Lachdonin Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 It's a bit like the option of betraying Mr House in Fallout New Vegas, after he and his robot saved your life at the beginning of the game. If Stalin had of saved your life, would you have stood by him while he butchered millions? If Ghandi stood by and let you get beaten to death would you villify him?One action is not enough to judge the ethical validity of a person of organization, regardless of how terminial it may be to you at that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minngarm Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 It's a bit like the option of betraying Mr House in Fallout New Vegas, after he and his robot saved your life at the beginning of the game. If Stalin had of saved your life, would you have stood by him while he butchered millions? If Ghandi stood by and let you get beaten to death would you villify him?One action is not enough to judge the ethical validity of a person of organization, regardless of how terminial it may be to you at that moment. You would be obligated by a debt of life to prevent Stalin from slipping into madness by any means necessary. Ghandi would be a villian if he allowed you to be beaten to death for most anything, other than it being the only way to stop you from killing others of course. One action is enough, because every action is the sum of your ethics. You do not get a running score, each action you take is the entire lot of what you believe think and feel. If you choose to act, or not act; wrongly, then that is the choice you have made and thus the sum of your mind and spirit. I would not forgive a man who kills his wife for nagging him, even if he gave billions to save starving children the world over. By his choice of action he has villified himself and is unworthy of praise. Those who think they can choose to make such "mistakes" every once in awhile because their actions overall trend towards the good are worse than those who trend towards the wrong, for they believe they have justified themselves in making amends for their wrongs by doing "rights" more often than not. Anyways, also consider that the Empire is no longer what it was, as the ending of the war saw great change of power within the empire itself and is infact what is causing the Stormcloak rebellion. Now for the Storm cloaks, they like any other have a right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, and choose if they want to allow none native borns in their land, the same as any other race should. This is not to say those of other races born in skyrim should be removed, but those that are not born in skyrim may infact be removed fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALittleBird Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I joined the Stormcloaks, but since I really like the Romans and their culture and warfare, I chose to join the Legion by giving Tullius the Jagged Crown. Both the Stormcloaks and the Imperials have good ideas and bad ideas, but I believe the Imperial Legion is a better choice because then the Empire will be more united against the Thalmor, whom we all hate :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faifh Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Anyways, also consider that the Empire is no longer what it was, as the ending of the war saw great change of power within the empire itself and is infact what is causing the Stormcloak rebellion. Now for the Storm cloaks, they like any other have a right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, and choose if they want to allow none native borns in their land, the same as any other race should. This is not to say those of other races born in skyrim should be removed, but those that are not born in skyrim may infact be removed fairly. What is being native anyway? No, they have *no* right to remove anybody just because of his/her race. Infact they aren't actually the natives themselves but the foresworn are. The nords took Skyrim away from the foresworn way before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) If the game gave me the choice, I would have joined the Thalmor. Down with non-elves, I say! Also, the Thalmor are the most stylish faction in the game. They're simply irresistible. :P Edited January 11, 2012 by Halororor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minngarm Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Anyways, also consider that the Empire is no longer what it was, as the ending of the war saw great change of power within the empire itself and is infact what is causing the Stormcloak rebellion. Now for the Storm cloaks, they like any other have a right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, and choose if they want to allow none native borns in their land, the same as any other race should. This is not to say those of other races born in skyrim should be removed, but those that are not born in skyrim may infact be removed fairly. What is being native anyway? No, they have *no* right to remove anybody just because of his/her race. Infact they aren't actually the natives themselves but the foresworn are. The nords took Skyrim away from the foresworn way before. I was refering to as having been born in Skyrim, not naturally occuring races, read the remaining example at the end of the section you had quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALittleBird Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 It's a bit like the option of betraying Mr House in Fallout New Vegas, after he and his robot saved your life at the beginning of the game. If Stalin had of saved your life, would you have stood by him while he butchered millions? If Ghandi stood by and let you get beaten to death would you villify him?One action is not enough to judge the ethical validity of a person of organization, regardless of how terminial it may be to you at that moment. You would be obligated by a debt of life to prevent Stalin from slipping into madness by any means necessary. Ghandi would be a villian if he allowed you to be beaten to death for most anything, other than it being the only way to stop you from killing others of course. One action is enough, because every action is the sum of your ethics. You do not get a running score, each action you take is the entire lot of what you believe think and feel. If you choose to act, or not act; wrongly, then that is the choice you have made and thus the sum of your mind and spirit. I would not forgive a man who kills his wife for nagging him, even if he gave billions to save starving children the world over. By his choice of action he has villified himself and is unworthy of praise. Those who think they can choose to make such "mistakes" every once in awhile because their actions overall trend towards the good are worse than those who trend towards the wrong, for they believe they have justified themselves in making amends for their wrongs by doing "rights" more often than not. Anyways, also consider that the Empire is no longer what it was, as the ending of the war saw great change of power within the empire itself and is infact what is causing the Stormcloak rebellion. Now for the Storm cloaks, they like any other have a right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, and choose if they want to allow none native borns in their land, the same as any other race should. This is not to say those of other races born in skyrim should be removed, but those that are not born in skyrim may infact be removed fairly. One action only resembles your ethics at that very moment. Say a man kills someone in utter rage, because that guy shot his son or something like that. You could say it was wrong of him to do that, because you just don't murder people, no matter what they have done. But that doesn't make his beliefs wrong. Everyone has to make tough decisions, and sometimes people are pushed by circumstances to do things they do not like or do not approve of. In the case of the man killing his wife, which you mentioned, I certainly agree he is a bad person. But he also donated money to starving children, and if you look at that action, and that action alone, he is considered a good person, according to what you say. Yes, I believe one action determines how you will be seen as or just be in your life, but it does not tell people who you really are. There is no black and white, everyone is gray. As is the case with the Imperials and the Stormcloaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faifh Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I was refering to as having been born in Skyrim, not naturally occuring races, read the remaining example at the end of the section you had quoted. What makes "born" so special? Flawed Logic. So an argonian pair having a child, mom and dad may be "removed" (whatever that eventually means), but the child stays? Stupid. No sir, you are just wrong. Edited January 11, 2012 by faifh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Anyways, also consider that the Empire is no longer what it was, as the ending of the war saw great change of power within the empire itself and is infact what is causing the Stormcloak rebellion. I'm not even touching the ethics thing again, as you're off on a totally different philosophical tract than i am. I beleive that an individual is a sum of their parts, where you appear to beleive that the parts define the sum. Ii my experience, arguements like this tend to devolve into namecalling and, to use internet lingo, flaming, so lets jsut agree to dissagree. As for this whole notion of change. The statement above, to me, implies that change within the Empire automatically renders it invalid, wheras change without (The Stormcloaks for instance) is still perfectly valid. Why is one change more valid than the others? We have a historical basis to beleive the Empire will do the right thing in the end, where is such a assertion for the Stomrcloaks? There is no indication, beyond the statements of its members, that the Stormcloaks are proactive, thalmor-opposed or even 'good'. Meanwhile we have 600 years of relative peace and prosperity under the Empire, even if things are a bit rough now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanusForbeare Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 In less than 24 hours this thread has become a four-page philosophy paper on the nature of ethics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts