Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-24810427-20140401014505/@comment-24590102-20140402085823

Awesomeking13 wrote: Smoking.Chimp wrote: The Forsworn aren't bad. Their choices, in my opinion, are bad - but the existence of volition (i.e. free will) dictates that the same person is capable of making better choices which, in turn, makes the person neither bad nor good - only their choices. This is, still, an argument which requires context, so, let's contextualize:

If I recall correctly, it was Carl Jung who proposed that, in terms of temperament and who we are as individuals, we are a product of our choices. Does this bring us full circle, I wonder? Do the bad choices of the Forsworn, by making them who they are, make the Forsworn bad people? Well, assuming that they have not suddenly become automatons and continue to possess free will or volition, then they are still capable of making good choices, so I'd argue that the Forsworn are not bad or good for the same reason that a person cannot be bad nor good.

In light of this, the bad things the Forsworn have chosen to do, in practice (as opposed to theory), definitely raise questions concerning whether they have bad culture. Many human rights violations are a product of cultural elements which cause harm to the human being. Harmful cultural elements exemplify bad culture, for the benefit of any who treat culture as a sacred cow. But where does bad culture come from? Why have people, in the past, perpetrated reigns of terror, religious persecution, terrorism, conquest, human sacrifice, genocide and mass sterilisation - just to name a few? Why?

People don't go and do evil things on the basis of greed, lust, wroth, pride, envy, etc. because people have a sense of empathy (i.e. conscience) which keeps these fundamentally emotional drives in check. Were this not the case, we'd all be running around looting and pillaging uncontrollably. In just about all of the examples of evil deeds, about which we know enough to analyse, there is a clearly identifiable ideology at work which uses a variation on the “greater good” rationalization to subvert the conscience or sense of empathy. In this way, ideology allows people to do bad things without feeling bad about what they're doing. Even individual criminals nearly always justify their crimes with their own ideology, often to the point of believing that they have every right to commit the crime, and that ideology is what allows the criminal to blot out any empathy s/he might have for the victims of the crime.

So, the bottom line, here, is that it is not the Forsworn who are bad, it is the systematic deployment of ideology to blot out empathy which is bad and I think it might be that which makes standing up to the Forsworn feel so good. Wow you gave me a great answer ! Well, I'd be careful, there. :^)

One of the opening premises is, perhaps, a little extreme - which makes the overall argument vulnerable. After bouncing this idea back and forth with a close friend of mine, I've come to think that the overall argument could be strengthened if the "people are neither good nor bad" premise was replaced by the premise that "people are both good and bad" - which better concludes the previous argument and I think it may flow better if carried into the rest of the argument - I.e. to also say that the Forsworn are both good and bad. In fact, it would probably have clarified the point made about the role of ideology in justifying and regimenting the very worst elements of human behaviour - not to mention the dangers of generalization.