Remove ads

With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Twelve)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Crimson Doom said:
I mean, again, he has a code of ethics, they just differ from yours. Ethics and morality are essentially the same thing, and as such, are just as subjective.

As for the question, they could still be immoral if they came up with their own moral code, and then proceeded to violate said code.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Um no. You can be Ethical without being moral and Moral without being Ethical. While hopefully they should align most of the time that is not the case here.

The point is however they can change the code whenever they feel like because in your circumstance they are only bound by their own ideas of morality.
 
Enochi said:
Um no. You can be Ethical without being moral and Moral without being Ethical. While hopefully they should align most of the time that is not the case here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The dictionary disagrees, so if this argument is going to go anywhere useful, you need to define how you consider them different.

Enochi said:
The point is however they can change the code whenever they feel like because in your circumstance they are only bound by their own ideas of morality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

People can do things against their moral code without changing their moral code in response. It happens a lot, actually, which makes me envious that evidently you have never done so.
 
Crimson Doom said:
The dictionary disagrees, so if this argument is going to go anywhere useful, you need to define how you consider them different.

People can do things against their moral code without changing their moral code in response. It happens a lot, actually, which makes me envious that evidently you have never done so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

I have done so but I base my morals upon a standard not created by myself where as Paul's are to my knowledge self-created according to his desires.
 
Enochi said:
While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, the dictionary disagrees, but at least we both know what terms you're working with now. That being said, though, again, unethical to whom? Vega system ethics wouldn't even bat an eye at someone stealing a fruit, and would be surprised at the lengths Paul went to to avoid hurting anyone. If Iranian ethics have something to say about this, they haven't yet in-story, in spite of Paul's willingness to mutilate himself to see that the law is satisfied. Christian ethics can't even seem to agree with each other long enough to decide whether Paul's actions are ethical. Silver City ethics obviously hold him responsible. So again: whose ethics?
 
Crimson Doom said:
Again, the dictionary disagrees, but at least we both know what terms you're working with now. That being said, though, again, unethical to whom? Vega system ethics wouldn't even bat an eye at someone stealing a fruit, and would be surprised at the lengths Paul went to to avoid hurting anyone. If Iranian ethics have something to say about this, they haven't yet in-story, in spite of Paul's willingness to mutilate himself to see that the law is satisfied. Christian ethics can't even seem to agree with each other long enough to decide whether Paul's actions are ethical. Silver City ethics obviously hold him responsible. So again: whose ethics?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And thus you have the reason many wars have been fought and why its generally a good thing not to have foreign entanglements unless you precisely understand the ramifications of your actions. In here you have to take into account those who have been wronged. Silver City (Theft, Trespassing), Iran (Trespassing, Transportation of stolen goods), United States (Transportation of stolen goods, Public Disturbance).

While Paul does offer some restitution that he can casually replace, he does so to attempt to side-step possible other punishments that would have a more negative effect on him.

Paul also makes the standard Marxist reply of Labor Theory of Value to determine the value and thus reduce severity of his crime rather then the much more common capitalist view.
 
Mr Zoat said:
"In answer to you sir-"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Comma after you

Mr Zoat said:
though a red-faced hardcore are trying to shout over the suppression system
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
though a red-faced hardcore is, or though a few red-faced hardcore are

RichardWhereat said:
balls to the wall and skeet skeet skeet all over him
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Balls to the wall" is talking about having the handle of the throttle pushed all the way against the side of the cockpit, so this is technically a mixed metaphor. The more you know!

Gantradies said:
*makes a face* unless im getting my scriptures confused, i Never understood why LOT was spared-unless im thinking of someone else entirely, his response to people harassing him/two angels in disguise was to BEG the crowd to gang-rape his daughters and leave him/them alone afterwards >.< not exactly the shining paragon of morality OR family values >.>
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A point to add that hasn't already been mentioned: By offering his daughters, the act was not technically rape. Lot was in a position where he had the authority to provide consent above the protests of the children in question, and so no violation was committed against the legal or moral codes of the time. It was understood to be an act of SELF-sacrifice to protect the people in his care.

Crimson Doom said:
the dictionary disagrees
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it doesn't, look at definition 2 in the link you posted.
 
This reminds me.

I was well aware that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil being depicted as an apple was a pun in latin.

Although my tendency is to go with the fig option, since that was good enough for the Sistine Chapel and the Zohar, the founding work of the Kabbalah.

Just think, Paul was this close to making divine fig newtons!
 
Mr Zoat said:
"Yes, and I've never disputed the fact that I stole it. But as I see it… You can't steal from an omnipotent, omniscient being who wants to stop you, simply because they know and you can't overpower them. So -assuming Jehovah has those characteristics- either he wanted me to do it or flat out didn't care. Because any other position would have resulted in it not happening."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The same answers explain why God lets people steal his stuff as why God lets people do other bad things that don't involve his stuff. If Paul thinks that it's even possible to do good or bad things in this universe at all even though God disapproves of them, then the same reasoning used for that would also cover stealing from God.

If you go and murder someone you could say that God must think it's good for you to murder that person or he would have stopped it.

Jehovah is the only being who might be considered to own things who can effortlessly replace any of them. Therefore, stealing from him is less significant than stealing from someone who has to work for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can also argue that God, unlike other beings, only has possessions for good reasons; he never owns something just because he's greedy, or is going to misuse it, or because it's actually stolen and he's hiding it. That would make stealing from him more significant than stealing from anyone else.
 
Mr Zoat said:
"Yes, and I've never disputed the fact that I stole it. But as I see it… You can't steal from an omnipotent, omniscient being who wants to stop you, simply because they know and you can't overpower them. So -assuming Jehovah has those characteristics- either he wanted me to do it or flat out didn't care. Because any other position would have resulted in it not happening."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is where I start to disagree with the SI, and start wanting someone to slap him upside the head a little.

Would have been far more reasonable for him to say something more like: "Yeah, I stole it, but the angel who came to check up on me was more concerned about why I didn't ask nicely. He might have given me one if I had. In hindsight I do feel a little bad about that, he was a pretty reasonable guy."

Even if it's technically a lie because orange enlightenment, I'd think he'd want to seem more down to earth to his audience. Then again, maybe he doesn't.
 
Enochi said:
Silver City (Theft, Trespassing), Iran (Trespassing, Transportation of stolen goods), United States (Transportation of stolen goods, Public Disturbance).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

a) Do you see any of them attempting to press charges, besides the Silver City?

b) That public disturbance is not Paul's fault. He had no intention of causing a public disturbance. If anyone should be charged for that, charge the religious morons freaking out and rioting because an angel showed up and had a polite conversation with Paul.

Enochi said:
While Paul does offer some restitution that he can casually replace, he does so to attempt to side-step possible other punishments that would have a more negative effect on him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What other punishments? The Silver City asked something he can't give because it requires him to think in a way he just doesn't, and nobody else with jurisdiction has a worse punishment than limb-lopping for theft.

Enochi said:
Paul also makes the standard Marxist reply of Labor Theory of Value to determine the value and thus reduce severity of his crime rather then the much more common capitalist view.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Haven't we established well before now that Paul doesn't think like most people?

Coda said:
No it doesn't, look at definition 2 in the link you posted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The dictionary disagrees in the sense that the way Enochi was using the term was not the only way it could be used: they made a blanket statement concerning the difference between ethics and morals that is simply not always true.

lefthandturnsign said:
I'd think he'd want to seem more down to earth to his audience. Then again, maybe he doesn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Frankly, the primary reason he's here at all is because he wants to stabilize his relationship with Batman. The results of this particular kerfuffle are largely irrelevant to him: he got what he wanted out of the theft, nobody with the capacity to harm him is trying to kill him over it, and PR has never been a major concern of his. A lot of the tenets of public speaking assume that it's a priority to you to remain on good terms with your audience, and that's just not a priority to him.
 
I am so happy we are back to the religious stuff. It always stirs up the most interesting posters. As far as I'm concerned, we can keep doing this forever. I am entertained.
 
arromdee said:
You can also argue that God, unlike other beings, only has possessions for good reasons; he never owns something just because he's greedy, or is going to misuse it, or because it's actually stolen and he's hiding it. That would make stealing from him more significant than stealing from anyone else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That would only work with somebody who thinks the DC Christian god is morally perfect; OL doesn't think that.
 
Well since the topic's back again I'll just say my 'issue' with Paul right now is that, compared to his previous exploits, he's seemingly tossing diplomacy to the wayside when it was something he used rather extensively before.

I'll bring up Vega again because it's the easiest example. IIRC he got involved with that whole conference mess because he wanted to establish himself as a player/power in the region. He decided the best way to do that was to make sure the well publicized conference between the factions went over well. (There might've also been some altruism about peace between the factions saving the most lives in the end but I don't remember clearly.)

Now, hijinks with the Spider Queen aside, everyone one of those factions were, by and large, terrible people—but seeing Paul interact with them and the conference and the shitshow that followed was really interesting! For me, because it's not something I've seen in fiction all that much. Usually the hero'll take one look at the wretched hive of villainy where the factions are all gathered and then promptly attack it with the local, righteous rebel group—long term consequences be damned.

With the recent case of Paul and the Pomegranate, it felt, I dunno, a little jarring for him not to at least do more than the bare minimum of research into Heaven and its potential actions/reactions/abilities/contactability before declaring diplomacy pointless and deciding to steal the fruit, other possibilities and consequences be damned.

Earlier situations, like with Nabu and the League I understood because he had large personal investment in the people involved so it made sense that he wasn't fully rational. With this situation he's just trying to get back into Batman's good books, a man that he doesn't honestly seem to care all that much about anymore. Add on that he doesn't need to hurry fixing Blaze because he's already found that Midnite guy to act as the League's magic user and it felt, to me at least, that he was rushing into the matter all pigheaded-like for no reason.

But then that's just my, probably poorly phrased, opinion.
 
Last edited:
Danelaw said:
Add on that he doesn't need to hurry fixing Blaze because he's already found that Midnite guy to act as the League's magic user and it felt, to me at least, that he was rushing into the matter all pigheaded-like for no reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He needed something to counter Satanus; angelfied-Blaze does that. Considering that OL was only recently sucked into Hell thanks to a trap of his, countering Satanus is probably pretty high on his priority list.
 
Reader mode
2,991 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top