Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Shaziro]

That clearly isn't a well enough personified enemy for people to unite. My point is, you're not going about your goals in the most efficient or optimal manner, which I figure would be part of it actually being correct.

[Accountant]

They won't unite because there's an enemy to unite against. They'll unite because it's

right

. Or, well, because they got re-educted. Same thing. But I refuse to bring about utopia in an unrighteous way. The moral high ground MUST be maintained in order to continue our position of superiority.

[Annadog40]

Morality is situational.

[Accountant]

No.

[Shaziro]

Yup.

[Accountant]

Nope. What is right does not change.

[Not_Mafia]

It's wrong to shoot someone for no reason
It's right to shoot someone to stop them committing a massacre

[Accountant]

The two are different things. The first is murder, the second is self defense. Murder being wrong doesn't change no matter what the situation is.

[Not_Mafia]

Quick hammering as town is wrong
Quick hammering as scum in lylo is right

[Accountant]

Again, the two are different things. The first is "not playing to your win con", the second is "playing to your win con"(this is not pedantry; quickhammering is bad as town because it makes town lose).

[Annadog40]

So different situations.

[Accountant]

?

[Shaziro]

You are describing situational morality, Accountant. The act is the same, for instance quickhammering, but the -situation- is different, and that defines the morality of the act.

[Accountant]

You can call it whatever you want, really. My point was made, and that's all there is to it.

[Shaziro]

I mean, no it wasn't. If your point was that morality isn't situational...you know, the thing you said...then your point was pretty soundly shot down. Not even with light arms fire, it was some Anti-Air level shootdown.

[Accountant]

I mean, no it wasn't. If your point was that morality isn't situational...you know, the thing you said...then your point was pretty soundly shot down. Not even with light arms fire, it was some Anti-Air level shootdown.

Uh? Morality isn't situational. The nature of the correct path doesn't change no matter what situation you're at.

[Accountant]

Again, the two are different things. The first is "not playing to your win con", the second is "playing to your win con"(this is not pedantry; quickhammering is bad as town because it makes town lose).

[Shaziro]

Murder, Accountant. Man murders man. Is it moral or not?

[Accountant]

That is not the definition of murder.

[Accountant]

the

unlawful

premeditated killing of one human being by another.

[Shaziro]

Fine. Man kills man. Is it moral or not?

[Accountant]

Neither. The act of "man killing man" is not even considered to be something that can be defined as a moral action.

Here's why. It's clear that things are moral insofar as they push forward the correct path and immoral insofar as they block or sabotage it. Without understanding how the particular act of man killing man affects the correct path, it's not even considered to be an action that can be judged under morality. The question posed in 2745 is as meaningful as asking me "Bob eats a burger. Is it moral or not?" or "Alice presses a button. Is it moral or not?"

There's nothing inherently moral or immoral in the act of killing another human being(not in the same way that following the law is inherently moral and murder is inherently immoral). That's because there are so many different moral actions that fall under the scope "killing another human being", including an executioner that lawfully executes a condemnn prisoner, a person that kills another in self-defense, a serial killer that hunts down and stabs a victim to death, a soldier that shoots another soldier and so on and so forth.

When I say "there is no such thing as situational morality", I mean that the nature of the correct path is independent of the situation. The question "what is moral?" only has one answer: that answer is "to follow the correct path". The actual calculation of what real course of action leads to the correct path depends on you - that is indeed situation-dependent(a point I have never contested). But things that are inherently wrong, like murder, will continue to be wrong no matter what the situation is. And there is no situation that would lead to something like "not following the correct path" being the most moral thing to do.

[Accountant]

To illustrate the difference between calculating whether or not something is moral vs calculating what's the most moral course of action, let's look at someone who's deciding what charity to donate their money to. Some charities waste all your money on overhead expenses - others are run by unscrupulous people that steal money. Others are actually good charities to donate to. Calculating what charity to donate to is situation dependent, but the act of "donating to charity" being a good thing remains constant.

[Not_Mafia]

[Shaziro]

I was looking for a picture/comic in the same vein, beat me to it you jerk!