Academia, Peace and Heresy, RPG Review

[tcpip]

As reported illness during the exams would result in poorer marks in my two MBA courses last semester (i.e., Managing Innovation and Organisational Best Practise). Indeed, it turns out that I received Credit grades for both (narrowly missing out on a Distinction for the latter). Whilst these are the worst marks received in an academic endeavour in over twenty years I am not overly concerned. On a different - but related - academic tangent I have just submitted a paper for the New Zealand eResearch Symposium on 'Issues and Solutions in Teaching Researchers The Value and Use of High Performance Computing'.

Gave an address at the Unitarians on Sunday on Radical Peace: The Spiritual Basis of Non-Violent Direct Action, arguing that non-violent protest is a more mature form of politics, noting its existence in various religious traditions, but also acknowledging that exceptions do exist. Next Sunday is All Heretics Day, a tradition started by the Christchurch New Zealand Unitarian-Universalists some thirty years ago; the Melbourne Church is debating the issue of attempted changes to the Equal Opportunity Act which gives further exemptions to religious organisations. Also on Sunday will be a Philosophy Forum meeting on "Leadership and Charisma".

The next issue of RPG Review, themed around "different worlds" (yes, an old title) is nearing completion. I have an interview with Johnathan Tweet, designer of Everway, Over The Edge, and Talislanta (3rd edition) and co-designer of Ars Magica and Dungeons & Dragons (3rd edition). There's a world design article, and reviews of several favourite FPRG locales, including Middle-Earth, Talislanta, Skyrealms of Jorune, Athas (Dark Sun) among others. Last Sunday ran a session of Champions Young Gods, this time based with a crossover of the epic flood story of Yu the Great from Chinese mythology and an attempt by Sedna from Inuit mythology to reintroduce a new glacial age. The challenge to one of the PCs is that one, if not two, really liked the idea of such an ice age coming back.

Comments

violent struggle, justifications and karma..

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking a bit about the question of violent struggle and 'the ends justify the means' recently.

In particular, i was thinking about a question Orwell asked about whether someone would be willing to throw acid in the face of a child if it would help bring down a brutal, murderously oppressive regime. My answer had always been no, but i could never properly explain why, other than vague doubts about the uncertainty of a result that would justify such an act. But even if success could somehow be guaranteed, i still was stuck on the feeling that attacking that child could never be justified, no matter how much the maths stacked up (ie the suffering of one child vs the suffering of multitudes at the hands of the regime). It was just a gut feeling that i couldn't back up with cold logic.

The one argument i could put a finger on had been the 'slippery slope' and the idea that if you start to accept that acts of cruelty or injustice are acceptable if done for the 'greater good', then that line of thinking could be (and is) used to justify torture, terrorism, or anything you want to justify. But it still doesn't address whether the 'greater good' does actually outweigh the 'lesser evils'.

Another angle occurred to me just recently, tied in with the notion of karma, or at least a more modern, psychological take on it, which is simply that we are changed and conditioned by our choices and actions: Commit dishonest acts, become more dishonest; commit generous acts, become more generous; commit violent acts, become more violent, and so on. And if that works for an individual, it can be the same for a group. So, the more a revolutionary organisation uses acts of violence and cruelty to remove a brutal, oppressive regime, the more violent and cruel it becomes in itself and, if it succeeds in its aims, the more brutal and oppressive a regime it's likely to become in its own right. So in that sense, the 'greater good' is actually undermined and made not so good by the methods used in its pursuit.

Which is not to say that violence can never have a positive outcome, or that armed struggle will always leave you with military rule etc, but i think it's at least important to be aware the 'ends' will reflect and be tainted by the 'means'.

Re: violent struggle, justifications and karma..

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The classic distinction (which I didn't mention specifically, and probably should have) is that between moral principles and situational ethics. The objective should be to make the two correlate as seamlessly as possible, that is the 'ends' and the 'means' are distinguished only in the abstract. It is not always possible of course, and some grim utilitarian calculations are required. The famous Kantian example of an axe-wielding maniac asking you where your friend is hiding is well-known. It is morally wrong to lie, but it is ethically justifiable to lie on the basis that you have sound reasons to believe a greater moral crime will be committed.

Gandhi, most probably following the laws of karma, tried to push this to its most difficult conclusion, hence his opposition to violent resistance against the Nazis who probably would have just shot him without hesitation (similar regimes would have done a similar thing, I have little doubt). It should be mentioned that the liberation of India was primarily but not exclusively achieved by non-violent means.

The Orwellian challenge is interesting. In the abstract, I can imagine I could bite my lip, engage in the moral calculation, consciously apply the absolute minimum of what is morally wrong (and I think that part is utterly necessary to avoid the 'slippery slope), and then... possibly fail the challenge because of the situation of having visceral innocent suffer through my own hands even if does reduce the suffering of those that out of view; and that I fear, is a limitation rather than a strength.