Again, you're conflating a moral concern with a practical one.
I don't see how you can divorce them. If you're not applying your moral frame to the actual world we're just talking about some ivory tower ideas, they don't mean anything.
That distinction isn't the same thing as not applying your moral frame to the actual world.
Practical vs moral is important to understanding practical culpability vs moral culpability. For example, if you were to tell someone not to walk down a certain alleyway at night, that's a practical concern. Confuse that with a moral concern and you end up blaming the victim for being robbed. That's what happens if you don't divorce them. Apply that here.
Or if you don't divorce them and are making a practical argument about the wisdom of walking down that alleyway. Then others who think you're making a moral argument will think you're blaming the victim when you're not.
More generally the real world imposes all sorts of limitations and conditions on what we can and should do. If you aren't taking those practical factors into consideration you're probably off the mark.
Another problem is to either treat a problem as wholly unique or as happening before. By treating a problem as wholly unique you trade time for accuracy because you have to observe each factor. By treating a problem as something before you trade accuracy by applying theory, rule or law to save time. One method is like painting in fine detail while the other is more akin to abstract painting. Know when to apply both.
I recommend reading the book "Money Ball". Which is a fascinating story of trying to reveal what really goes on in a ball game. This search turns the rules of the game on its head.
More generally the real world imposes all sorts of limitations and conditions on what we can and should do. If you aren't taking those practical factors into consideration you're probably off the mark.
No, you're still not getting it. The practical factors change the practical consideration, not the moral status, inherently. That allows you to keep your reasoning intelligible. As per the raid example, you may need to address the practical before the moral, but that doesn't change which is which.
More generally the real world imposes all sorts of limitations and conditions on what we can and should do. If you aren't taking those practical factors into consideration you're probably off the mark.
No, you're still not getting it. The practical factors change the practical consideration, not the moral status, inherently. That allows you to keep your reasoning intelligible. As per the raid example, you may need to address the practical before the moral, but that doesn't change which is which.
I kind of think I do get it, I don't think that I agree. I think you're talking about an ideal. To me it seems like a though experiment. I don't want to completely dismiss idealism, it helps set a better direction, but it seems like a fantasy to me. Its like you think of this great idea about a house you want to build without considering material strength or cost or the laws of physics and then think to yourself what a great house it would be, more people should build houses like this, why don't they? They don't because of the real world practical considerations.
I'm sorry I'm much more pragmatic than idealistic and frankly I don't think that makes me wrong. At the very least it is a valid and important way of viewing the world at least as valid as an idealistic one.
I kind of think I do get it, I don't think that I agree.
I'm saying you don't get it because you aren't disagreeing, you're talking about a different subject.
Specifically when you say "I'm sorry I'm much more pragmatic than idealistic and frankly I don't think that makes me wrong. " That's the practical / moral distinction loss. In fact it's very close to the literal textbook example in one of the texts I teach from (Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition, MacKinnon & Fiala). The example they use has the statement, "I'm not wrong to say you need to be more pragmatic than idealistic." That's functionally the same statement.
You're both using the word 'wrong' in the sense of what is practical, as opposed to what is moral. No one is saying you have to ignore the practical. You still fight to save the village, just that in doing so understand you are not serving the moral need, but the practical need. No one is saying that's immoral (or wrong in either sense of the term). It's just that at that point you aren't talking about morality, so in a discussion on morality, you've changed the subject. The objection isn't that you are being less moral, it's that you aren't talking about morality. The issue is that it diverts the conversation.
I kind of think I do get it, I don't think that I agree.
I'm saying you don't get it because you aren't disagreeing, you're talking about a different subject.
Specifically when you say "I'm sorry I'm much more pragmatic than idealistic and frankly I don't think that makes me wrong. " That's the practical / moral distinction loss. In fact it's very close to the literal textbook example in one of the texts I teach from (Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition, MacKinnon & Fiala). The example they use has the statement, "I'm not wrong to say you need to be more pragmatic than idealistic." That's functionally the same statement.
You're both using the word 'wrong' in the sense of what is practical, as opposed to what is moral. No one is saying you have to ignore the practical. You still fight to save the village, just that in doing so understand you are not serving the moral need, but the practical need. No one is saying that's immoral (or wrong in either sense of the term). It's just that at that point you aren't talking about morality, so in a discussion on morality, you've changed the subject. The objection isn't that you are being less moral, it's that you aren't talking about morality. The issue is that it diverts the conversation.
It just seems to me like your talking more about the idea of morality rather than actual morality. The separation of the subjects is only occurring in people's minds. Maybe I'm disagreeing with some educated philosophers, so be it, I did use the phrase "ivory tower" before.
I don't see how morality can exist apart from the effects and actions one takes and how they impact the world. What would be moral about understanding the moral course of action regarding the village but not addressing the practical need? Maybe you're saying we need to think through the morality first, then apply it to the practical considerations. Wouldn't that cause you to leave out important factors in your moral equations?
I think I understand that you're saying I need to divorce the two subjects. When I do that the subject just doesn't make sense to me anymore, its like the house analogy I raised before. Sure a house that doesn't have to take the practical considerations of material strength or cost into consideration might make for a much better design, but its fairly irrelevant in terms of the house you can build. And attempting to build it might actually cause more harm if it the design is too far divorced from the practical and it collapses.
Edit: What do the authors give as a refutation? Because their example is pretty much exactly what I said.
"It just seems to me like your talking more about the idea of morality rather than actual morality. The separation of the subjects is only occurring in people's minds." Morality is an abstraction.
"What would be moral about understanding the moral course of action regarding the village but not addressing the practical need?" I feel like I keep repeating this, but no one is saying you don't address the actual practical need. It's like if you are asked to calculate the third side of a right angle triangle from the other two legs. If you just answer, 'I get a ruler and measure it.' then you haven't actually done the math, even if you solved the problem from a practical standpoint. You're answer then only applies when you have the same means of resolution (measuring in this case).
"What do the authors give as a refutation? Because their example is pretty much exactly what I said." You don't refute something unless you are trying to disagree with it. The issue isn't that it's incorrect. The issue is that it isn't the same subject. Like in the example above, you wouldn't tell someone it's impossible to measure the last side of the triangle. You'd tell them that answer doesn't address the point of the question.
Getting back to the subject of race, the fact that you would defend the village doesn't address the issue of race, because you'd defend the village regardless of the race of the attacker.
My analogy is that ethics is like physics, practicality is like engineering. You wouldn’t ask a physicist to construct a bridge. Instead of setting up complex systems, physicists try to isolate as few variables as possible and describe them with an idealized equation. But engineers should very much use those equations when constructing bridges, while acknowledging and making allowances for their limitations.
didja know kids talking about race on the internet only has positive results?
irony aside, I think the "races" were always considered different specieses (specii?) the only similarity is in the name. The "subraces" are closer to the common concept of ethnicity and race than the fantasy "race" is. of course the difference between them are still sorta problematic but you can handwave it as due to different upbringings favoring different traits.
Getting back to the subject of race, the fact that you would defend the village doesn't address the issue of race, because you'd defend the village regardless of the race of the attacker.
Yes, and regardless of their race, you'd put any survivors to the sword afterwards. Whether they're Humans (which actually, in early D&D were the most likely Monsters to find in the Wilderness) or Orks, who are not simply poor put upon primitives trying to survive in a cold world. You put them to the sword so you don't have to wake up a few weeks/months later to them coming back and raiding your village again (or even worse, simply burning it to the ground).
Getting back to the subject of race, the fact that you would defend the village doesn't address the issue of race, because you'd defend the village regardless of the race of the attacker.
Yes, and regardless of their race, you'd put any survivors to the sword afterwards. Whether they're Humans (which actually, in early D&D were the most likely Monsters to find in the Wilderness) or Orks, who are not simply poor put upon primitives trying to survive in a cold world. You put them to the sword so you don't have to wake up a few weeks/months later to them coming back and raiding your village again (or even worse, simply burning it to the ground).
I think that is sort of my view too. Just taking a defensive stance or giving the benefit of the doubt in regards to violent and aggressive behavior in a lawless world doesn't necessarily seem the more moral choice to me if the orcs will just take advantage and wait until a more opportune moment to attack. Which kind of gets back to my original post that orcs shouldn't be thought of as having human brains in orc bodies. That being a different species means they'd have different natures, and in their specific case more aggressive, violent natures.
Getting back to the subject of race, the fact that you would defend the village doesn't address the issue of race, because you'd defend the village regardless of the race of the attacker.
Yes, and regardless of their race, you'd put any survivors to the sword afterwards. Whether they're Humans (which actually, in early D&D were the most likely Monsters to find in the Wilderness) or Orks, who are not simply poor put upon primitives trying to survive in a cold world. You put them to the sword so you don't have to wake up a few weeks/months later to them coming back and raiding your village again (or even worse, simply burning it to the ground).
I think that is sort of my view too. Just taking a defensive stance or giving the benefit of the doubt in regards to violent and aggressive behavior in a lawless world doesn't necessarily seem the more moral choice to me if the orcs will just take advantage and wait until a more opportune moment to attack. Which kind of gets back to my original post that orcs shouldn't be thought of as having human brains in orc bodies. That being a different species means they'd have different natures, and in their specific case more aggressive, violent natures.
Its also the view of majority of humans in these kinds of worlds these games are set in: pseudo-Medieval for most of them: Forgotten Realms, Birthright, DragonLance, Mystara. Some are more apocalyptic than others (Greyhawk and definitely Dark Sun) while others are Gothic (Ravenloft) and then you have the odd ones out like Eberron (Steampunk).
Stated simply, you put these scum to the sword to prevent future attacks. You hunt them down to their hideouts and burn them out, root and branch, to prevent them from ever inflicting grief upon you again. You don't spare any of them, especially not small Orks because they grow up to be big Orks. It may be brutal, but it is what it is and this hand-wringing over it by some newbies who've been playing a total of 5 minutes is a bunch of nonsense.
Stated simply, you put these scum to the sword to prevent future attacks. You hunt them down to their hideouts and burn them out, root and branch, to prevent them from ever inflicting grief upon you again. You don't spare any of them, especially not small Orks because they grow up to be big Orks. It may be brutal, but it is what it is and this hand-wringing over it by some newbies who've been playing a total of 5 minutes is a bunch of nonsense.
I think maybe this is where you and I differ some in our views. Once again I take a pragmatic view and think its important to take tough action now to prevent likely harm in the future. But I don't feel the need to get judgmental and hostile towards them, I think that sort of attitude tends to lock one into an aggressive stance and prevents one from being open enough to see the lone orc or band of orcs that do want to behave differently.
I don't know why I keep having to say this, but if you base the argument on pragmatism, you aren't talking about morality anymore. You just side-stepped the question. If you are asked to calculate the third leg of a triangle on a test, and instead of calculating it you just measure it, you didn't answer the question. The question wasn't 'What's the practical response?' You're dodging thinking about the subject.
I don't know why I keep having to say this, but if you base the argument on pragmatism, you aren't talking about morality anymore. You just side-stepped the question. If you are asked to calculate the third leg of a triangle on a test, and instead of calculating it you just measure it, you didn't answer the question. The question wasn't 'What's the practical response?' You're dodging thinking about the subject.
I understand the meaning of the words you are saying and get that scholarly studies separate the two for intellectual clarity. But again, it doesn't make any sense to me for how someone in the world would actually apply their moral thinking. And what is the point of morality if it isn't applied? It only seems like an intellectual exercise to me, how can something as concrete in its impacts as morality be considered an abstraction? You say I am dodging thinking about the subject, but to me it seems like you are dodging thinking about the implications and consequences of your ideas about morality by divorcing the two.
Say you thought you knew how to calculate the third leg of a triangle but never actually measured that leg. Then you made further calculations based off that calculated measurement, and so on... What if your calculations were off by a some amount, small or large. At what point would your moral calculations cease being as moral as the person who measured the third leg and took that length to consider their moral actions? So specifically in this case of morality towards orcs. I think your calculations regarding orcs are in error because you made a mistake somewhere back in your math about the nature of orcs and didn't take the time to measure properly, ie. they're a different species, they don't think, feel or act like humans.
I'm not especially educated on moral philosophy, but I believe there are different categories of moral thinking. Maybe this frame makes some sense here, that of deontological vs utilitarian, or maybe those are considered ethics and isn't the same. I never really got the distinction between ethics and morals.
I'm glad that we're having debates on ethics/morals, but the topic of this thread is on the D&D races being considered as different species. Please create a new thread to discuss the implications of morality or take the conversation to Private Message.
I totally disagree with Half-Races. And if you create such a half/race, it is incapable to producing offspring. Basic science. I guess science don't work when magic is involved though.
I totally disagree with Half-Races. And if you create such a half/race, it is incapable to producing offspring. Basic science. I guess science don't work when magic is involved though.
Actually, not basic science. Ring Species do exist. We are a separate species from Homo Neanderthalis, but we could and did interbreed with them (in fact, most people's DNA is made up of between 2% and 5% Neanderthal DNA, with people of European descent typically having more Neanderthal DNA).
Some D&D races should obviously be impossible to breed with each other, much less produce fertile offspring (no one is suggesting that you can be Half-Dwarf, Half-Aarakocra, or Half-Lizardfolk, Half-Gnome, especially because the discussion wasn't really about half-races in the first place), without the intervention of magic (how do you think Owlbears came into existence?), but others are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (like Half-Elves and Half-Orcs).
The answer, like in most cases, is "it's complicated".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Or if you don't divorce them and are making a practical argument about the wisdom of walking down that alleyway. Then others who think you're making a moral argument will think you're blaming the victim when you're not.
More generally the real world imposes all sorts of limitations and conditions on what we can and should do. If you aren't taking those practical factors into consideration you're probably off the mark.
Another problem is to either treat a problem as wholly unique or as happening before. By treating a problem as wholly unique you trade time for accuracy because you have to observe each factor. By treating a problem as something before you trade accuracy by applying theory, rule or law to save time. One method is like painting in fine detail while the other is more akin to abstract painting. Know when to apply both.
I recommend reading the book "Money Ball". Which is a fascinating story of trying to reveal what really goes on in a ball game. This search turns the rules of the game on its head.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
No, you're still not getting it. The practical factors change the practical consideration, not the moral status, inherently. That allows you to keep your reasoning intelligible. As per the raid example, you may need to address the practical before the moral, but that doesn't change which is which.
I kind of think I do get it, I don't think that I agree. I think you're talking about an ideal. To me it seems like a though experiment. I don't want to completely dismiss idealism, it helps set a better direction, but it seems like a fantasy to me. Its like you think of this great idea about a house you want to build without considering material strength or cost or the laws of physics and then think to yourself what a great house it would be, more people should build houses like this, why don't they? They don't because of the real world practical considerations.
I'm sorry I'm much more pragmatic than idealistic and frankly I don't think that makes me wrong. At the very least it is a valid and important way of viewing the world at least as valid as an idealistic one.
I'm saying you don't get it because you aren't disagreeing, you're talking about a different subject.
Specifically when you say "I'm sorry I'm much more pragmatic than idealistic and frankly I don't think that makes me wrong. " That's the practical / moral distinction loss. In fact it's very close to the literal textbook example in one of the texts I teach from (Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition, MacKinnon & Fiala). The example they use has the statement, "I'm not wrong to say you need to be more pragmatic than idealistic." That's functionally the same statement.
You're both using the word 'wrong' in the sense of what is practical, as opposed to what is moral. No one is saying you have to ignore the practical. You still fight to save the village, just that in doing so understand you are not serving the moral need, but the practical need. No one is saying that's immoral (or wrong in either sense of the term). It's just that at that point you aren't talking about morality, so in a discussion on morality, you've changed the subject. The objection isn't that you are being less moral, it's that you aren't talking about morality. The issue is that it diverts the conversation.
It just seems to me like your talking more about the idea of morality rather than actual morality. The separation of the subjects is only occurring in people's minds. Maybe I'm disagreeing with some educated philosophers, so be it, I did use the phrase "ivory tower" before.
I don't see how morality can exist apart from the effects and actions one takes and how they impact the world. What would be moral about understanding the moral course of action regarding the village but not addressing the practical need? Maybe you're saying we need to think through the morality first, then apply it to the practical considerations. Wouldn't that cause you to leave out important factors in your moral equations?
I think I understand that you're saying I need to divorce the two subjects. When I do that the subject just doesn't make sense to me anymore, its like the house analogy I raised before. Sure a house that doesn't have to take the practical considerations of material strength or cost into consideration might make for a much better design, but its fairly irrelevant in terms of the house you can build. And attempting to build it might actually cause more harm if it the design is too far divorced from the practical and it collapses.
Edit: What do the authors give as a refutation? Because their example is pretty much exactly what I said.
"It just seems to me like your talking more about the idea of morality rather than actual morality. The separation of the subjects is only occurring in people's minds."
Morality is an abstraction.
"What would be moral about understanding the moral course of action regarding the village but not addressing the practical need?" I feel like I keep repeating this, but no one is saying you don't address the actual practical need. It's like if you are asked to calculate the third side of a right angle triangle from the other two legs. If you just answer, 'I get a ruler and measure it.' then you haven't actually done the math, even if you solved the problem from a practical standpoint. You're answer then only applies when you have the same means of resolution (measuring in this case).
"What do the authors give as a refutation? Because their example is pretty much exactly what I said." You don't refute something unless you are trying to disagree with it. The issue isn't that it's incorrect. The issue is that it isn't the same subject. Like in the example above, you wouldn't tell someone it's impossible to measure the last side of the triangle. You'd tell them that answer doesn't address the point of the question.
Getting back to the subject of race, the fact that you would defend the village doesn't address the issue of race, because you'd defend the village regardless of the race of the attacker.
My analogy is that ethics is like physics, practicality is like engineering. You wouldn’t ask a physicist to construct a bridge. Instead of setting up complex systems, physicists try to isolate as few variables as possible and describe them with an idealized equation. But engineers should very much use those equations when constructing bridges, while acknowledging and making allowances for their limitations.
didja know kids talking about race on the internet only has positive results?
irony aside, I think the "races" were always considered different specieses (specii?) the only similarity is in the name. The "subraces" are closer to the common concept of ethnicity and race than the fantasy "race" is. of course the difference between them are still sorta problematic but you can handwave it as due to different upbringings favoring different traits.
"h"
Yes, and regardless of their race, you'd put any survivors to the sword afterwards. Whether they're Humans (which actually, in early D&D were the most likely Monsters to find in the Wilderness) or Orks, who are not simply poor put upon primitives trying to survive in a cold world. You put them to the sword so you don't have to wake up a few weeks/months later to them coming back and raiding your village again (or even worse, simply burning it to the ground).
I think that is sort of my view too. Just taking a defensive stance or giving the benefit of the doubt in regards to violent and aggressive behavior in a lawless world doesn't necessarily seem the more moral choice to me if the orcs will just take advantage and wait until a more opportune moment to attack. Which kind of gets back to my original post that orcs shouldn't be thought of as having human brains in orc bodies. That being a different species means they'd have different natures, and in their specific case more aggressive, violent natures.
Its also the view of majority of humans in these kinds of worlds these games are set in: pseudo-Medieval for most of them: Forgotten Realms, Birthright, DragonLance, Mystara. Some are more apocalyptic than others (Greyhawk and definitely Dark Sun) while others are Gothic (Ravenloft) and then you have the odd ones out like Eberron (Steampunk).
Stated simply, you put these scum to the sword to prevent future attacks. You hunt them down to their hideouts and burn them out, root and branch, to prevent them from ever inflicting grief upon you again. You don't spare any of them, especially not small Orks because they grow up to be big Orks. It may be brutal, but it is what it is and this hand-wringing over it by some newbies who've been playing a total of 5 minutes is a bunch of nonsense.
I think maybe this is where you and I differ some in our views. Once again I take a pragmatic view and think its important to take tough action now to prevent likely harm in the future. But I don't feel the need to get judgmental and hostile towards them, I think that sort of attitude tends to lock one into an aggressive stance and prevents one from being open enough to see the lone orc or band of orcs that do want to behave differently.
I don't know why I keep having to say this, but if you base the argument on pragmatism, you aren't talking about morality anymore. You just side-stepped the question. If you are asked to calculate the third leg of a triangle on a test, and instead of calculating it you just measure it, you didn't answer the question. The question wasn't 'What's the practical response?' You're dodging thinking about the subject.
I understand the meaning of the words you are saying and get that scholarly studies separate the two for intellectual clarity. But again, it doesn't make any sense to me for how someone in the world would actually apply their moral thinking. And what is the point of morality if it isn't applied? It only seems like an intellectual exercise to me, how can something as concrete in its impacts as morality be considered an abstraction? You say I am dodging thinking about the subject, but to me it seems like you are dodging thinking about the implications and consequences of your ideas about morality by divorcing the two.
Say you thought you knew how to calculate the third leg of a triangle but never actually measured that leg. Then you made further calculations based off that calculated measurement, and so on... What if your calculations were off by a some amount, small or large. At what point would your moral calculations cease being as moral as the person who measured the third leg and took that length to consider their moral actions? So specifically in this case of morality towards orcs. I think your calculations regarding orcs are in error because you made a mistake somewhere back in your math about the nature of orcs and didn't take the time to measure properly, ie. they're a different species, they don't think, feel or act like humans.
I'm not especially educated on moral philosophy, but I believe there are different categories of moral thinking. Maybe this frame makes some sense here, that of deontological vs utilitarian, or maybe those are considered ethics and isn't the same. I never really got the distinction between ethics and morals.
I'm glad that we're having debates on ethics/morals, but the topic of this thread is on the D&D races being considered as different species. Please create a new thread to discuss the implications of morality or take the conversation to Private Message.
Thank you,
I totally disagree with Half-Races. And if you create such a half/race, it is incapable to producing offspring. Basic science. I guess science don't work when magic is involved though.
Actually, not basic science. Ring Species do exist. We are a separate species from Homo Neanderthalis, but we could and did interbreed with them (in fact, most people's DNA is made up of between 2% and 5% Neanderthal DNA, with people of European descent typically having more Neanderthal DNA).
Some D&D races should obviously be impossible to breed with each other, much less produce fertile offspring (no one is suggesting that you can be Half-Dwarf, Half-Aarakocra, or Half-Lizardfolk, Half-Gnome, especially because the discussion wasn't really about half-races in the first place), without the intervention of magic (how do you think Owlbears came into existence?), but others are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (like Half-Elves and Half-Orcs).
The answer, like in most cases, is "it's complicated".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This thread is going to go no-where. We still have trouble defining species IRL, let alone in a fantasy game with INFINITE POSSIBLE SETTINGS.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
ive always thought that "general dnd lore" is talking about forgotten realms and the published settings (eg eberron, planescape)
"h"