for the fact that all of this discussion was about reading up or not reading up on reasons for justice vs goodness.
