Good/Evil - Debate

That very nice chap Chris Wraight has posted up a good conversation point regarding the concepts of good vs evil in the W40K universe.

Go check it out and join in!.

I agree... to an extent. What I disagree with more than his conclusions, though, is his premise. I don't think that Malus or #ChaosBaddie3 necessarily *do* think they're doing the right thing. There are some- many- Chaos followers who are deluded, but there are many who know they're the bad guys and revel in it.

He also, to be strict, fails to address the true question at the heart of any such debate- how can we even define Good and Evil? This is where alignment systems fall down, because they're predicated on the assumption that what we consider good is inherently and universally Good. Leaving aside the obvious complications once you introduce competing, contrasting moral frameworks, one has to wonder whether any act can be intrinsically Good, or whether it's just perceived as such depending on the moral framework in which you view it. It's a question of not so much which moral framework is correct, but whether it's possible for any moral framework ever to even be correct.

I don't find the labels of "Order" and "Destruction/Disorder" any more helpful either, to be honest. There are plenty of good guys who operate in a destructive manner, and plenty of baddies who cleave to order in a way that becomes destructive. Really, this is just replacing one debatably useful moral axis with another.

The example of the Fimir may prove somewhat instructive- they are, at least as portrayed in fan material, but also in the official stuff to the degree they are portrayed there at all, a strictly ordered, honourable and caste-based society, and yet they regularly engage in acts that we, and their human neighbours, find horrific, including rape and ritual murder. Now, the Fimir are victims as much as oppressors, and they act in the way they do at least in part because they are biologically obliged to, but as the material repeatedly points out, this makes them in no way less evil. They are Bad Guys. However I find it difficult to class them as a force of Disorder, as they are very much in favour of the status quo- in fact, ideally, a return to the status quo as it once existed and was overtaken by disorder.

Ath

There is no good or evil, or even order or disorder, in reality, the WH40Kverse or the WHFverse.

Using 40K examples... The Imperium protects countless worlds from the ravages of psykers, aliens, eldritch abominations and allows many world to prosper (or not) fairly autonomously so long as they pay their tithe. And yet it is incredibly xenophobic, racist, with a callous disregard for human life and a penchant for genocide.

Orks tear their way across the galaxy, killing everything, for fun. And yet... They do not build death camps, they prefer militarised targets, they do not even hate their foes (they respect tough opponents) and have a much richer culture than people assume.

The eldar manipulate other races to fight huge wars to save the lives of even a handful of their people... but their people are rarer, so they do in a sense have greater value. The Tau have built an empire built on trust, cooperation.... and giving yourself entirely to the Tau'va and therefore to their leadership. (Mind control? Sterilisation? Rumours, true, but...)

Even the Tyranids are motivated by hunger and desperation, not evil. The dark eldar act with colossal cruelty because they have to, to satisfy Slaanesh. The C'tan (and by extension the Necrons) see mankind as less than cattle, and compared to them, it's true. So are they any more evil than we are, when they're engaged in pest control and farming? Chaos is a result of emotions, taken to extremes, which are usually destructive, but (for example) a Khornate warrior might be truly honourable and only fight armed enemies. Most chaotic types become more and more 'evil', I think, because they can't handle the power and freedom of it.

Every race is doing the right thing, to their eyes. The forces of 'order' do not gang up on the forces of 'disorder' either - The Imperium is too sprawling and disorganised to truly represent order, the many eldar factions are not all happy allies, and even the orks are capable of some very logical deployments and tactics.

Good and evil are always, always perspectives. Even the most abhorrent (or random, for order/disorder) acts carry some logic to them, even if appears to make no sense or appals us.

Wise words, i use the same words to explain my actions Mwahahahaha

What needs to be clear is that although the Dark Eldar do take steps to maintaining their longevity of life, they do take a sadistic pleasure when they do torture their victims. War is a dirty business, and i know Space Marines take joy from it knowing they are exacting the Emperor's rule of purging the enemy but the Dark Eldar take a step too far.

Chaos Marines are obviously evil.

Necrons want to destroy all life so they're evil. The only armies that aren't considered evil in my opinion are Orks and Tyranids, for orks fight for the sake of it, not some alternative reason, and Tyranids simply want to eat everything.

But are the Necrons want to destroy all life....... i think unlikely. Certainly they want to destroy the majority of it and the main reason for that is because the C'Tan want this. Now the C'Tan are vastly powerful creatures and have a completely different moral code. As said above to us we are cattle yet we kill cattle in vast numbers for food.

Chaos is only ever a reflection of mankind therefore it is only ever what we trully are. What is more though worship of chaos leads to eventual extremes their are emotions that one would consider good but also feed the chaos gods.

I do feel that according to the 21st centuary western ideology then yes Dark Eldar are evil though their main reason os survival, if the threat of slaanesh was removed they would prove to be sadistic monsters.

Then their is the Imperium of man, most so called evil forces (Necrons, Chaos, Orks, Tyranids & too a degree Dark Eldar) are all reach our concept of evil because they do things we consider bad yet all do it for some compulsion of survival or its part of their very nature. The Imperium also fills this category they burn billions of souls, through millions into wars that they will never survive, all for what seems to be the ends justify the means. Now if you want to consider factions evil based on understandings of our daily lives then the Imperium must also enter the evil category.

You have a very fixed view there stuart, and because I'm petty (and bored) I'm going to question it.

I will agree that the Dark Eldar are essentially evil. Though they have their motivation, and their actions are at least in the name of that motivation (survival), they remain evil due to the simple fact that they do this by choice. The Craftworld Eldar, whilst still being utter bastards, have at least proven that it is possible for the Eldar race to survive without resorting to sacrificing other sentient beings to a hungry Chaos God. The Dark Eldar choose to do this because following the Craftworld path would impose far more restriction to their lives, and they would rather feed Slannesh than live a life of self restraint.

Now, you say 'Chaos Marines are obviously evil', and I can't help but challenge that. Chaos is, at the most fundamental level, the embodiment of freedom. Freedom to do as you wish, when you wish and how you wish. It is not 'evil', it is simply chaotic. Similarly, the Marines are not 'evil' simply for following Chaos. All of them have entirely understandable motivations. They want to live their own lives, experience sensations that were previously forbidden, be rewarded for their actions. Many of them embraced Chaos because they had no choice (Death Guard) or because they saw it as their only real chance of getting revenge on those that betrayed them.

You said the Nercons were evil for wanting to destroy all life, but the Tyranids aren't evil because they only want to eat all other life. Can you not see the contradiction there?

The necrons regard us, in my mind, as something akin to ants. They don't want to destroy us all, certainly, as that would "upset the escosystem" (for us, that is - for them, it would have them run out of food)...but they really aren't averse to wiping out that colony that's settled down right next to their house and is making a nuisance of itself.

They are no more evil, in their eyes, than we are. The ants, on the other hand, might have a different idea of how evil we are (were they sentient.) In our ant-view, they are callous, murderous, genocidal freaks. Throne-damned Tombship/sponges!

Also, you have a contradiction (through avoidance) there, of sorts: you say that Chaos is "only a reflection of what we are", and then state that the Imperium has to be held as evil as well. Wouldn't that inherently make the Chaos evil, too?

So wait, you say that the Chaos Space Marines are not necessarily evil because they want freedom, whereas the Dark Eldar are because they won't sacrifice their freedom? A bit of a contradiction there, yourself...

...

We need a 'touche' smiley...

*goes on a mission*

The dark eldar are only evil by our standards of morality. They have to kill to stave off Slaanesh, and I personally believe the cruelty, sadomasochism and hedonism is an essential part of that. However, there is no denying that they enjoy it, and enjoyed it even before the Fall. So, are they evil?

Picture a cat. A loving ball of fluff that will sit on your lap, purr, chase a spotlight... and toy sadistically with tiny birds and rodents before killing them, brutally, for fun. Now, a dolphin. Fun-loving, playful, chittering away... And then they gang up to beat a porpoise to death. For fun. Or engage in gang-rape of other dolphins. Are cats and dolphins evil? They’re not sentient, but they’re intelligent animals. Chimpanzees regularly engage in infanticide, and they’re very clever indeed.

They are not evil because, well, they are what they are. What years of evolution and social adaption have made them. We assume sentient beings like humans, and in this example eldar, are different. But we aren’t, at all. Craftworld eldar were, pre-Fall, extremist isolationist sect . Eldar society, their social norms and what they considered morality (eldar > everyone else) was pretty close to the dark eldar are now. What right do we have to judge another species by our own social norms and say that they are wrong? Doubtlessly future humans will see us as barbarians, as I suspect the moral zeitgeist is moving slowly towards us all being vegetarian.

Craftworld eldar may not be as cruel, but they’re not a lot nicer than the dark eldar. Dark eldar take slaves and might torture you to death, but they don’t trigger massive genocidal wars or go messing around in your mind to suit their selfish ends.

(I’ve been meaning to redress the ‘dark eldar are outright villains’ thing for a while – when I finish ‘One More Hit’ hopefully it will go into that)

With my regards to the imperium being evil it was only aimed at those who see things according to our point of view and beliefs who would naturally belive chaos to be evil, therefore the imperium would be evil anyway.

Chris has stepped the debate up another level.

Guys, you've got it the wrong way around. Necrons want to kill every single thing in the universe. It is the C'tan which prevent them killing everyone, as the C'tan want some cattle.

I think the point Chris makes on his blog is right though: who are we to determine what morality is? If, in this context, I presume we are all humans in the Warhammer world, we measure good/evil only by our own self-imposed standards. It's true in any world.

So we see the practise of - say - sacrificing your first-born child to some dark goddess as horrific and barbaric. That same culture might turn around and argue that the practise of rearing animals for meat is similarly barbaric. Because what you didn't know was that their particular race just happened to be vegetarians.

Apply that to the real world. We, fortunate to have been born into Western civilisation, see TV documentaries on children working in clothing manufactories and go 'oh my goodness, that's terrible'[1] - whilst the people they are interviewing seem quite baffled that this is the case.[2]

We go on endlessly about the Taliban and terrorist groups trying to inflict their thoughts and beliefs on everyone...has anybody ever read up on the Crusades?

Everyone is judgmental. Bigotry, as they say, isn't exclusive.

[1]I may be paraphrasing here.
[2]Heck, we used to send the little darlings up chimneys. I bet they'd have given their eye teeth to work in the clothing industry.

Lies! Haven't you seen how happy they are in Mary Poppins?

The English try not to think about Mary Poppins, lest Dick Van Dyke's accent follow them home and mug them.

Eh, it's been about three-quarters of my life since I saw that movie anyways...

The English try not to think about Mary Poppins, lest Dick Van Dyke's accent follow them home and mug them.

Fie! Fie!

Mention not the van Dyke accent travesty!

FIE!

Actually, I think Chris was actually coming at this from a different angle than you seem to have thought. He spoke of not buying into the relativist outlook, meaning that he does (or at least might) think there is some objective basis to morality.
That said, he seems open to persuasion and discussion on the idea, hence my lengthy post weighted in favour of the relativist stance.

Indeed I have (it's one of my degree modules incidentally). The Crusades are a contentious (and very interesting imo) subject.

The motives for the Crusade were not neccessarily about the infliction of Christian views upon the Moslem east. Officially, according to Pope Urban II, who called for the first one in 1095, the Crusades were to protect the Armenian and Syrian Christians, who were, to be fair, being abused by the Seljuk Turks.

However, it is likely Urban's motives were more cynical. During this period, Europe was in chaos politically. The Carolingian dynasty had essentially collapsed, and roving bands of rogue Lords, Knights Errant and mercinaries pillaging and suchlike and were a constant danger to non combatants (women, children and priests). The Crusades could be seen as a development of the 'Truce of God' movements, which were the church's attempts to prevent inter-christian violent. They did this by creating a common foe: the heathen Turks.

Yet, there's many other possible motives. One is that Urban (like Gregory VII before him) wanted to unite the Byzantine and Roman Churches together. The fact Emperor Alexios of the Byzantine empire required his assistance shows his potential weakness.*

You must be careful about judging what the crusades were about. The current extremists of Islam are under the mistaken impression that there is some continuity between current wars in the middle east, and the crusades. This theory is largely debunked (for one thing, the west currently has no interest in occupying the middle east). The Crusades were only nominally about defeating the Turks and reclaiming Jerusalem from them. One Crusade even turned upon Byzantium itself, leading to the sack of Constantinople, and the formation of the eastern Latin empire for sixty years.

While objectionable nowadays, the crusades were seen as just then. While I agree morality is mutable throughout history, I disagree with moral relativists in that I think that though one must be objective about morality, one shouldn't assume that we cannot judge past figures as vile or evil to us. We should still use our values of good and bad to an extent. Nobody is 100% objective, and nor should they be. The Crusades literally cooked and ate children (by their own admission). Even in medieval times, child-eating was not considered moral. I can say with confidence, some (not all) crusaders (as with every culture and society throughout history) were simply monsters.

Apologies about the length of post. I love discussing the crusades is all!



*(though Alexios' motives were more opportunistic and Imperialistic. The Seljuks were in a weak position in the years before the first crusade, due to infighting with other Islamic groups, in particular the Shi'ite Fatamid Empire, centred on Egypt)

I would agree with that last statement, though perhaps for different reasons.

Some clarification of my position here: I would say that yes, we can judge historical (or fictional, or whatever) persons as good or evil to us, just so long as it is clear and understood that this is a position of opinion, which is mutable, rather than fact, which is not.

What i disagree with is the idea that there are actions which are in themselves possessed of some 'good' or 'evil' quality. There is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil' from an objective viewpoint, as the very concepts themselves are tied up in subjective opinion. You could sieve the universe and not find an atom of either 'good' or 'evil'.

'Good' can therefore only mean whatever you opine it means. It is common for those within a single society (or even multiple societies) to have a similar conception of what is 'good', and so a group definition may emerge. What is sometimes overlooked (especially in the case of much-agreed-upon opinions) is that this is an agreement, not a fact. Murder is not 'bad' - it is only 'bad' in the eyes of those who think in that way.

Some moral relativists may go as far as to claim they are objective - such a thing is, i think, all but impossible. You will always have opinions, and so long as you have opinions, they will affect your judgement. This is perfectly natural and nothing to agonise over. Don't go trying to achieve objectivity in all your relations with men and other beings. If you find something morally displeasurable, then you may say so and act appropriately.

But simply bear in mind that this is your opinion, most likely instilled in you by your culture, and is not a 'fact' which can be supported by an objective set of criteria. The 'terrible' thing you saw and you strive to stop is but an action. The 'evil' dictator is only 'evil' in your eyes, not necessarily everyone elses and in all likelyhood not in his own. By all means band together with your like-minded fellows and act on your judgements of the world, but always keep in mind that this is just the world through your eyes, and not everyone elses.

Some people think that this method of judging the world lacks validation, but I would respond that the only way to truly objectively judge how 'good' a man is is to judge him by his own opinion. Make of that what you will.

An apology: Just like LL and the crusades, I get rather talkative about philosophy.

I have been watching this thread with rapt enthusiasm, and I first admit that I'm no philosopher. I just have a few things to throw into the conversation.

Firstly, surely there are some things that simply are evil whichever way you look at it, even if when you perpetrate the action you don't think of it as evil, because if that same action were done to you, you would think of it as evil. For example, the Holocaust (this is very fresh in my mind because I have just read an excellent true account of life in Auschwitz by a jew named Primo Levi). Now, some of you say that although we think of this as inherently evil, the germans didn't. However, what if the roles were reversed and it was the jews who slaughtered 6 million germans - I'm pretty sure the germans would think genocide was evil if it was the other way round.

My second point is that it's also about religion, and where you factor God into this (not that I'm saying he definitely should be factored in). I know someone who believes completely in the creation story and that the world was created 5000 years ago and that the Bible is complete truth - now I'm a christian, but I just think most of the bible is a metaphor at best, and that the big bang did happen. Now, I was chatting to this person, and I asked quite jokingly, will I go to hell for eternity then 'cause I don't believe the bible is 100% fact. She answered, completely seriously, in the affirmative. She also said that a humanist, even if they lead a selfless life, saving thousands in a developing country, are as evil as Hitler if they don't believe in God, and that a mass murderer and raper who believes in god and asks for forgiveness is not evil, and will go to heaven. Her views on what is evil and what's not are totally dependent on god.

Anyway, feel free to correct me or ignore me, just some food for thought.

Interesting Pip. I think this ties in with Ghurlag's points well actually. The holocaust is generally considered a monstrocity by almost all humanity of the last century or so. It is good that we believe so, for our society (some could argue our species) takes a dim view upon those that destroy it. We should judge them, absolutely. However, we must bear in mind that if we are to judge them for this, we cannot say it was objectively evil technically (even though as part of the western culture, we want to, and I include me in this). You see, the people's Crusade of 1096 was a popular uprising in western Europe, which ended up getting bogged down in Hungary on the way to Jerusalem. They ended up killing lots of Jews in the Pogroms there.

Similarly in York, the Jews suffered a dreadful pogrom, where they were burned alive and had their property stolen. The crowds did save soem children by taking them from the fires and baptising them, and this was seen as perfectly just at the time.

The Jews have an unfortunate history of persecution and jealousy by their rivals. Hitler's holocaust differs in that it was founded upon innaccurate genetic science, and was more horrifically systematic. Many of the atrocities of the medieval period were about money and greed and superstitious fear.

In a way, your friend has a rather medieval mindset about morality, and one which doesn't fit her current society, and hence I feel her opinions are rather abhorrent. I'd never dream of imposing my will upon her though, so let her believe that. It is if she acts upon her beliefs that I think there's a problem.

I agree with Pip in all but one area: the Germans do think that genocide is abhorrent. I have an uncle who lives in Germany, and I've spent a lot of time over there, and one thing that's always struck me is that the Germans have much less racism than over here in England.

That, I think, is one of the main reasons why the Holocaust is the closest thing we have to 'evil' in modern history - the country that conducted it now looks back in horror on its own actions. There are holocaust museums in Germany, and memorial plaques at the site of every concentration camp. It is actually illegal, a genuine crime, in Germany to deny that the Holocaust took place, or to support similar actions nowadays.

You misunderstand me, I meant the Nazi germans at the time - Germans nowadays are definitely much nicer - I have an exchange friend who's probably the most selfless and kind person I know.

LL, I see your point, and it's very well argued. Consider me kinda won over to the objective argument.

Then, my friend, you are a philosopher. Put on your toga and start causing trouble!

This is actually quite an interesting exercise in subjectivity. If I (or indeed many others) were to be put in a position like that, It is hard to say that I would not think it evil. There are, however, a few points to be made here

1) The situation is hypothetical, and relies on us all being in a position we are not. If I were to ask a girl to marry me (I'm borrowing an example here), and she said 'no', and i said 'Okay then: if I were the last man on earth, would you marry me?' And she said 'Well, in that situation, yes, I would marry you' - Can i then say that she has agreed to marry me?
Of course not, she has only agreed on the condition that a hypothetical situation arises. Similarly with the holocaust. We may agree that if we were in that position we would find it evil, but we are not, and so we do not necessarily find it so. (Well, we do, but there are those who do not.)
This serves to reinforce the idea of the subjective nature of the action - the perpetrator and the persecuted both have radically different opinions on the morality of the action. To give you another hypothetical situation in return: If the Jew were the persecutor of Germans, would he not think of his actions as good? Is he then right, or wrong?

2) There are exceptions to this exercise. Most 'normal' people would find the situation to be morally wrong when put in the position of the persecuted, but not all. Think of the self-hating entity. For example, what of the Jew who accepted the propoganda of the NSDAP, and believed that the Jewish race (of which they are a part) was a blight upon humanity? (and i do not suggest that such a person necessarily existed, only that they are possible) - In their eyes, the situation proceeding against them is a good thing, and their own existance wrong.
Thus demonstrated is the subjective nature of the 'evil' of the holocaust. LordLucan has provided many other outstanding examples of societies who would not think that the atrocities in Germany were 'atrocities', and Maugan Ra's comment brushes on the fact that even now there are those who would agree with Hitler.
For comparative examples: If i were to lock a man away for murder, he may consider that an evil act upon my part if he believes the murder was justified in some way, as i am depriving him of his freedom. Or he may consider it a good act on my part if he thinks that what he did was wrong.
The act of locking him away is neither good nor evil. From man to man, opinions will differ. There are some actions of which a great many people will find their opinions agree, but i challenge you to think of any action which all persons, both real and concievable, would agree is wrong.

In my opinion, a very scary person. Of course, I'm sure she would say the same of me.

Pip - OK, I apologise if I misunderstood your remark. Its something of a personal point for me when people say that germans=nazis. Still, if you were just referring to those Germans who were supporters of Hitler then I fully agree with you.

And I must say I also agree with Ghurlag in saying that your friend is a very scary person. By that reasoning, and by the reasoning of several other people who think in that sort of way, I'm destined for Hell when I die. Still, at least people of every other religion will apparently be there as well, so I won't go lonely...