On the Imposition of Morals

[Underwood]

On the Imposition of Morals

Preface

The author would like it to be known that this paper does not  necessarily reflect his own moral judgment. It is simply a comment on  moral judgment as a whole.

The author would also like it to be known that this work makes use of  concepts discussed in his previous work Dissertation on the Natural

Part I - The Moral Schema

Our morality is based on two axes - one of Good and Evil, and one  of Law and Chaos. This has been upheld not only by the foremost  philosophical thinkers, but also by empirical data. Through planar  travel, we have come to know that the other planes of existence embody  these moral extremes.

In such a system, it is easy to conceive of how two diametrically  opposed actors may come into contact with each other. For example, an  actor on the side of Good and Chaos may begin dialogue with an actor on  the side of Law and Evil. Of course, it seems obvious to us that such an  interaction would bring about hostility. How could two such individuals  ever engage in civil discourse?

We will come back to this later, as we move to examine the axes  in greater detail first.

Part II - The Axes of Morality

What is it to be Good? What is it to be Lawful? In order to  progress in our discussion, we must answer these questions. It will  become clear to us that Chaos is a lack of Law, and Evil is a lack of  Good, so only two definitions are required.

Lawfulness is easily identified. One who would follow a prescribed  set of rules can be said to be Lawful. What is contained in said  guidelines is irrelevant - simply to depend on any unchanging set of  rules to guide action constitutes Lawfulness. The absence of Law is  known as Chaos. Those who do not depend on any set of rules are known as  Chaotic. They view each action individually, and do not conserve  principles from one action to the next. Their actions in two identical  situations may be radically different.

Good appears more problematic, but upon consideration, we realize  that we can equate Altruism to Good. He who gives of himself to benefit  a stranger, be it with material goods, time, or effort, does Good in  the world. Then we can see how Evil is practiced by he who is unwilling  to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those to whom he has no  relation. By this definition, one who is Evil might even steal from  another, or harm them, as he is unwilling to sacrifice the possible gain  from this action in exchange for the target's well being.

Part III - The Nature of Morality

Now that the axes have been clearly defined, we begin the tricky  question of which direction is correct. As this is difficult to  determine, we look to a method that is purely objective: We seek to  identify the morality that is most Natural.

As has been discussed in earlier papers, we define Nature as that  which has come about within our plane. However, such a definition rules  out actions whose impetus lies in the outer planes. These events, such  as a divine intervention, are to be known as Supernatural.

So where does morality originate? As was previously mentioned,  the outer planes embody this moral schema. As it seems unlikely that  both the material plane and the outer planes came to this schema at  exactly the same moment, we must ask ourselves, did the material plane  impose this system on the outer planes, or was is the other way around?  When we notice the huge impact the outer planes have on our decisions,  often by conduit of the Gods, we must come to the conclusion that the  axes indeed originated within the outer planes, and not our own.

Morality has no relation to Nature, we have therefore concluded.  However, it does seem to be Natural that men arrive at a set of morals.  It would be impossible not to have a position on these axes - even the  most neutral of parties stands on the axes, albeit in the center.

Therefore, we cannot say with any truth that one morality is more  correct than another, but that all moralities are viable options.

Part IV - The Role of Morality

We return now to the dialogue discussed earlier between our two  opposed actors.

In our current society, such a talk would easily escalate from  words to shouts to intimidation to perhaps physical conflict. This may  be common, but it need not be so.

Man has no Natural right to impose his morality on an unwilling  subject. Such an imposition should only take place if the subject has  submitted himself to such. For example, if one chooses to live in a  city, the lawfulness of such may be imposed on him as a cost to the  benefits that come with his choice. Such should be made clear from the  start, and in the above case, usually is.

However, there is often an imposition of morality by those who  wish to make the entire plane agree with their perspective, and would do  so out of coercion. This is not only unnatural - this is wrong.

Should all men recognize this, they could respect each other, or  at least leave each other in peace, rather than give in to childish name  calling. In such a society, there could be a civil discourse about the  benefits and costs of X, Y and Z, rather than the unproductive battles  that are waged in the name of morality.

Summation

Morality consist of two axes - Good/Evil and Law/Chaos

Law is defined as a set of rules by which to act

Chaos is defined by a lack of such rules

Good is defined by the willingness to give of oneself

Evil is defined by a lack of such willingness

No morality can be considered Natural

Man has no right to impose his morality


I hope this text has served to elucidate the phenomenon of morality, and  the societal norms regarding such.

-Andrew Underwood