Main Menu

News:

If you are having problems registering, please e-mail theconclaveforum at gmail.com

The Inquisition: How Radical is Radical?

Started by Lucidum, March 07, 2010, 08:31:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

DapperAnarchist

Well, some (Amalathians come to mind) would be rule-utilitarians. However, Monodominants aren't - they'd be Revealed Ethics types, I'd imagine. The Emperor instructs to do yadda yadda yadda.

But yeah, a lot would be rule vs act. Though certainly they all break Kant's Categorical Imperative - treat all fellows as ends not means. For the Inquisition, everyone is a means to an end.

As for the Reign of Blood, Vandire is still "ethical", in a sort of Kant via Derrida sense - by making Normative judgements (x is better than y) he's making ethical decisions. His ethics is "my benefit at all costs", buts thats still an ethic.

Woot! Philosophy rocks!  :P ::)
Questions are a burden to others, answers a burden to oneself.

The Keltani Subsector  My P&M Thread - Most recent, INQ28!

Brother_Brimstone

Quote from: DapperAnarchist on March 29, 2010, 07:19:31 PM
Woot! Philosophy rocks!  :P ::)

Before I end my vaguely off-topic discussion I would like to state that the Conclave appears to be one of the only places online where you can have a civilised conversation about philosophy, and it not to turn into a flame war. Thank you Conclave; the internet is a dark place for philosophers... (and thank you DA, it's always a pleasure to discuss philosophy with someone who knows what they're talking about).

Swarbie

QuoteI hope you do not find my words unkind, they were not intended as a personal attack (or any form of attack), but be more careful with such definitive moral statements.

(EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying your view of ethics is wrong, but conversely it is not necessarily right).

Don't worry. I was in an anti-society, soulless mood at the time. You make a good point.
And I saw her body burning,
With it, my world
To dust returning