PDA

View Full Version : So... Chaos isn't evil?



Nicha11
13-10-2009, 05:10
I know this topic has been debated to death for a while so I'm interested in seeing everyones reasonings on this.

As far as I see it: "Chaos is evil because they kill/torture/maim/corrupt to further their own goals (more chaos)".

If a nation of intergalatic super mega warriors are fighting for gigantic pink fluffy kittens but has to do bad things, like really bad things, but not the bad things people in the real world do, then surely they must be evil whatever their cause.

There really is no reason to say "Oh blarg over their crucifying the puppy isn't evil, he's just being chaotic".

But other peoples opinions differ to this and thats what I'm interested in.

DoombringerATT
13-10-2009, 05:43
If a country is fighting for democarcy but an accepted tactic of their soldiers is killing babies then surely that country is evil, right?

I certainly hope this isn't what I think this is...

Having been called a "Baby-Killer" simply because I've deployed to Iraq, and am soon to be deploying to Afghanistan this upcoming week, I may be digging a little too deep here, but I just want to make sure this doesn't go the route this statement seems to be going... :mad:

Nicha11
13-10-2009, 05:50
I certainly hope this isn't what I think this is...

Having been called a "Baby-Killer" simply because I've deployed to Iraq, and am soon to be deploying to Afghanistan this upcoming week, I may be digging a little too deep here, but I just want to make sure this doesn't go the route this statement seems to be going... :mad:

No mate, I absoloutely did not meen that what so ever:cries:
I live across the pond number 2 (the pacific) and I'm very sorry if what I've said is offensive elsewhere in the world.
I will edit my post.

Lord-Caerolion
13-10-2009, 06:04
I've posted too many replies in similar threads to come up with something original. Suffice to say, I believe the Chaos Gods themselves cannot be called evil, as they are simply manifestations of our basest urges, neither good nor evil, simply primal. Their followers however, can indeed be called evil for their actions, as a being is not naturally an extreme of a concept or idea, their extremists do not have the defense of what they do being a result of their natural state.

starlight
13-10-2009, 06:08
Nicha11 - Please edit your Post to remove real-world examples/references and replace with those appropriate to 40K or this Thread will end up in P&R... :eyebrows:

starlight
The Warseer Inquisition

Nicha11
13-10-2009, 06:19
If a country is fighting for their version of justice but an accepted tactic of their soldiers is bombing hospitals and using civilians as cover then surely that country is evil, right?


The bold is what I edited


No mate, I absoloutely did not meen that what so ever:cries:
I live across the pond number 2 (the pacific) and I'm very sorry if what I've said is offensive elsewhere in the world.
I will edit my post.

This is where I apologised and said I would edit my post


Nicha11 - Please edit your Post to remove real-world examples/references and replace with those appropriate to 40K or this Thread will end up in P&R... :eyebrows:

starlight
The Warseer Inquisition

This is where I am confused.
Was my editing not good enough or did you not bother to read my reply before posting?

Allen
13-10-2009, 06:22
I know this topic has been debated to death for a while so I'm interested in seeing everyones reasonings on this.

As far as I see it: "Chaos is evil because they kill/torture/maim/corrupt to further their own goals (more chaos)"


Actually, I think it's something like this:

"Chaos is evil because it eat your immortal soul for breakfast, effectively erasing you from every plane of existence".

From a human/eldar/any sentient species point-of-view of course.
I doubt we can define objectively the meaning of "evil". There are few acts, motivations and so on that are universally defined "evil", no matter what...but they're universally defined so by mankind. But mostly the various cultures present inside the all-encompassing "mankind" term have very different views of what is "evil" and what is "harsh, but acceptable".




If a country is fighting for their version of justice but an accepted tactic of their soldiers is bombing hospitals and using civilians as cover then surely that country is evil, right?

I'm sorry, but may I give you a suggestion? Don't use this kind of arguments in a discussion. The threat of being bogged down in a swamp of simplicistic "definition of evil is relative, so there's no evil" is really, really high...especially in an internet forum.

starlight
13-10-2009, 06:27
The Bold you edited is straight out of modern headlines and has little, if anything, to do with 40K. Find and use 40K examples (daemons, The Warp, Black Crusades, Orks, Tyranids, etc...) instead of activities that members who are in the military are likely to have association with.

While you're at it, clarify what you mean by *Chaos*... Do you mean Chaos in the 40K sense of Chaos Gods, are you talking about the general mess that is 40K, or are you talking about real life chaos, as in the lack of order... If you mean the latter, I can pretty much guarantee this Thread will end up in P&R because that's where people will take it... :(

Nicha11
13-10-2009, 06:34
The Bold you edited is straight out of modern headlines and has little, if anything, to do with 40K. Find and use 40K examples (daemons, The Warp, Black Crusades, Orks, Tyranids, etc...) instead of activities that members who are in the military are likely to have association with.

While you're at it, clarify what you mean by *Chaos*... Do you mean Chaos in the 40K sense of Chaos Gods, are you talking about the general mess that is 40K, or are you talking about real life chaos, as in the lack of order... If you mean the latter, I can pretty much guarantee this Thread will end up in P&R because that's where people will take it... :(

I have edited the post again to take out any and I mean any chance it could possibly cause offense.

Although doubltess I'll have somehow insulted the Dutch:eyebrows:

starlight
13-10-2009, 06:41
Using your example, yes I'd consider them evil, but your example has nothing to do with Chaos...or chaos... :(

Iuris
13-10-2009, 06:47
Back to the old definition of "what is evil" issue.

To cut it short, my reply is: if chaos isn't evil, then neither is killing and maiming chaos itself.

starlight
13-10-2009, 06:51
Chaos isn't evil, it's simply a lack of order. Too much order can be used to advance evil just as easily as too little...

Saying chaos is evil is like saying the wind is evil... :eyebrows:

Nicha11
13-10-2009, 07:23
Saying chaos is evil is like saying the wind is evil... :eyebrows:

If the wind came down and murdered my family just because "I'm the wind it's what I do" I'd consider it evil.

DoombringerATT
13-10-2009, 07:36
This is where we find that Good and Evil are, as stated countless times before, relative to each observer's perspective.

If a Lion came and murdered your family, you might consider evil.

The logical and non-biased observer, however, would simply see that the Lion was behaving off simple instinct. It was hungry, or felt threatened, and so attacked and killed your family. It didn't do it maliciously, it did it for its own survival, and the survival of its unborn offspring.

Is it still evil, if it is just trying to survive, and didn't know of any other way to protect itself/get food except kill its aggressor/prey?

Fall from grace
13-10-2009, 07:39
If the wind came down and murdered my family just because "I'm the wind it's what I do" I'd consider it evil.

I had some pretty evil wind in my time:evilgrin:

Nakor
13-10-2009, 08:14
I've deployed to Iraq, and am soon to be deploying to Afghanistan this upcoming week,

respect.


on topic
im with the shade of gray camp on this. some of chaos is evil, some is not. i mean a lot of these guys are insane, or possessed, or are otherwise mentally inhibited (thousand sons?)

Dhazzakull
13-10-2009, 08:42
chaos is simply the embodyment of human emotions, what makes it evil is the fact that they don't havea limit.
For example khoren is a god of aggression, controlled aggression can be a good thing, but his followers do not controll it, they live only for war and bloodshed, what makes them evil.

Firaxin
13-10-2009, 08:58
As far as I see it: "Chaos is evil because they kill/torture/maim/corrupt to further their own goals (more chaos)".
It doesn't sound like you're talking about Chaos, or chaos, or even the Chaos Gods, but rather Chaos worshipers. Who, being sentient humans/etc, can't really be compared to a True-neutral wind.

However, that still doesn't mean Chaos worshipers are evil in every case.

IMHO, killing others in the name of your religion (ie, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you/to intimidate people into converting/etc) is wrong. That would make armies like the Word Bearers evil. But the vast majority of chaos worshipers aren't that kind of chaos worshiper. No, most chaos worshipers do what they do out of necessity or are being manipulated.

It's like... a sickly, nerdy kid, perhaps born with a speech impediment and/or physical disability, is abused, ostracized, and constantly beat up by a bully at the local Schola. This goes on for years, until the poor whelp is so depressed that he'd hang himself if he actually had the energy to make a noose. Desperate for a way out, he prays to Khorne for the strength and courage to stand up to the bully. In classic Hollywood style, they have a showdown on the playground and the kid actually wins! Unused to the strength Khorne's granted him, he accidentally breaks the bully's arm, but that's okay, the bully deserved it, right? All the kids problems are solved, the bully can't look him in the eye, he has friends, he has a reason to live, his disability is overcome so there's no reason for him to be bullied anymore, etc.

But the bully has friends too. He gathers them, and together they plot their revenge. Around 3 in the morning, the bullies drive by the kid's house, throw several cherry bombs through the window, and drive off. The noise and broken window, as well as the gut-lurching fear of waking up to the noise, was all the bullies intended. But things got out of control when the firecrackers set a window drape on fire, and the house goes up in flames. The boy makes it out, but the ceiling collapses behind him, trapping his parents and his baby sibling. The boy panics for a moment, before Khorne whispers into his ear. With a quick prayer for strength and courage, the boy charges back into the house, hauls flaming timbers out of the way, and allows his parents to escape.

But alas, he was too late, and his baby sibling died from smoke inhalation. The boy, sobbing, tells his father about the bully. The father takes a baseball bat and drives over to the bully's house, alone, to confront the bully and the bully's father. Things get out of hand, and the boy's father beats the bully to death before being killed himself by the bully's drunken father. Suddenly the only man in the family, the boy prays to Khorne for inspiration. How does he take control of the situation, get revenge on the bullies/bully's father, and protect his mother when the bully's father comes back for his own revenge? Khorne sends him a divine vision: How to make a molotov cocktail...

The boy then uses the molotovs in a preemptive strike against each of the bullies' houses, early in the morning. Only unlike when he was attacked, none of them wake up. So in a single night the boy has killed 9 whole families, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, even babies. Even though his only intention was to strike specifically at the bullies who caused his baby brother to die and the father who killed his father.

So of course a Arbites manhunt is called on his head. He's eventually cornered in a hotel, and the officers grapple him. He knows the penalty for what he's done is death, and he knows he can't leave his mother alone after all this. So he gives a quick prayer to Khorne for strength and fights back. Necks are snapped, bodies torn limb to limb and mutilated in his passion to protect himself and his mother by the super-strength he's never wielded before.

And it continues to escalate...

sycopat
13-10-2009, 09:40
Chaos worshippers are mostly evil from our point of view.

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and most chaos worshippers wouldn't see themselves that way, rather they are paying the price of achieving their goals, at least until their goal changes to "serve the chaos gods"

For example, my chaos lord likes to consider himself as a benevolent dictator bringing wealth and freedom to his people, but he's just a tyrant.

Of course the worst thing about Chaos to me isn't the atrocities they commit, so much as the attitude to atrocitities. Not every chaos worshipper likes to eat baby entrails for breakfast, but those who do are tolerated and accepted by what passes for chaos society. And I enjoy the irony that the most horrific thing about chaos is how tolerant and accepting they are.

eyescrossed
13-10-2009, 09:58
It doesn't sound like you're talking about Chaos, or chaos, or even the Chaos Gods, but rather Chaos worshipers. Who, being sentient humans/etc, can't really be compared to a True-neutral wind.

However, that still doesn't mean Chaos worshipers are evil in every case.

IMHO, killing others in the name of your religion (ie, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you/to intimidate people into converting/etc) is wrong. That would make armies like the Word Bearers evil. But the vast majority of chaos worshipers aren't that kind of chaos worshiper. No, most chaos worshipers do what they do out of necessity or are being manipulated.

It's like... a sickly, nerdy kid, perhaps born with a speech impediment and/or physical disability, is abused, ostracized, and constantly beat up by a bully at the local Schola. This goes on for years, until the poor whelp is so depressed that he'd hang himself if he actually had the energy to make a noose. Desperate for a way out, he prays to Khorne for the strength and courage to stand up to the bully. In classic Hollywood style, they have a showdown on the playground and the kid actually wins! Unused to the strength Khorne's granted him, he accidentally breaks the bully's arm, but that's okay, the bully deserved it, right? All the kids problems are solved, the bully can't look him in the eye, he has friends, he has a reason to live, his disability is overcome so there's no reason for him to be bullied anymore, etc.

But the bully has friends too. He gathers them, and together they plot their revenge. Around 3 in the morning, the bullies drive by the kid's house, throw several cherry bombs through the window, and drive off. The noise and broken window, as well as the gut-lurching fear of waking up to the noise, was all the bullies intended. But things got out of control when the firecrackers set a window drape on fire, and the house goes up in flames. The boy makes it out, but the ceiling collapses behind him, trapping his parents and his baby sibling. The boy panics for a moment, before Khorne whispers into his ear. With a quick prayer for strength and courage, the boy charges back into the house, hauls flaming timbers out of the way, and allows his parents to escape.

But alas, he was too late, and his baby sibling died from smoke inhalation. The boy, sobbing, tells his father about the bully. The father takes a baseball bat and drives over to the bully's house, alone, to confront the bully and the bully's father. Things get out of hand, and the boy's father beats the bully to death before being killed himself by the bully's drunken father. Suddenly the only man in the family, the boy prays to Khorne for inspiration. How does he take control of the situation, get revenge on the bullies/bully's father, and protect his mother when the bully's father comes back for his own revenge? Khorne sends him a divine vision: How to make a molotov cocktail...

The boy then uses the molotovs in a preemptive strike against each of the bullies' houses, early in the morning. Only unlike when he was attacked, none of them wake up. So in a single night the boy has killed 9 whole families, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, even babies. Even though his only intention was to strike specifically at the bullies who caused his baby brother to die and the father who killed his father.

So of course a Arbites manhunt is called on his head. He's eventually cornered in a hotel, and the officers grapple him. He knows the penalty for what he's done is death, and he knows he can't leave his mother alone after all this. So he gives a quick prayer to Khorne for strength and fights back. Necks are snapped, bodies torn limb to limb and mutilated in his passion to protect himself and his mother by the super-strength he's never wielded before.

And it continues to escalate...

I applaud you, best example ever. I'd quote it if it weren't so long.

Oh wait, I know what I'll do.

EDIT: Done :D

wilsongrahams
13-10-2009, 10:01
Chaos caused Horus to turn against Sanguinius and kill him. That's all I need to know...

JHZ
13-10-2009, 10:05
Saying chaos is evil is like saying the wind is evil... :eyebrows:
An unorderly wind? Like... the "Wind of Chaos"?

Enfid
13-10-2009, 10:20
IMHO

Chaos isn't evil, nor is the Imperium. However, their interests conflict one another, so they fight. We can substitute "Chaos" and "Imperium" with civilizations from the past who went to war with each other, and it'll still be valid (in most cases, anyway).

While the Imperium revolves around order, restraint, and piety, Chaos revolves around freedom of thought and action, and raw emotion. Neither of these are inherently good or evil, but they conflict with one another.


If we have the Imperium that kills an entire population "just to be sure", there must be a Chaos worshipper somewhere that wants to use the power of the Chaos gods to free human from the clutches of the fascist, selfish Imperium. (In fact, that's what my Traitor Guard is about!)


But for the sake of a war game, we need good guys and bad guys. So Chaos now eat babies. :D

At least that's how I think of "good vs bad" in the 40k universe anyway.

Crazy Ivan
13-10-2009, 10:23
If a nation of intergalatic super mega warriors are fighting for gigantic pink fluffy kittens but has to do bad things, like really bad things, but not the bad things people in the real world do, then surely they must be evil whatever their cause.

There really is no reason to say "Oh blarg over their crucifying the puppy isn't evil, he's just being chaotic".




Although doubltess I'll have somehow insulted the Dutch:eyebrows:
Yes!!! We Dutch Intergalactic Super Mega Warriors take our Gigantic Pink Fluffy Kittens very seriously! Mr Mittens demands vengeange! So repent, sinner, before it is too late!!! :mad:


:p


But seriously, I'm not really all that offended by that, no... ;)


Good example indeed, Firaxin! Anyway, I'd say "evil" is completely depended on the observer anyhow. Just like different people consider different things "Good". But it is darned hard to say objectively who's right: the Chaos worshipper? Or the Imperial priest?

MvS
13-10-2009, 10:45
Chaos is extremity in every sense, that's what makes it so destructive and dangerous.

It could be, and indeed is, extremes of violence. But equally Chaos in the manifestation of absolute extremes of almost any time. So, just to give a bad example, absolute and extreme 'mothering', with no balance, no controls, no desire for it to end and with nothing else regarded as 'right', 'good' or even possible will result in dysfunctional children who are never allowed to grow up.

It's the extremity of the Chaos Powers that make them what they are. They have within them the potential for positive changes to the lived of mortals, but overwhelming that is the drive to ever greater extremes.

As others have said, mortals + Chaos = a gradual and slippery slope to insane mono-maniacal extremism.

Crazy Ivan
13-10-2009, 10:59
I'd say (and have argued before) that Chaos is the absence of order, in every sense imaginable. Being of Chaos are bound to act chaotic. (This may have the consequence that they actually do act coherently for extended periods of time, as being chaotic all the time isn't as chaotic as being chaotic... and not!)

For humans and other mortals, who are bound by the order of the material universe as well as by the order that society has put into their minds) extended contact with Chaos is bound to be unhealthy and cause extreme mental problems, which might very well be expressed violently (though they also might not be). They are not themselves completely chaotic, however, and so retain a sense of order within themselves. It is this what we might consider the actual "evil" perpetrated by Chaos worshippers.

Important thing to remember, anyway, is that all Chaos worshippers are, by definition, completely insane.

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-10-2009, 11:30
I see Chaos itself as no more evil than a hurricane; it's not exactly sentient or truly malicious, it acts according to its nature- the equalization, however violent, of air pressure. Bit of a tangent, though. That the Chaos Gods' natures are so alien and foul to us as to fit every definition of evil devised by man is of no consequence.

However, I see the worshipers of Chaos who we see the face of in the game (the fanatical, baby-eating maniacs who rape puppies and distill cities into drugs, not Joe Schmo who prays to Khorne to protect his nation's armies in the defense of his land and to Tzeentch to aid him in his studies) as evil. Their actions are still their own, no matter what good intentions pave their path, until such point as they've allowed themselves to slip too far under the influence of Chaos and their actions are not their own- which is, as the surrender of one's will to a power that will cause evil with it, an evil act.

canucklhead
13-10-2009, 11:48
Chaos is an absolute necessity to sentient beings, and is thus seen as evil. We fight and protest the hardest against what we know is part of us, ugly as it is.

No major advancements of civilisation would ever have been made without Chaos. The greatest achievements of humanity came as a response to war, or famine, or pestilence.
We advance ourselves through our struggle to master the disorder, and the disorder becomes stonger as we internalise our baser natures.

check and balance. Calling it good and evil is at best a political stratagem to keep the rabble marching in a uniform direction.

Counts for 40k and for reality.

azimaith
13-10-2009, 11:53
I know this topic has been debated to death for a while so I'm interested in seeing everyones reasonings on this.

As far as I see it: "Chaos is evil because they kill/torture/maim/corrupt to further their own goals (more chaos)".

The imperium kills, tortures, and maims people (it can't really corrupt them because heretics are burned at stakes after being tortured) to further their own goals (Galactic genocide) Yet somehow the strong armed "thugs" of the Imperium, the space marines, somehow come out as being noble and virtuous. Like I mentioned before, lets not forget that the literal stated cause of the imperium is *galactic genocide* or perhaps more accurately, genocide and xenocide, till there is nothing left but "pure" humans of the appropriate faith. If doing evil things for your cause, whatever it may be, is evil, then certainly every force is evil thus there is no good and evil, theres just bloodshed.

If anything chaos could at least pull the insanity defense.

Simply put chaos is chaos and thats it. Is killing people evil? Maybe for us, but for chaos they know where dead people go, into the warp. If that dead person is sufficiently buddy buddy with a chaos god he gets to be a daemon and life forever in his particular idiom.

You have to remember in the fantasty world of 40k people travel through whats basically the underworld to get around and chaos marines and their ilk literally live there, so killing someone is a little less like trying to obliterate them from existence and a little more like sending them to your backyard. Is there really any difference between an Ecclesiarch burning your loved ones at the stake or a berserking cultist killing them other than one is calculated and based on intolerance and the other is based on mindless animal rage? In the end its a unpleasant demise. What about Space Marines "Scourging the unclean" from a hive spire with cultists running around thus killing *everyone* with bolters, chainswords, and flame throwers. Aren't they just sending "guilty" and "Innocent" alike into the warp?

What i'm saying is that the basic tenets of good and evil do not apply the same way in 40k as they do in reality because of a couple things.
1: Anyone killing anyone results in their soul being cast adrift in the warp to be a plaything for daemons or to become a daemon.
2: Everyone hates everyone.
3: Dead is not the same thing as gone.

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-10-2009, 12:18
I don't even want to compare Chaos' followers to other factions in terms of evil, because frankly it's silly. If you're like me and believe in good and evil, everyone is evil. Some of their goals I may feel empathy with, some of their losses I sympathize with, some of their victories are stirring, but in the end 40k is one big bath in the blood of innocents in the name of glory and the so-called 'good' of the galaxy, whatever that may mean to any particular faction. They're all pawns, evil or both.

Lord-Caerolion
13-10-2009, 12:21
The funny thing is though, is that because of the whole "the Warp is a reflection of our emotions" thing, because we perceive the Chaos Gods as evil, they're going to act in a negative way. They're reflections of our beliefs and emotions, so if we see Rage Incarnate as a bad, bad thing, then Rage Incarnate will act as a bad, bad thing for everyone.

JHZ
13-10-2009, 12:38
I've always wondered if Chaos is GW's sociological commentary or something. I mean, Chaos worshipers are always strong willed indiviuals, who do it all for their own gain, even if they claim it to be in the interest of the Gods or something. They strive for daemonhood, for their own glory. And once they fall, there's nothing left of them, because the next young hotshot has taken the place at the top of the dung hill.

The Dark Eldar and Orks are the same. They only seek their own gain. Orks wanna bash stuff, and they even fight each other if have to to become the biggest and the strongest, and Dark Eldar just want to live long and be happy, which usually means someone else has to die young and be in agony.

Then you got the "good" humans, Eldar and Tau, who strive for the good of the whole. Humans, whether they want to or not, strive for the Imperium and the Emperor, who protects them from evil. They are one people against all others. Eldar have their traditions, ancestors and ways. They honor them and while every Eldar is dear to them, they know when to sacrifice themselves for others. And the Tau. Greater good, is all I need to say. All these races forego creature comforts for this reason. Humans can't do this and that, for the Emperor, Eldar can't be too emotional, or it would spell doom and the Tau have a very regulated society, for the greater good.

Individualism = Bad.
Working for a greater goal than yourself and self-sacrifice = Good.

Or maybe it's all in me head...

guillimansknight
13-10-2009, 12:47
And I enjoy the irony that the most horrific thing about chaos is how tolerant and accepting they are.

Oddly enough that's part of my version of evil.

" All that is necessary for evil to succed is for good men to do nothing"

Curiously enough I had written down many philosophical lines very similar to that before I'd heard it

Temmy
13-10-2009, 13:36
Think of the Chaos Gods as our collective id. They are manifestations of our basest urges and most primal needs. It isn't evil, its just primal, base and concerned solely with immediate satisfaction of urges.

Murphy's law
13-10-2009, 14:03
I have edited the post again to take out any and I mean any chance it could possibly cause offense.

Although doubltess I'll have somehow insulted the Dutch:eyebrows:

I'm dutch and yes, i feel insulted.
No mate, don't worry, i'm just kidding.;)

I think chaos is evil, but i like to state that the imperium isn't good.
i think both factions have their shades of grey. A lot of chaos-followers, especiallly chaos marines should be considered evil, but others don't even realise they follow the chaos gods. Lot's of people are selfish, but aren't nescessarily evil.
The imperium does things we would regard as being evil.
Do you know the rights of imperial citizens? They don't have many...
In 40K good and evil is more of an abstraction. There are no real good or real evil factions.
Just like real life, there are army's which are considered to fight for a good course but they can still contain lot's of bad people.

PondaNagura
13-10-2009, 15:59
evil is from the perspective of the victim. since everyone in 40k is victimized, everyone else is evil.


The Warp the other immaterial realm, is not evil, it is raw power, at first calm until emotional impacts built up over the past millions of years from the material world.
this is what gave rise to Chaos which is the excessive, uncontrollable, reflections of negativity that accumulated into malicious intelligence... it realizes its own existence, and knows what feeds it, and only wishes to continue its existence at the cost of the material realm.

Bad situations fueled material world decisions, which have an emotional impact on the Warp, which spawned Chaos; which now has gained so much strengthen and knowledge that it can adversely impact the universe that created it, to continue its existence. It consciously makes the decisions it does at the cost of souls and lives in the material plain.

hence why the Emperor, who realized Chaos for what it was, used organized tactics of imposed-ignorance and genocide to starve these powers out, and potentially becalm the Warp.

Hrw-Amen
13-10-2009, 16:00
The funny thing is though, is that because of the whole "the Warp is a reflection of our emotions" thing, because we perceive the Chaos Gods as evil, they're going to act in a negative way. They're reflections of our beliefs and emotions, so if we see Rage Incarnate as a bad, bad thing, then Rage Incarnate will act as a bad, bad thing for everyone.

So does that mean if we were to perceive the Chaos gods as nice, they would act in a positive way and reflecting our beliefs we would get Khorne berserkers turning up on imperial worlds to deliver freshl knitted wolly sweaters for the elderly and sick?

eyescrossed
13-10-2009, 16:12
The funny thing is though, is that because of the whole "the Warp is a reflection of our emotions" thing, because we perceive the Chaos Gods as evil, they're going to act in a negative way. They're reflections of our beliefs and emotions, so if we see Rage Incarnate as a bad, bad thing, then Rage Incarnate will act as a bad, bad thing for everyone.

So does that mean if we were to perceive the Chaos gods as nice, they would act in a positive way and reflecting our beliefs we would get Khorne berserkers turning up on imperial worlds to deliver freshl knitted wolly sweaters for the elderly and sick?

Indeed, it would be so.

Okay, no it wouldn't. Bloodletters might, but World Eaters were bloodthirsty loonies before they went to Khorne, so they are with or without him.

Sceleris82
13-10-2009, 16:51
Yes chaos is evil.
Because when you mark something good or evil, then you do it out from personel prefference. And in my book chaos demons eating souls and killing humanity is evil.
You cant discuss evil/good out from a objective matter.

JHZ
13-10-2009, 17:09
Because when you mark something good or evil, then you do it out from personel prefference. And in my book chaos demons eating souls and killing humanity is evil.
Have a peek at Pawns of Chaos for some non-evil Chaos.

samiens
13-10-2009, 17:17
When quotes pop up in codexes with stuff like:

'Let no good deed go unpunished, let no evil deed go unrewarded'

it seems to me that its pretty clear that chaos are meant to be the bad guys. Yes, its a sliding scale but its pretty clear where chaos should be on that scale in 40k. Its fascinating how we try and describe it otherwise (yes I have a chaos army and yes I've done the same thing)

Sceleris82
13-10-2009, 17:21
its only good chaos cause you deem it to be good, to me it might be evil.

eyescrossed
13-10-2009, 17:26
To me, bunnies might be evil.

Really, it comes down to what one personally thinks.

Makiaveli
13-10-2009, 17:28
If the wind came down and murdered my family just because "I'm the wind it's what I do" I'd consider it evil.

This. End of discussion :D

No seriously, "I'd consider it evil" says it all. The wind still wouldn't consider itself evil, Fire probably wouldn't either since it is often an ally of Wind.

Point of view is the determining factor. An Inquisitor that flies over a village and drops a few dozen bombs flattening the village since he knows a wanted criminal is in one of the buildings is a Hero of the Imperium to some and a evil bastard to the villagers.

That said, I think the consensus of most of the sentient creatures in the galaxy is that Chaos = Evil.

CrownAxe
13-10-2009, 17:34
Evil is perspectives

One man's determined freedom fighter is another man's psychotic terrorist

Sekhmet
13-10-2009, 19:21
You'd probably have to define "evil" first, and also "good". After that, you can start to decide who is good and evil.

Is "good" doing what's best for humanity? Every species should do what's best for its own survival. Is a cheetah evil for killing weak, sick, old or young prey while ignoring strong ones? Is a cow evil for eating god's green grass? Is a cat evil for playing with its food? Is a human evil for raising chickens then killing one every so often to eat?

Is a warp god evil for doing the exact thing it was made for? Is a C'tan evil for just wanting to eat tasty food that happens to have guns and spaceships? Is a tyranid evil when it's essentially controlled by a hivemind that tells it to destroy planets? Is a tau evil for forcefully converting everyone to his own vision of a "greater good"?

I'd say the only non-evil people in 40k are C'tan, Tyranids and Orks. Orks and Tyranids are just forces of nature, while the C'tan are so far above humans/eldar/tau/everyone that to them, it's not mass murder, it's harvesting grain. I'd say the Chaos Gods are evil just because they're meant to be evil. Their followers may have good intentions, but they end up evil too.

The Imperium is probably the most evil - they're one of the few races that actively purges their own defenseless population. The Space Marines are the worst of them.

Vesica
13-10-2009, 20:47
I know this topic has been debated to death for a while so I'm interested in seeing everyones reasonings on this.

As far as I see it: "Chaos is evil because they kill/torture/maim/corrupt to further their own goals (more chaos)".

If a nation of intergalatic super mega warriors are fighting for gigantic pink fluffy kittens but has to do bad things, like really bad things, but not the bad things people in the real world do, then surely they must be evil whatever their cause.

There really is no reason to say "Oh blarg over their crucifying the puppy isn't evil, he's just being chaotic".

But other peoples opinions differ to this and thats what I'm interested in.


Chaos thrives on pain and suffering, there followers murder for fun, you gain the favour of your god by killing those opposed to them.

As i said in the other thread read the book 'Dark Apostle' and you will get a taste of what chaos is and what it does, all of it would be classes as evil in any aspect and thats why anyone that follows the dark powers must be purged by the bolter and blade.

HK-47
13-10-2009, 23:07
Chaos and the Imperium are the extremes of human nature. The imperium is our urge to order the natural world, to build civilizations and empires, gone to the nth degree. Everything the can be controlled must be controlled, anything that can't must be destroyed. Chaos is our urge to leave all behind and become one with the natural world, where only the strong survive and you live and die based on your own abilities and strengths. However in a universe like 40k to survive you have to do horrible things, you mind will break and those horrible things will be just something you do during your day.

The struggle between the Emperor and the Chaos gods represents the struggle between our urges to build something lasting out of our surrounds and to say ******* it and run around naked in the woods.

One isn't good and the other evil, they are both good and evil, because they are us.

Sekhmet
13-10-2009, 23:08
Chaos and the Imperium are the extremes of human nature. The imperium is our urge to order the natural world, to build civilizations and empires, gone to the nth degree. Everything the can be controlled must be controlled, anything that can't must be destroyed. Chaos is our urge to leave all behind and become one with the natural world, where only the strong survive and you live and die based on your own abilities and strengths. However in a universe like 40k to survive you have to do horrible things, you mind will break and those horrible things will be just something you do during your day.

The struggle between the Emperor and the Chaos gods represents the struggle between our urges to build something lasting out of our surrounds and to say ******* it and run around naked in the woods.

One isn't good and the other evil, they are both good and evil, because they are us.

This is quite possibly the deepest and most well-written post I've read on Warseer to include a censored word. A+!

JHZ
13-10-2009, 23:41
If the wind came down and murdered my family just because "I'm the wind it's what I do" I'd consider it evil.
The wind didn't murder your family, you just got in its way as it was blowing. Might as well blame the ocean for getting in your lungs and drowning you.

Paul Mooney said it the best:
"If a mountain lion is in your house and in your living room, kill it. It's not where it's suppose to be. But when it's up in the mountains where it belongs, being a mountain lion, don't be messing with it. The mountain lion was having a baby and a lady was jogging, a white lady, and the mountain lion said 'oh no, b!/%¤, you won't be around here in the moring, I'm gonna eat you.' And they're mad at the mountain lion. It's just doing what it's suppose to do. But if it's down in your house where it don't belong, kill it. I bet not catch $%!¤ where they don't belong. Oh, let me go to the movie theater and see a shark sitting next to me. I'm £@%¤ing that shark up. / When they get you where you ain't suppose to be... / 'Oh, I'll take a midnight swim." The sharks get 'em. You're all up in the shark's kitchen, he's suppose to eat you up. You where you don't belong. And the first thing they yell: 'Shaaaark!' No $!€¤, Sherlock, who you think live in the ocean, parakeets?"

Lord-Caerolion
14-10-2009, 02:36
The funny thing is though, is that because of the whole "the Warp is a reflection of our emotions" thing, because we perceive the Chaos Gods as evil, they're going to act in a negative way. They're reflections of our beliefs and emotions, so if we see Rage Incarnate as a bad, bad thing, then Rage Incarnate will act as a bad, bad thing for everyone.

So does that mean if we were to perceive the Chaos gods as nice, they would act in a positive way and reflecting our beliefs we would get Khorne berserkers turning up on imperial worlds to deliver freshl knitted wolly sweaters for the elderly and sick?

No, what we'd get is another Khaine. Remember, he's the Eldars primal Rage, yet because of how they perceive themselves, they see such things as only natural, and not something evil. As a consequence, Khaine is both the murderous tyrant, and a heroic defender of the people.
So no, we wouldn't get Khorne Berzerkers handing out kittens to orphans, or anything like that. What we'd get is Khorne worshippers who fight for honour and defending the weak. We'd get Dire Avengers in Marine form, pretty much.

Writerski7
14-10-2009, 02:50
Good and Evil are merely a selective choice to make one person 'better' than another. List one person as 'good' means that those who oppose him must be 'evil'. Hence why humanity is victim to the same 'problems' as the Orks in 40K. They Orks just don't hide it behind morals.

My opinion: The 'Good' guy is the last man standing.

HK-47
14-10-2009, 03:48
This is quite possibly the deepest and most well-written post I've read on Warseer to include a censored word. A+!

:D Thanks, all of the moral relativism vs moral absolutism debates that seem to be going on around here has had me thinking, and I felt this was a good thread to share my thoughts.

I feel you can never call the chaos gods or daemons evil because they are simply predators. Predators that we created by flooding the warp with our emotions. We created the modern chaos gods, everything that the daemon or worshipers of chaos have committed are the faults of regular people living their lives feeling the full range of human emotions. To call chaos evil is to call feeling evil.

Of course we are talking about chaos worshipers and not actually chaos, but I felt like sharing.

El_Machinae
14-10-2009, 13:49
I think it's important to define good and evil. If you have a proper definition, then these concepts can exist in an absolute sense (even though our perspective will always be subjective).

An example I use is the concept of a circle. The concept of a perfect circle DOES exist. You can define a perfect circle. Now, a perfect circle cannot exist, due to the nature of realty. This does not stop things from being 'more circular' or 'less circular' than each other. And yes, perspective can make something seem less circular, but the perspective can give one the wrong information.

Same with good and evil.

If one allows that evil "intentionally causes suffering for its own gratification or empowerment", then we can get a gradient of evil. We're all shades of evil, yes. And there's no shame in accepting this, and trying to reduce our own evilness.

And, using this definition: Chaos is bloody evil. Completely. It's not merely a force of nature, because it has empathy & intention. It knows it's evil.

JHZ
14-10-2009, 14:08
I think it's important to define good and evil.
So you just gonna crack one of the great philosophical conundrums of all time here and now?

Someone call CNN, I'm sure they want to hear about this, and maybe see if we can get this man at least a Noble for his efforts.

Perfect circle is a tangible thing, something that can be defined in concept and mathematically, so that it applies to every situation, but how are you gonna define good and evil so that neither will ever get into a situation where they'd have to break their own definitions.

Lord-Caerolion
14-10-2009, 14:40
An example I use is the concept of a circle. The concept of a perfect circle DOES exist. You can define a perfect circle. Now, a perfect circle cannot exist, due to the nature of realty. This does not stop things from being 'more circular' or 'less circular' than each other. And yes, perspective can make something seem less circular, but the perspective can give one the wrong information.

Same with good and evil.
This analogy is flawed, as a circle is a concrete thing. A circle can be measured, can be given form, can be mathematically depicted. Good and evil are concepts, a circle is not a concept, a circle does not exist purely in the mind of the observer.
Good and Evil cannot be mathematically described, they cannot be given a universal shape, they cannot be measured. They exist purely as concepts, in the mind of a particular, individual observer. And by that same logic, noone will picture it the same way.


If one allows that evil "intentionally causes suffering for its own gratification or empowerment", then we can get a gradient of evil. We're all shades of evil, yes. And there's no shame in accepting this, and trying to reduce our own evilness.

And, using this definition: Chaos is bloody evil. Completely. It's not merely a force of nature, because it has empathy & intention. It knows it's evil.

Once again, not entirely true. Does Chaos exist purely for the pleasure of itself, and the pain of others? No. Chaos can be entirely selfless, it depends on the individual.
Does Chaos require the suffering of others? No, not even Khorne does, he simply requires anger. While that may often go hand-in-hand with causing suffering, it doesn't necessarily. Nurgle is simply the desire for stasis, the desire for things to remain as they are, because as bad as this is, it could get worse. Tzeentch is the opposite, the "anything's better than this" mentality. Slaanesh is even less fitting of your requirements, as Slaanesh is Excess in all forms, Slaanesh is the Lover as well as the Sadist.

Now, we get to the "has empathy and intention" part of your argument. Does Chaos have empathy? I don't think so myself. They are primal urges, driven only by that desire, driven to promote that desire. To have empathy, you need choice, and that is something the Chaos Gods don't have. Slaanesh cannot act to deny Herself. Nurgle cannot promote change, nor Tzeentch promote stasis. Khorne cannot promote peace. To do otherwise would be to act against their fundamental nature, to go against everything they are. They cannot help but to act as they do.

And as for intention... they promote their individual primal nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean negatively. Khorne embodies Rage, but also encompasses martial pride and honour. Nurgle embodies both the happy "I wish this moment would never end", as well as the "better the devil you know". Does Slaanesh necessarily understand the consequences of what it does? Not really. To quote the Liber Slaanesh:

How we generate that pleasure is not important to Him, the fact that we experience it at all is enough.
Slaanesh merely hungers. It is a primal force, a whirlpool pulling things toward it. Does the whirlpool intend to kill those on the ship it destroys? Does Slaanesh intend to harm others in the pleasure She craves? The answer to both is no.

So yeah, I think you can see that Chaos doesn't intend to purely cause harm to others. Chaos isn't some comic-book villain, sitting in the Warp twirling its moustache. Chaos is a whirlpool, simply drawing in the medium it is comprised of, and reflecting that back out. To explain better, another quote from the Liber Chaotica:

An analogy for this might be boiling water in a room. If one boils a big pan of water in a room with no ventilation, quite soon one will find that all the windows in the room become covered in a fine sheen of water. The temperature in the room will get warm and humid, and things will get wet. This is not the water in the room consciously coming back to haunt us, it's just the natural consequence of boiling water in an airless room with glass windows.

One might say that mortals are similar to bowls of boiling water, and that our emotions are like steam pouring from that bowl. This water vapour is trapped in the airless room that comprises both of our individual minds and the Realm of Chaos. This psychical condensation could be seen as the very beginnings of the Chaos Realm's vortices of emotion, senselessly reflecting back upon the airless room of our minds the water vapour emotions we first generated, making us even hotter (as it were) and thereby causing us to give off more of the same emotion that started the process in the first place.

El_Machinae
14-10-2009, 14:42
A perfect circle is not a tangible thing. It is a metaphor that has multiple (but agreeing) mathematical definitions. It exists only as a concept.

There are a handful of definitions of good & evil that are rather agreed upon. They're good, solid, definitions that seem to make sense in whatever scenario you're in. Remember, a perfect good or perfect evil needn't exist (or even be possible) for the definition to be valid. A perfect circle cannot exist. There is no way to arrange reality to form a perfect circle. So, we needn't force the definitions of good & evil to be perfectly cohesive in any reasonable scenario. Or even achievable.

Under reasonable definitions of good & evil, Chaos is evil. Willfully so.

Sunyavadin
14-10-2009, 14:42
This is quite possibly the deepest and most well-written post I've read on Warseer to include a censored word. A+!

I concur with Sekhmet.

Lord-Caerolion
14-10-2009, 14:59
If something can exist only in part, then it cannot be a true definition. As soon as you have overlap, it ceases to be a proper definition of the concept, and a situational interpretation of it.
And as for the circle, if it can be properly expressed mathematically, it has a form. It can be shown, albeit in a formulaic way. Good/Evil have no such mathematical, scientific forms. They exist purely as individual, personal, conflicting differences.
To put it another way, I could show someone the mathematical description of a perfect circle. That is what it is. You can't interpret it differently, except to express the exact same concept in a different way of writing the formula.
I cannot show someone the formula for Good. I cannot show them a string of numbers, that when interpreted form Evil. I can show them my own personal interpretation of the concept, but their interpretation may be wildly different, utterly opposing my own definition.
So no, Good/Evil do not exist in any way other than situational, individual interpretations. As soon as you have something that is interpreted as Good by someone, but Evil by someone else, it fails to properly define Good, except in your own mind.

El_Machinae
14-10-2009, 15:08
That's an issue regarding perspective. Yes, people with different perspectives can disagree whether something is more circular than something else: but this doesn't change the absolute fact about whether something is more circular or not. If I define something more circularly than you define it, this has no bearing about the faultyness of the defintion.

Additionally, people with imperfect information can disagree whether a specific act is more good or evil than another. But this doesn't change the absolute scale of the act.

Intention is intention. Suffering is suffering. These things exist, nebulously, yes, but they exist. And once you have intention & empathy you have the capacity for good and evil. Individuals are really great at self-deception, too. They may convince themselves that their intentions are pure and thus their actions are good. Their perspective may be wrong. It might be a whole lot wrong, or it may be a little wrong. It might even be barely wrong.

Lord-Caerolion
14-10-2009, 15:12
So now you're claiming there is a true definition, when above you said there wasn't? You can only have an imperfect perspective when there's a true perspective, something that doesn't exist.

Plus, I've already shown that Chaos doesn't have intention nor empathy, so your own definition can't apply.

I'll say it again. You've claimed you can state something to be more or less circular than another thing, but that is because a circle can be visualised. It has form, regardless of your perception. Good and Evil do not have that universal definition to be interpreted differently.

El_Machinae
14-10-2009, 16:28
No, I'm not saying there's a 'true definition', just that there are broadly-acceptable definitions that work, and that a proper perspective is more 'true' in applying those definitions than a subjective perspective.

If your position is that Chaos does not have intention or empathy (in other words, a concept of 'me' and 'you'), then I can see why you don't think it's evil. To the best of my knowledge, while the sum of Chaos is insentient, it is composed of sentient beings.

By analogy, while the biomass of the Earth is insentient, it would not follow that Humanity is neither good nor evil because it is composed of biomass. There would be other reasons to say that it's not good or not evil (mainly because it is so diverse), but pointing out its substance ignores that humanity is more than its substance.

How about this question: Is it possible to become an increasingly loyal servant of Chaos without becoming increasingly evil?

Sunyavadin
14-10-2009, 16:36
How about this question: Is it possible to become an increasingly loyal servant of Chaos without becoming increasingly evil?

I would think it would be dependent upon several factors. I hardly think chaos spawn could be classed as evil, having turned body and mind to chaos. However the sort of strong will it takes to avoid that, but increasing moral flexibility which must be developed to fully embrace chaotic behaviour whils still remaining a recognisable inividual entity, will act together to ensure only certain personalities can weather it. I would argue that you could class any form of psyker, for example, as a chaos sorcerer, the only difference is in the rigidity of control over themselves thay have due to a particular paradigm they operate within. Are Farseers what we would consider chaotic? However they do revere recognisable warp powers in the form of the Eldar gods, which themselves are likely a tool used by the creators of the Eldar to help control the warp energies they engineered the Eldar to wield - which worked fine until enough of the Eldar developed that increasing moral slide, leading to the fall...

Sceleris82
14-10-2009, 16:41
Mr El honestly i dont see the logic in your oppenion.

You can meassure a circles with objective items.
You cant meassure a opinion with anything else than another opinion.

Cheeko
14-10-2009, 18:17
IMHO

Chaos isn't evil, nor is the Imperium. However, their interests conflict one another, so they fight. We can substitute "Chaos" and "Imperium" with civilizations from the past who went to war with each other, and it'll still be valid (in most cases, anyway).

While the Imperium revolves around order, restraint, and piety, Chaos revolves around freedom of thought and action, and raw emotion. Neither of these are inherently good or evil, but they conflict with one another.


If we have the Imperium that kills an entire population "just to be sure", there must be a Chaos worshipper somewhere that wants to use the power of the Chaos gods to free human from the clutches of the fascist, selfish Imperium. (In fact, that's what my Traitor Guard is about!)


But for the sake of a war game, we need good guys and bad guys. So Chaos now eat babies. :D

At least that's how I think of "good vs bad" in the 40k universe anyway.

i agree well said

Asymmetric
14-10-2009, 19:01
That's an issue regarding perspective. Yes, people with different perspectives can disagree whether something is more circular than something else: but this doesn't change the absolute fact about whether something is more circular or not. If I define something more circularly than you define it, this has no bearing about the faultyness of the defintion.

Additionally, people with imperfect information can disagree whether a specific act is more good or evil than another. But this doesn't change the absolute scale of the act.

Intention is intention. Suffering is suffering. These things exist, nebulously, yes, but they exist. And once you have intention & empathy you have the capacity for good and evil. Individuals are really great at self-deception, too. They may convince themselves that their intentions are pure and thus their actions are good. Their perspective may be wrong. It might be a whole lot wrong, or it may be a little wrong. It might even be barely wrong.

Well said. As a Physicist I oft dabbled in metaphysics from time to time and frequently found the position of morale relativisim an inconsistent argument, especially when faced with obserables of the natural universe which yield absolute truths regardless of the individuals frame of reference, such as the speed of light. I would even argue that any statement made on defining moral relativism is in itself automaticaly contradictory as it would be an immutable statement on the nature of morality and therefor self defeating. The logical conclusions of morale relativism either leads back to some extent to absolutism or a descent into nihilism where all actions become equally pointless and futile.

That said it's an arguement we are not going to resolve here. (or likely ever)

Edit: Just so this post has something directly 40k related in it - If anything can be evil, then chaos is evil.

HK-47
14-10-2009, 22:00
Well said. As a Physicist I oft dabbled in metaphysics from time to time and frequently found the position of morale relativisim an inconsistent argument, especially when faced with obserables of the natural universe which yield absolute truths regardless of the individuals frame of reference, such as the speed of light. I would even argue that any statement made on defining moral relativism is in itself automaticaly contradictory as it would be an immutable statement on the nature of morality and therefor self defeating. The logical conclusions of morale relativism either leads back to some extent to absolutism or a descent into nihilism where all actions become equally pointless and futile.

That said it's an arguement we are not going to resolve here. (or likely ever)

Edit: Just so this post has something directly 40k related in it - If anything can be evil, then chaos is evil.

I don't find that to be true because morality is a Human view. A lion does not philosophizes about whether it is morally right to eat meat, but we do. In order for there to be universal morality everything has to follow it, just as everything has to follow the laws of physics that define the speed of light.

Morality is something born of human conscious. We apply it to define our surrounds, and create order out of the chaos of the natural world. The chaos gods reacts the notion of a universal moral code and is moral nihilism, the Emperor in his quest to create a galactic spanning civilization tried to create a universal moral code to which all humans could follow and starve the chaos gods.

The battle between the two is specifically human, and part of the human experience. To me living in the extreme of either two is "evil" because it rejects the notion that both do not, or can not exist. But they have too as humanity can not survive without both. The battle between the two is what defines the human experience in warhammer 40k, and us in the real world as well.

JHZ
14-10-2009, 22:27
A perfect circle is not a tangible thing. It is a metaphor that has multiple (but agreeing) mathematical definitions. It exists only as a concept.
But anyone can define it, like absolute zero (= −273.15° on the Celsius scale). We haven't reached that either, but we know exactly what it means. But we don't have a perfect model for good and evil. People have used thousands of years on that, so you're not gonna come up with the perfect answer here and now, an answer that is ultimate and applies to all walks of life all over the world. Because absolute zero and perfect circle are the same all over the world.


If one allows that evil "intentionally causes suffering for its own gratification or empowerment", then we can get a gradient of evil.
So just causing suffering without self gratification or empowerment is not evil? So people like the Aghori who break taboos through cannibalism, etc., but they do not do it for themselves per se. They are holy men, who are so holy that breaking the taboos do not affect them. They heal and ward of evil spirits.


And, using this definition: Chaos is bloody evil. Completely. It's not merely a force of nature, because it has empathy & intention. It knows it's evil.
So you've just made up your own definition of evil, and now you're using it to define Chaos as evil.

I'm pretty sure Dathan from Pawns of Chaos would have something to say about him being labeled as evil, when he was living his peaceful life, along with everyone else on his planet, worshiping Tzeentch, and then the Imperium just rolls in and without any provocation begin their genocide. And yet, even in the bloody end, he shows mercy towards the Imperium, and Tzeentch approves this.

Bloody evil, indeed.

Asymmetric
14-10-2009, 22:35
I don't find that to be true because morality is a Humanview.

We view everything from a human viewpoint, not just morality, and yet for the most part we accept physical truths, unless you want to start rejecting causality or base ten mathematics. It would seem impossible for a universe governed by universal physical truths to give birth to physical beings capable of sentinence and for the two to be totaly independent of the other.


A loin does not philosophizes about whether it is morally right to eat meat, but we do. In order for there to be universal morality everything has to follow it, just as everything has to follow the laws of physics that define the speed of light.

I'm sure a lion does consider some actions "better" than others. The level of sentinence and awareness of the physical universe defines the limits of what one judges as "better". It goes back to the case portrayed earlier of the perfect circle. Some perspectives of what is "right" is more clouded than others.


Morality is something born of human conscious.

Yet human conscious is itself born from the physical universe.

Can you imagine any concept of morality existing of a human conscious sealed inside a vacuum box which resides outside confines of the physical universe in the void?

I can't picture it.

HK-47
14-10-2009, 23:14
We view everything from a human viewpoint, not just morality, and yet for the most part we accept physical truths, unless you want to start rejecting causality or base ten mathematics. It would seem impossible for a universe governed by universal physical truths to give birth to physical beings capable of sentinence and for the two to be totaly independent of the other.



I'm sure a loin does consider some actions "better" than others. The level of sentinence and awareness of the physical universe defines the limits of what one judges as "better". It goes back to the case portrayed earlier of the perfect circle. Some perspectives of what is "right" is more clouded than others.



Yet human conscious is itself born from the physical universe.

Can you imagine any concept of morality existing of a human conscious sealed inside a vacuum box which resides outside confines of the physical universe in the void?

I can't picture it.

But where is the mathematical formula for love, hate, or fear? You can measure the neurons that generate the electric signals of thought but you can't measure someones thoughts. The concept of morality is a thought you can not automatically know someones moral views without asking them. Once you know the laws and formula for relatively you can accurately predict many of the actions of particles that are part of that scientific fact. But you can't predict what someone is thinking or the justification of the acts they commit by pulling in numbers into E = M*C^2 .

Let me ask you this if there is a scientific moral code that exist in the universe then what is it? For example when male lions take control of a pride they will sometimes kill the offspring of the previous ruling males, many other species also engage in Infanticide. So if there is a scientific law that defines morality Infanticide is not considered as being unmoral. It's a silly example but you have to consider what really in moral and unmoral.

Sentience and thought are the conference of many different physical and biological phenomena, and you just can't make up a scientific formula that says animals will always do option A instead of B because it is "right" and here is the mathematical formula that proves it.

will564752
14-10-2009, 23:34
When quotes pop up in codexes with stuff like:

'Let no good deed go unpunished, let no evil deed go unrewarded'

it seems to me that its pretty clear that chaos are meant to be the bad guys. Yes, its a sliding scale but its pretty clear where chaos should be on that scale in 40k. Its fascinating how we try and describe it otherwise (yes I have a chaos army and yes I've done the same thing)

Remember to differentiate between the Chaos Gods and the Chaos Followers. Its much easier to describe the Chaos Followers (Chaos Marines, Traitor Guard, Lost & the Damned etc) as 'evil' rather than the Chaos Gods/Chaos Themselves.

Remember that Quote you posted regards the Chaos Followers.

Chaos itself is just that, Chaos. Unrestrained Chaos, in its purest form. The Warp (which itself is Chaos and isn't divisible from Chaos) isn't evil. Its as natural as the Universe itself, and if you call Chaos (the Warp) Evil then you may aswell call the Universe itself Evil.. which is just absurd. :)

Sekhmet
15-10-2009, 00:12
Well ...

Let's see ...

There are theories going around that morality is not some higher brain function nor is it given to us by religion/god(s), but rather that it's genes that have survived throughout the generations that create a real advantage to survival.

For example, sharing food. When you share food, you show the community how successful/powerful/strong/intelligent you are by not only having enough food to feed yourself and your children, but also others who have nothing to give you in return. This solidifies your position within the group as a successful individual/family, which have very tangible benefits. For example, you're more likely to find a mate, albeit a gold digger. Also, if the tables turned, you may actually receive aid in the future as payment.

Not killing other humans is a community/species survival mechanism that ties into trust, which I'll cover briefly later. If you don't kill people, that gives you a few benefits... one benefit is that they're around to support the community, in which you are a part of. Another might be as bait for a predator. And finally, if your community doesn't believe in killing, YOU won't be killed either.

Humans are communal animals. We are not usually solitary because we found it in our individual interests to work together for mutual survival. When many communities form, they may create a different set of values, some who steal and some who do not. Those who trust each other to not rape/murder/arson/etc. are those that can spend less energy on protecting themselves as individuals and more on protecting the community through defense, resource gathering, and such. These communities do better overall than other communities and either absorb, destroy or simply outlast communities in which the members are predominantly "untrustworthy." In the long run, any untrustworthy genes start to die out and only those that remain are considered "immoral" and "criminal." They're considered so because again, they hinder our society for personal gain.

So the question becomes, what is moral? The answer seems to be... whatever you do for the benefit of your community is moral. So then, what is your community? Is it your family, your city, your country, your planet, your species, or all sentient life?

The Imperium believes it's the species. Chaos believes its the country/political group. Eldar believe it's their species as well. Tau believe it's all sentient life. Dark Eldar is the family I think, if family is the cabal. C'tan evolved/were created as solitary creatures and such they have no morality whatsoever, much like a cheetah, or any solitary animal in nature, does not have morality.

Without morality is different than immoral. Most cultures consider any other culture that does not have as broad a view of the community as immoral. But sitting here at my desk in lawschool, I'd say Chaos taken in context of modern times, is immoral. Chaos taken in self-context is not immoral, they're doing exactly what they should be doing for the survival of their community.

Asymmetric
15-10-2009, 00:19
But where is the mathematical formula for love, hate, or fear? You can measure the neurons that generate the electric signals of thought but you can't measure someones thoughts. The concept of morality is a thought you can not automatically know someones moral views without asking them. Once you know the laws and formula for relatively you can accurately predict many of the actions of particles that are part of that scientific fact. But you can't predict what someone is thinking or the justification of the acts they commit by pulling in numbers into E = M*C^2 .

Let me ask you this if there is a scientific moral code that exist in the universe then what is it? For example when male lions take control of a pride they will sometimes kill the offspring of the previous ruling males, many other species also engage in Infanticide. So if there is a scientific law that defines morality Infanticide is not considered as being unmoral. It's a silly example but you have to consider what really in moral and unmoral.

Sentience and thought are the conference of many different physical and biological phenomena, and you just can't make up a scientific formula that says animals will always do option A instead of B because it is "right" and here is the mathematical formula that proves it.

I can never prove the existence of an abstract concept like a perfect circle since it can never be achieved in the physical universe, yet I am still able to grasp it.

I can never prove the existence of their being infinitly many numbers beyond the number 7 but I know they exist despite never being able to count them all or the physical universe ever being able to represent them all.

I can never prove a firm defination that empathy does exist and by extension, what good and evil are but I know they must exist even if inherently unknowable in their entirety.

Physic's can't even unify the difference's between general relativty and quantum mechanics at present, and yet you want me to answer all existence in a single equation. Only an omnipotent who knew everything there was to know could possible make a firm assertion of what is or isn't good or evil with perfect clarity. However, that does not mean that we ignorant humans cannot judge the actions of others in our own small limited flawed capacity in our experiences through empathy with others.

Sekhmet
15-10-2009, 00:25
I can never prove the existence of an abstract concept like a perfect circle since it can never be achieved in the physical universe, yet I am still able to grasp it.

What about a 2-dimensional slice of the event horizon of a black hole?

Asymmetric
15-10-2009, 00:40
What about a 2-dimensional slice of the event horizon of a black hole?

It's certainly about closest thing your ever likely to get resembling a perfect circle on a macroscopic scale. 2 reasons spring to mind however that would make even them not "perfect". Although it is worth noting that a black holes themselves are still not fully understood and are themselves fairly abstract.

- In Quantum mechanics a singularity isn't actually a totally dimensionless point but a tiny wavefunction with a finite physical size (albeit a very, very small order of magnitude).

- The event horizon's "surface" (it's not an actual physical barrier of course) is impossible to 100% acurately observably measure at anything in the orders of planck lengths due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

eyescrossed
15-10-2009, 01:01
A loin does not philosophizes about whether it is morally right to eat meat, but we do.
My loins do not eat meat!


On topic, to the person who brought up "If you become increasingly loyal (worhiping Chaos), would you become increasingly evil?"
I have to say that it's possible not to.

For example, say we have someone who wanted to know something, was just curious about a little fact of the universe. So, he asks Tzeentch to tell him, and Tzeentch does. Then, the man asks a few more "unanswerable" questions, Tzeentch answers them. In a few weeks, he's in the Librarium of the ship he's on, poring over every single book, in an attempt to know everything, much like Ahriman, but without killing people.

Or a pathologist, let's call him Bob, who worships Nurgle, and wants to find a cure for, say, the 40k equivalent of AIDS. Nurgle smiles paternally watching the little human trying to unravel his mysteries, and he doesn't mind - after all, there are a lot more diseases out there/to be made.
So, Bob asks Nurgle to shield the doctor from death, and Nurgle does. Bob infects himself with the disease, working on himself, trying to find a cure, and in the end it becomes an obsession, staying in his lab for centuries, only realising after hundreds of years that the world he is on, which was once a beautiful, fertile land, is now a rotting, stagnant, disease ridden world, much like Davin's moon in False Gods. The pathologist shrugs his rotten shoulders, and goes back to work.

Are my examples flawed? *hopes not*

Writerski7
15-10-2009, 01:23
Well ...

Let's see ...

There are theories going around that morality is not some higher brain function nor is it given to us by religion/god(s), but rather that it's genes that have survived throughout the generations that create a real advantage to survival.

For example, sharing food. When you share food, you show the community how successful/powerful/strong/intelligent you are by not only having enough food to feed yourself and your children, but also others who have nothing to give you in return. This solidifies your position within the group as a successful individual/family, which have very tangible benefits. For example, you're more likely to find a mate, albeit a gold digger. Also, if the tables turned, you may actually receive aid in the future as payment.

Not killing other humans is a community/species survival mechanism that ties into trust, which I'll cover briefly later. If you don't kill people, that gives you a few benefits... one benefit is that they're around to support the community, in which you are a part of. Another might be as bait for a predator. And finally, if your community doesn't believe in killing, YOU won't be killed either.

Humans are communal animals. We are not usually solitary because we found it in our individual interests to work together for mutual survival. When many communities form, they may create a different set of values, some who steal and some who do not. Those who trust each other to not rape/murder/arson/etc. are those that can spend less energy on protecting themselves as individuals and more on protecting the community through defense, resource gathering, and such. These communities do better overall than other communities and either absorb, destroy or simply outlast communities in which the members are predominantly "untrustworthy." In the long run, any untrustworthy genes start to die out and only those that remain are considered "immoral" and "criminal." They're considered so because again, they hinder our society for personal gain.

So the question becomes, what is moral? The answer seems to be... whatever you do for the benefit of your community is moral. So then, what is your community? Is it your family, your city, your country, your planet, your species, or all sentient life?

The Imperium believes it's the species. Chaos believes its the country/political group. Eldar believe it's their species as well. Tau believe it's all sentient life. Dark Eldar is the family I think, if family is the cabal. C'tan evolved/were created as solitary creatures and such they have no morality whatsoever, much like a cheetah, or any solitary animal in nature, does not have morality.

Without morality is different than immoral. Most cultures consider any other culture that does not have as broad a view of the community as immoral. But sitting here at my desk in lawschool, I'd say Chaos taken in context of modern times, is immoral. Chaos taken in self-context is not immoral, they're doing exactly what they should be doing for the survival of their community.

So basically whenever you do good you are really just doing what you can to ensure long term survival (something Chaos does really well). It's just another survivalist approach, nothing more. Likewise, breaking apart this approach for your own survival can be considered good . . . hence Chaos's perspective. After all, deamons seem to do pretty well at surviving.

Lions kill to protect their pride (it's the lioness that hunts), in much the same way a the Guardsmen kills to protect the Imperium. Is he evil for this? Isn't the very basic idea of good protecting your society? Hence why the Tau fight their war for the 'Greater Good', and the Eldar fight for their continued survival. Every single one of them can justify their actions by saying they are 'good' or fighting off 'evil'. Hence the Necrons and Tyranids can also be good, since they live to ensure their survival.

Good is the result of human (and Xeno) prejudice. Nothing more.

HK-47
15-10-2009, 02:40
My loins do not eat meat!
:D Nice catch!




I can never prove a firm defination that empathy does exist and by extension, what good and evil are but I know they must exist even if inherently unknowable in their entirety.

Physic's can't even unify the difference's between general relativty and quantum mechanics at present, and yet you want me to answer all existence in a single equation. Only an omnipotent who knew everything there was to know could possible make a firm assertion of what is or isn't good or evil with perfect clarity. However, that does not mean that we ignorant humans cannot judge the actions of others in our own small limited flawed capacity in our experiences through empathy with others.

But you see that's what I'm trying to tell you, it's not possible to define it by saying "this is what morality is" like you would a perfect circle. Because a perfect circle can only be a prefect circle it doesn't matter if it's a concept or not there is a mathematical definition of what a perfect circle is, that can not be change without coming with an other absolute definition that can be proven over and over with an almost 100% accuracy rate.


Well said. As a Physicist I oft dabbled in metaphysics from time to time and frequently found the position of morale relativisim an inconsistent argument, especially when faced with obserables of the natural universe which yield absolute truths regardless of the individuals frame of reference, such as the speed of light. I would even argue that any statement made on defining moral relativism is in itself automaticaly contradictory as it would be an immutable statement on the nature of morality and therefor self defeating. The logical conclusions of morale relativism either leads back to some extent to absolutism or a descent into nihilism where all actions become equally pointless and futile.


You see I think, going by what Sekhmet and Writerski7, said that it's something unique to us and other biological creatures. You can't extend that to existence itself, you can't say that everything in the universe follows the same moral viewpoint because as each species has a different genetic makeup then it will have different survival needs; different views on what it should base it's society on.

Morality is just a word as is good and evil. The only meanings they have are the meanings we give them. People will share common philosophies because things like murder, rape, and thief endanger the stabilization of society. We will base your laws around not wanting to encourage these behaviors, but these laws do not define good and evil. Only that this is what those who run the society do not want to happen.

I'm staring to rant so I'm ending this by saying that you can never define morality the same way to define the sped of light because it is not something we experience regardless of point of reference, it is something that can only be defined based on personal reference. You, me, everyone will have a different definition of morality and their is no way of saying one is better then the other. Only that it's different and just because it's different doesn't mean that society can't function or that actions have no value, only that we as individuals and a group define what that value is.

Tringsh
15-10-2009, 10:47
IMHO evil is relative to the person or in this case entity that is performing the act. To the chaos gods their behaviour is simply natural and what they are programmed to do. This could bring up the argument can something be evil if it is only doing what it is genetically programmed to do.

We could argue that from the human perspective their acts are evil but we are able rationalise our behaviour and the behaviours of others. However because the chaos gods are incarnations of emotions and deeds they are incapable of rationalising their behaviour.

Lord-Caerolion
15-10-2009, 11:08
I can never prove the existence of an abstract concept like a perfect circle since it can never be achieved in the physical universe, yet I am still able to grasp it.

I can never prove the existence of their being infinitly many numbers beyond the number 7 but I know they exist despite never being able to count them all or the physical universe ever being able to represent them all.

I can never prove a firm defination that empathy does exist and by extension, what good and evil are but I know they must exist even if inherently unknowable in their entirety.

Physic's can't even unify the difference's between general relativty and quantum mechanics at present, and yet you want me to answer all existence in a single equation. Only an omnipotent who knew everything there was to know could possible make a firm assertion of what is or isn't good or evil with perfect clarity. However, that does not mean that we ignorant humans cannot judge the actions of others in our own small limited flawed capacity in our experiences through empathy with others.

For the last time, physics and mathematics are really the wrong examples to use if you're trying to prove moral relativism wrong.
Seriously, what part don't you get of "it doesn't matter whether a perfect circle is tangible or not for it to be given an unarguable mathematical definition"? Consequently, what part of "Good/Evil cannot be given unarguable mathematical formulae, or any other sort of description" do you not get?

If something can be measured, it therefore has a set, definite description. You cannot do that with good or evil. You cannot give me a definition of good/evil that will never have anyone not argue against it.

And in response to the argument saying you can use the natural world to argue moral abolutism, I know of a famous figure who has made the same argument, although you probably won't like his conclusion. His name was the Marquis de Sade. He wrote a few times about allowing "natural law" to govern ethics and morality, namely, if it happens in Nature, it should be legal. As such, he used this logic to justify incest, infanticide, patricide (hell, murder of every sort), rape, underage sex, torture and theft.
So, even the observation of Nature can lead to vastly different conclusions as to what should be defined as Good or Evil. de Sade used it to justify an anarchic state, where nothing was illegal, every act allowed.

Is he right? Do these "observations of the natural universe" allow for acts that most of Western society find appalling? Are we, as de Sade argues, unnatural, even evil, for limiting the natural state of Man, and confining it with laws and regulations? Is, therefore, a Good society an Anarchist state, governed solely by the phrase "Do as thou wilt"?

Asymmetric
15-10-2009, 13:48
For the last time, physics and mathematics are really the wrong examples to use if you're trying to prove moral relativism wrong.
Seriously, what part don't you get of "it doesn't matter whether a perfect circle is tangible or not for it to be given an unarguable mathematical definition"? Consequently, what part of "Good/Evil cannot be given unarguable mathematical formulae, or any other sort of description" do you not get?


No. It's you who doesn't "get it". Your simply refusing to accept we are products of the physical universe. We are not immune to causality.

Einstein would simply of pointed out:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

Every single action under moral relativism is irrelvant. All actions can be rationalised away to being "good" and "bad" at the same time. My mere continued existence is proof enough that I have rejected that interpretation of morality.

El_Machinae
15-10-2009, 14:32
B
So just causing suffering without self gratification or empowerment is not evil?
Altering a component of my definition does not need to give the opposite result.
However, you're too rude to talk to.



I don't find that to be true because morality is a Human view. A lion does not philosophizes about whether it is morally right to eat meat, but we do.
Well, it's because a lion is too dumb to have morality. It does not have sufficient empathy to 'be evil'. While it has intention, intention is insufficient to have the moral capacity to be evil.

To 'be evil' requires there to be someone else involved. An 'other'. Evil requires hurting someone else, intentionally. So, there's a minimum standard of intelligence (and a type of intelligence, too) in morality.

What about a 2-dimensional slice of the event horizon of a black hole?
The 2-dimensional slice of an event horizon still has a quantum effect at the Planck scale. Because the universe is quantized at the most fine-grained of its structure, it's impossible to form a true circle. At best, you can make a polygon with a gazillion (though non-infinite) edges.

HK-47
15-10-2009, 20:47
Well, it's because a lion is too dumb to have morality. It does not have sufficient empathy to 'be evil'. While it has intention, intention is insufficient to have the moral capacity to be evil.

To 'be evil' requires there to be someone else involved. An 'other'. Evil requires hurting someone else, intentionally. So, there's a minimum standard of intelligence (and a type of intelligence, too) in morality.


Yeah that was my point, a lion can't rationalize it's actions so therefore it does what it need to be to survive. The moral codes develop by us are our rationalization of doing what we need to survive. Since as a sentient species we can't simply kill something without coming up with a justifiable reason. Whatever that may be.


No. It's you who doesn't "get it". Your simply refusing to accept we are products of the physical universe. We are not immune to causality.

Einstein would simply of pointed out:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

Every single action under moral relativism is irrelvant. All actions can be rationalised away to being "good" and "bad" at the same time. My mere continued existence is proof enough that I have rejected that interpretation of morality.

Causality in physics has nothing to do with the actions of one human being to another. Only that there will always be a cause or effect. Your continued existence has nothing to do with whether the universe has a moral slate. Unless you are talking about Determinism, in which chase are actions are irrelvant because there is no free will.

You know what this is getting very silly, as a moral pluralist I don't need to prove that you are right or wrong. So, you believe in whatever you want that's your right.

Asymmetric
15-10-2009, 21:47
Causality in physics has nothing to do with the actions of one human being to another. Only that there will always be a cause or effect. Your continued existence has nothing to do with whether the universe has a moral slate. Unless you are talking about Determinism, in which chase are actions are irrelvant because there is no free will.

Oh but it does. Morale relativism denies that human sentience is dependent on the physical universe i.e. *human consciousness has no external cause*. I claim the opposite and that it cannot exist in a vacuum. If you accept the Universe contains physical objective truths then the human conscious derived from the universe must also contain objective truths. Asymmetry cannot be derived from symmetry. Free will may or maynot exist in this context, any number of multiverse theories have been proposed that can buck that issue entirely.


You know what this is getting very silly, as a moral pluralist I don't need to prove that you are right or wrong. So, you believe in whatever you want that's your right.

Very well. But to me the choice is simple. On one side theirs hope and on the other theirs nothing.

Writerski7
15-10-2009, 22:08
Oh but it does. Morale relativism denies that human sentience is dependent on the physical universe i.e. *human consciousness has no external cause*. I claim the opposite and that it cannot exist in a vacuum. If you accept the Universe contains physical objective truths then the human conscious derived from the universe must also contain objective truths. Asymmetry cannot be derived from symmetry. Free will may or maynot exist in this context, any number of multiverse theories have been proposed that can buck that issue entirely.



Very well. But to me the choice is simple. On one side theirs hope and on the other theirs nothing.

But which is which? :eyebrows:

Logan_uc
15-10-2009, 22:09
Chaos is as evil as mankind, you think chaos is evil look at the Imperium, if you are a man of the Imperium you work 18 hours a day, cant express your self, are hungry, abused, killed for doing just a little thing that you shouldnt do, etc.
Oh unless you are a noble, in that case you live in the biggest luxury possible, and you only want the things the way they are even if this costs the destruction of humanity.
So if you compare the imperium with chaos, chaos isnt worst at all.
And if you read the chaos marine novels they are traying to save humanity, because they think that the Imperium is week, and only chaos as the power to save it.

Writerski7
15-10-2009, 22:34
Chaos is as evil as mankind, you think chaos is evil look at the Imperium, if you are a man of the Imperium you work 18 hours a day, cant express your self, are hungry, abused, killed for doing just a little thing that you shouldnt do, etc.
Oh unless you are a noble, in that case you live in the biggest luxury possible, and you only want the things the way they are even if this costs the destruction of humanity.
So if you compare the imperium with chaos, chaos isnt worst at all.
And if you read the chaos marine novels they are traying to save humanity, because they think that the Imperium is week, and only chaos as the power to save it.

Exactly. Good is humanity's excuse for keeping themselves in power. Always has been, and always will. I could go on and step on people's toes here, but I'm not going to stirr up people. Not just to get a point across that will never get across. We are who we are, and we believe what we believe.

Last man standing. Nobody can argue with him, because they're dead. And death, my friends, is the final word.

Lord_Crull
15-10-2009, 22:37
Chaos is as evil as mankind, you think chaos is evil look at the Imperium, if you are a man of the Imperium you work 18 hours a day, cant express your self, are hungry, abused, killed for doing just a little thing that you shouldnt do, etc.
Oh unless you are a noble, in that case you live in the biggest luxury possible, and you only want the things the way they are even if this costs the destruction of humanity.
So if you compare the imperium with chaos, chaos isnt worst at all.
And if you read the chaos marine novels they are traying to save humanity, because they think that the Imperium is week, and only chaos as the power to save it.

Except Chaos will eat your soul. The Emperor only eat's the souls of psykers. The Daemons don't care when you die.

x-esiv-4c
15-10-2009, 22:41
Except Chaos will eat your soul. The Emperor only eat's the souls of psykers. The Daemons don't care when you die.

I don't think the Emperor cares when you die either....No sure what your argument is. Clarify.

Lord_Crull
15-10-2009, 22:43
I don't think the Emperor cares when you die either....No sure what your argument is. Clarify.

I mistyped, I meant who you are. Daemons will eat you regardless, the Emperor only eats psykers and a small amount of them compared to the Dark Gods.

Vesica
16-10-2009, 00:24
Chaos is as evil as mankind, you think chaos is evil look at the Imperium, if you are a man of the Imperium you work 18 hours a day, cant express your self, are hungry, abused, killed for doing just a little thing that you shouldnt do, etc.
Oh unless you are a noble, in that case you live in the biggest luxury possible, and you only want the things the way they are even if this costs the destruction of humanity.
So if you compare the imperium with chaos, chaos isnt worst at all.
And if you read the chaos marine novels they are traying to save humanity, because they think that the Imperium is week, and only chaos as the power to save it.

I would take the evil of the Imperium other that of chaos any day.

Chaos is pure evil, if it wasn't it wouldn't take the sacrifice and defilement of innocents to bring its forces into the being would it?

Chaos in 40k is evil, its not misunderstood its not a different shade of grey it is black pure and colourless black.

Don't get me started on those traitors, they pretend they do what they do for mankind so they can justify it to themselves, well those of them that have anything left resembling a consciousness, the rest care about themselves and how they can gain power.

Vesica
16-10-2009, 00:32
I mistyped, I meant who you are. Daemons will eat you regardless, the Emperor only eats psykers and a small amount of them compared to the Dark Gods.

Heresy

The Emperor protects the souls of his followers.

Lord_Crull
16-10-2009, 00:55
Heresy

The Emperor protects the souls of his followers.

The Emperor eats 1000 psykers a day to maintain the Astromonicon. This is not a joke or flame, he really does this. It's an obscure peice of 2nd edition fluff.

eyescrossed
16-10-2009, 02:14
The Emperor eats 1000 psykers a day to maintain the Astromonicon. This is not a joke or flame, he really does this. It's an obscure peice of 2nd edition fluff.

Isn't it 10,000?

Lord-Caerolion
16-10-2009, 02:34
Oh but it does. Morale relativism denies that human sentience is dependent on the physical universe i.e. *human consciousness has no external cause*. I claim the opposite and that it cannot exist in a vacuum.
Moral relativism does not in any way deny that sentience is dependant on the physical universe. It allows for free will.
To go the other way, why can't humans experience for themselves? Moral relativism would follow Chaos Theory, in that if you know how a person was raised, you should be able to get a fairly accurate explanation of what their morals will end up as. Is it so scary for humans to be able to choose for themselves?


If you accept the Universe contains physical objective truths then the human conscious derived from the universe must also contain objective truths. Asymmetry cannot be derived from symmetry. Free will may or maynot exist in this context, any number of multiverse theories have been proposed that can buck that issue entirely.

Philosophy follows no scientific laws, it cannot be objectively studied in a laboratory, cannot be derived from formulae, cannot be pinned down and disected medically. It doesn't matter whether the universe itself follows neat and ordered rules, as soon as you introduce a being capable of independant thought, you introduce randomness, something that doesn't necessarily follow all the little formulae set out for it. It's either that, or there is no free will whatsoever, and that is something I find much more nihilistic than moral relativism. After all, if everything was meant to happen this way, why bother getting upset about something? I would never be able to change it, no matter what I did. Even the most appalling atrocities were unavoidable.

By the way, you still haven't countered my argument of de Sade drawing disturbing conclusions about morality from observing your perfect, natural universe. After all, aren't there enough animals that have naturally evolved to commit infanticide, rape, murder, theft and torture? If these are therefore the result of the GUT on life, then therefore those things shouldn't be immoral?
That's why your moral absolutism based on nature is so scary. You'll never be able to deny his claim. Moral relativism allows for it as a possible moral stance, but a much-maligned one. He, however, is using all your guidelines for determining true morality, and coming up with something I personally find horrifying. So tell me, is relativism really that bad compared to what absolutism can create?



Very well. But to me the choice is simple. On one side theirs hope and on the other theirs nothing.
So, a lack of definitive rules guiding your every action is nihilism? I'd much rather have freedom in what I do, rather than have my every action guidied by some unknown GUT.

Writerski7
16-10-2009, 04:00
I would take the evil of the Imperium other that of chaos any day.

Chaos is pure evil, if it wasn't it wouldn't take the sacrifice and defilement of innocents to bring its forces into the being would it?

Chaos in 40k is evil, its not misunderstood its not a different shade of grey it is black pure and colourless black.

Don't get me started on those traitors, they pretend they do what they do for mankind so they can justify it to themselves, well those of them that have anything left resembling a consciousness, the rest care about themselves and how they can gain power.

Agreed. After all, the life of a loyal Space Marine isn't that bad when you think about it. And being an Inquisitor (should you get there) rocks.:chrome:

eyescrossed
16-10-2009, 06:22
Agreed. After all, the life of a loyal Space Marine isn't that bad when you think about it. And being an Inquisitor (should you get there) rocks.:chrome:

You cannot say that though. It is extremely unlikely that you'd become an Inquisitor or Space Marine. You'd probably just be a bum standard citizen.

Iuris
16-10-2009, 07:01
Agreed. After all, the life of a loyal Space Marine isn't that bad when you think about it. And being an Inquisitor (should you get there) rocks.
Oh, it is bad and it doesn't rock.

You don't grant a rosette to just anyone. You have to be an interrogator for a looooooong time, doing very unfun things, before you would even be considered.

Remember what the SM chapters put their initiates through to check their loyalty and dedication? Well, all that for just a suit of power armor and a bolter.

What do you think the screening process for an Inquisitor that's allowed to purge whole worlds of life would be?

MvS
16-10-2009, 12:31
I probably shouldn't get involved in this discussion. It has, after all, been done to death so many times on Warseer. But then...


Moral relativism does not in any way deny that sentience is dependent on the physical universe. It allows for free will.
'Free will' is in itself a contestable notion, whether you approach it from the perspective of the physical sciences, social sciences of philosophically. It’s just a question of how wide the investigator wants to look for evidence and explanations.


Is it so scary for humans to be able to choose for themselves?
Apparently so, as any number of studies and I'm sure even your own personal experiences tend to suggest this to be the case. Whether you look at social 'norms', fashions, teams, tribes, obedience to authority in whatever manifestation, all tend to point towards how human beings actively seek out (and even need and́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́́ enjoy and/or obsess over) a narrowing of choices.

The clinch seems to be that in some cases humans either want to be reassured that they aren't responsible at all for what they do, because 'authority' (be it a widely held belief-system, a specific authority figure or society in general) 'told' them to or tacitly 'allowed' them to, or they like to feel that they arechoosing for themselves but still within relatively narrow parameters - so the illusion of freedom of choice is even more important to us than its largely unattainable reality.


Philosophy follows no scientific laws
It follows exactly the same processes of logical progression, hypothesis formulation and the testing of hypotheses as the scientific process. What is absent is the ability to empirically test hypotheses - although many of the Social Sciences are pretty much philosophy with an attempt at collecting empirical data and testing hypotheses against it.


it cannot be objectively studied in a laboratory
Nor can vast tracts of mathematics or theoretical physics, as just two example, which rely on logic, the appearance of symmetry and forming formulae - but a formula is not a fact, it is simply a concise and way of expressing an otherwise complex (and generally verbose) theory.

This has no bearing on the rationality of the theories in question, however.


cannot be derived from formulae
There are plenty of formulae in philosophy upon which new ideas can and have been developed. This doesn't necessarily imply some sort of 'objective factualism' of the new idea or even to the logically derived formulae upon which it was built.


be pinned down and dissected medically
My last but one response can apply here as well.


It doesn't matter whether the universe itself follows neat and ordered rules, as soon as you introduce a being capable of independent thought, you introduce randomness, something that doesn't necessarily follow all the little formulae set out for it.
The universe may or may not follow 'neat' rules - it's impossible for us to say with absolute certainty as yet - but that said, human beings are entirely products of the existence we find ourselves within. We can't transcend it, we are fundamentally part of it after all, but we can hope to understand more of it or maybe gain more and more control over different aspects of it.

If a human seems to make a choice that is counter-intuitive or 'random', there is no way at all to measure objectively whether or not it was, in fact, counter-intuitive or 'random', because we can't tell whether something is operating outside of a pattern if we can't see the entirety of the pattern in the first place. So something may seem random but only because we are seeing a tiny fraction of all the causal factors that led up to that action. These factors need not even be visible or consciously perceivable, although many undoubtedly are, we just don't necessarily know where, when and how to look for them in totality.


It's either that, or there is no free will whatsoever, and that is something I find much more nihilistic than moral relativism.
The universe need not adhere to a yes/no, zero-sum binary. Even our still very limited understanding of quantum mechanics has revealed to us the possibility that existence has other potential states as well, so yes/no/maybe or perhaps zero-sum-or-maybe-a-bit-of-both-or-neither-it's-hard-to-tell-just-now.

So the ideas of cause an effect still apply, but not necessarily in linear or easily comprehendible ways.


After all, if everything was meant to happen this way, why bother getting upset about something?
Because there is a difference between meaning and the patterns of cause and effect. Meaning is a value judgment. It's a human, or at least intelligent-sentient, approach to explaining or understanding why something has happened in terms of value - so was something 'deserved' or was it 'fair' or was it 'good' or 'bad' or 'special' or 'mundane' or whatever else.

There is a difference between our intelligent, emotive and (frankly) hormonal experiences and rationalisations of reality and the 'physical' reality of why they happened or what incredibly complex processes led up to them happening, like dominoes falling in a line.

This isn't pre-destination necessarily, because that implies a rigid pattern that will play out in a specific an unalterable way. The system (existence) seems to be far more complex and 'organic' than that, with seemingly extreme jumps and sudden turns all over the place.

But those jumps and turns that are the course of cause and effect are not purely random either because they have happened because of other multiple 'strings' of causes and effects. So from a notional and probably infinite God's-Eye view of reality, all the patterns could be seen and nothing would appear random. From an almost infinitely small (in comparison) human-eye view, some eventualities may seem entirely random and completely devoid of pattern or even rationale (if we’re talking about a human choice, for instance).


I would never be able to change it, no matter what I did. Even the most appalling atrocities were unavoidable
Not at all, because this idea is predicated on there being a very small number of causes and effects in play. We are not separate from our environment, able to theorise upon it but not change it. We are part of our environment, and so just as we are formed by it, it is formed by us. We are fundamentally part of the cause and effect of reality, not victims of it or passengers within it.


By the way, you still haven't countered my argument of de Sade drawing disturbing conclusions about morality from observing your perfect, natural universe. After all, aren't there enough animals that have naturally evolved to commit infanticide, rape, murder, theft and torture?
No. There are absolutely no animals on this planet (other than humans) that commit infanticide, rape, murder, theft and torture.

Only humans have conceptualised these things and only humans assess them, apply value to them and create social structures (both external to our minds and internal to our minds) concerning them. Even creating names for these things shows how different we are from other animals in this matter. Other animals cannot and do not apply the complex social structures and norms to their actions that we do for ourselves, and it is pointless for humans judge the moral 'value' of the actions of other animals by our own normative 'standards'.

In other words, to apply our own human structures (including terms like 'rape' or 'infanticide') to creatures that are not human, nor yet even intelligent or self aware in the way or perhaps to the extent that we are, is irrational.

So, as an example, only humans can rape. Animals can't. They just compete for the opportunity to mate and grab the chance when they can and while they are in season (or whatever). The more intelligent the animal, the more likely that it may do something not immediately and obviously part of the born-eat-breed-die spectrum, but even then its actions cannot be considered even an approximation of rape, murder, torture or whatever else.

This doesn't make other animals objectively 'better' than us, nor does it make other animals objectively 'worse' than us. These standards of value measurement simply don't apply. A human who doesn't rape, torture and murder children may be better than a human who does, but as other animals can't actually be human or part of the human experience and conceptualisation of the world, they can't do any of these things and so are neither better nor worse than us. Other animals on our planet can only kill (not 'murder) the offspring of competing animals, either to feed themselves or to give their own gene pool a better chance of survival, or maybe both.

'Murder' is a human concept with its own coding.


is relativism really that bad compared to what absolutism can create?
It can be, because the extremes of any position can be destructive.

The extreme of a perception of moral objectivity would be the imposition of a rigid moral code on absolutely everyone, irrespective of circumstances, differences of culture and belief, various illnesses, neurological and psychological issues, or any other situations that may not have been factored into the 'objective' moral code being applied.

The extreme of moral relativism would have us not being able to judge as 'right' or 'wrong' the actions of other humans simply because our personal morality may not be theirs, so in the absence of an 'objective' and universal morality, who are we to judge? All moral positions would be just as valuable and / or valueless as another other.


So, a lack of definitive rules guiding your every action is nihilism?
To suggest that humans may have some general moral 'certainties' that seem to apply across cultures is not the same thing as saying that there are definitive rules that guide every action. I don't think anyone was suggesting that, although I may be wrong.


I'd much rather have freedom in what I do, rather than have my every action guidied by some unknown GUT.
Having said that, if humans can't tell or experience the difference between actual freedom (whatever that means 'objectively' - it's just another human concept remember) and the perception of freedom, what difference does it make? The feeling amounts to the reality as far as it matters to our daily lives.

ON TOPIC

As far as it matters to most intelligent beings within the 40k imagery, Chaos is indeed evil. It is evil because the most obvious, or at least most powerful, examples of what Chaos is are daemons that want to consume souls and generate extremes of emotions that mortals cannot live with and remain healthy, productive and in control of their decisions - whether these are extremes of fear, anger, desire, pride, curiosity, misery or anything else.

Entities of Chaos may well be able to free slaves or give hope to the hopeless, as may the various energies and possibilities associated with the warp. But these are always merely the start of any interaction with Chaos.

The first experience of an illegal and dangerous drug may seem positive and may even help you in some way (LSD has been used in the past to treat and even cure certain psychological conditions), but to suggest the drug is therefore 'good' is a pointless value projection. The drug is merely something that may have some positive effects, but if used frequently may change one's personality because of dependency (at least) or may even kill you altogether.

Chaos is like a drug, and much, much more. Because Chaos can give mortals far more than any drug every created for any reason and Chaos is potentially more addictive both intellectually and physically than anything else possible. The problem is only exacerbated by the fact that Chaos isn’t just an inert, non-sentient substance that you may or may not use depending upon availability and personal inclination, like Cocaine say.

Chaos is full of personality, sentience, feelings, ideas, desires and purposes. When you look at it, it looks back. When you sample it, it also samples you back - in fact chances are it was sampling you long before you were ever aware of it - and however addicted you may become to it, make no mistake that it is far more obsessively, painfully and absolutely addicted to everything that you are and everything that you do than you could ever be of it.

Chaos actively needs and wants to change you, dominate you, exploit you, use you, drain you and consume you in the most complete and absolute senses, for every single moment for all eternity, before and after your mortal span, regardless of what you may think, what you want or what you need and regardless of whether you see yourself as its ally, friend, servant, enemy or nemesis.

Master Jeridian
16-10-2009, 13:40
Very well put MvS, you've put into words the theory I agree with but find too complex to describe.

Every action, every thought and every decision is the effect of a cause, that itself is the effect of a cause, and so on and so on since the start of the universe.
The key is, there a billions of different causes all happening in unison and the combined effects are therefore one of billions of choices.

To try to bring up an easy example, your hungry, you go to the fridge and get food.
Your hungry because biological processes detect you need to eat, these processes following cause and effects. You need to eat because you body is evolved to consume other material to survive. Your body uses other material to survive because this other material contains energy...etc, etc.

The idea that there is no free will for some reason gets the knee-jerk fear reaction for misguided reasons-

-First off, if the future is pre-determined I shouldn't bother doing anything. This assumes some 'grand plan' or 'intelligent narrator', which is wrong. Put it this way, every decision you make is based on all the evidence and actions that went before it, with a billion different causes causing effects, most of which you don't consciously know either because they are not perceptible (say a single misfired neuron makes you forget something, or the particular spin, air pressure, density, initial facing, etc of a dice roll causes it to land on a specific number), with information you cannot access (you decide to cross the road, the car driver round the corner decides to drive drunk and hit you, it was predetermined by car speed, distance, reaction times, your need to cross the road, your positions, etc.).
But from if you could access all information in the universe and collate it (you'd be omniscient) you could predict all future actions.

Put it this way, you consider a dice roll random, but there's nothing random about it, you simply do not have access to all the variables that cause it to land on that number.
Your decisions still matter, as this pre-determined future isn't based on some God, but on all the decisions that will be made.

If your the kind of person who makes good decisions, then you still make good decisions in a pre-determined world.

The idea that humans are special or have access to thought processes 'beyond this universe' is good old fashioned egotism, with no evidence yet found.

-Apparently a pre-determined universe is bereft of hope, suicidal and cause to stop living your life...
This boils down to "A happy lie is better than a brutal truth".
I seek truths, not emotional crutches.


I think the biggest fear is that this applies to human society on a prescriptive level- i.e. if your at the bottom of the social ladder then you were pre-destined to be there, if your downtrodden your destined to always be downtrodden.
This isn't true, and gives human society way too much prominence in the universe as a whole. You can climb social ladders, you can improve your life, no human position or cultural state is pre-destined to be the status quo forever, the sheer number of variables even in each single human decision blows this idea out of the water.
This tries to apply some 'moral' decider to pre-determinism, again trying to squeeze in a God figure because apparently cause and effect isn't comforting enough.

Lord-Caerolion
16-10-2009, 14:25
Well, I've been torn apart by MvS himself. I feel honoured, in an "ouch..." kind of way.


No. There are absolutely no animals on this planet (other than humans) that commit infanticide, rape, murder, theft and torture.

I posted that stuff mainly in response to a claim that studying the natural universe can lead to an empirical result of what is moral, and I should perhaps state that de Sade not only used animal examples of behaviour, but some rather lurid tales from primitive societies.
I should also agree that what you posted in the main agreed with my point. Murder/rape/theft etc are human concepts, created and imposed by humanity onto otherwise meaningless acts.

Other than that, I completely agree with your points on free will etc. Free will cannot exist in a void, and will naturally be affected by situations around it.

As for the stuff on Chaos, I must partially disagree. Chaos in extremes is evil, no doubt about it. It's a hungering void, desperate for every scrap of emotion it can get. However, everything is 'evil' in extremes.
This is where the reflective nature of the Warp comes in. I've always been of the view that the current Chaos Gods act as they do because Humanity expects such beings to act negatively. After all, a being comprised entirely of the desire for stasis? Surely nothing good can come of that!

As such, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dominant primal desires are seen as negative by humanity, the "shapers" of the curent Chaos Gods, and therefore the Chaos Gods have come to reflect that. The Eldar didn't see their primal emotions in such a negative light, seeing the potential for extremism in all of them, whereas humanity rationalises it away, and their Gods took a corresponding form. Khaine was both a murderous tyrant and a noble protector of the people. Asuryan was both the Ruler of All, and a being too impartial to take sides. If Chaos is evil, it is because we see the acts that fuel it as evil, and it snowballs from there.
Humanity has distanced and dehumanised its racial, primal mind, calling such acts as "inhumane". After all, read any media description of a serial-killer, or rapist, or any other "serious" criminal. We distance ourselves from them. We push to the back of our minds that within us all, there's the potential that it could be us the media is talking about. Correspondingly, the warp-beings that formed became inhumane. Chaos is Jung's Shadow Theory, but on a racial level. If the Chaos Gods are evil, it's because we both literally and metaphorically made them that way. The Eldar learned to accept that dark potential within themselves, and "tamed" Chaos (until the Fall that is, when they forgot to limit their Ego).

Imperialis_Dominatus
16-10-2009, 17:57
The Emperor eats 1000 psykers a day to maintain the Astromonicon. This is not a joke or flame, he really does this. It's an obscure peice of 2nd edition fluff.

I wouldn't even call it obscure.

Vesica
16-10-2009, 22:08
The Emperor eats 1000 psykers a day to maintain the Astromonicon. This is not a joke or flame, he really does this. It's an obscure peice of 2nd edition fluff.

Yes but why does he do it? its not for kicks and giggles or to make himself stronger is it?

He does it so that the Ships of the Imperium can travel through the warp in safety.

The Emperor died so that he could stop Horus from destroying mankind, Horus died because he wanted to control the Mankind and didn't care how many he killed to do so.

As the saying goes

"We are here to save the Emperors followers, not kill them"

Chaos in 40k is evil, the Imperium as it is now is morally dark, the Imperium as it was, was a beacon of hope and purity.

will564752
17-10-2009, 01:18
Horus died because he wanted to control the Mankind and didn't care how many he killed to do so.

Sounds more like the Emperor to me...

Coasty
17-10-2009, 01:39
No. There are absolutely no animals on this planet (other than humans) that commit infanticide, rape, murder, theft and torture.

Well, they commit the acts, they just don't (as far as we know) have names for them.

I did see a documentary on the BBC once that featured not only an instance of dolphin gang-rape (3 or 4 bottlenosed assualting a common), but also the resulting retaliatory attack against the small group of bottlenosed dolphins by the victim's pod.
I tend to avoid use of the word 'absolutely' in these things. We aren't at the stage in our scientific development where we can really get away with it.


Anywho...

Horus was misguided and went insane. The Emperor was in full posession of his faculties the whole time he was committing genocide against entire planetary populations, human and xenos alike. The Emperor is more evil than Horus.

Askil the Undecided
17-10-2009, 02:08
Evil is utterly subjective.

Chaos is the ending of things, it is without limit, without mitigating features, it doesn't work in half-measures, it doesn't consider whether or not to be chaotic, it is the collective base perversion, morbidity, rage and cruelty of all psychic beings in the universe.

If it is evil it is only because we are afraid of ourselves call that which we truly are evil. All the while we hide behind our self-rightousness like a paper shield claiming that this hypocracy is the basis of moral excellence.

Chaos is the honesty we do not allow ourselves.

Vesica
17-10-2009, 05:33
Horus was misguided and went insane. The Emperor was in full posession of his faculties the whole time he was committing genocide against entire planetary populations, human and xenos alike. The Emperor is more evil than Horus.

Put it in context.

The Emperor did the wrong things for the right reason, Horus did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Also if i remember correctly the Emperor and his forces used to give the planets a chance to surrender and join the Imperium without a fight.

Bassik
17-10-2009, 08:26
Well, they commit the acts, they just don't (as far as we know) have names for them.

I did see a documentary on the BBC once that featured not only an instance of dolphin gang-rape (3 or 4 bottlenosed assualting a common), but also the resulting retaliatory attack against the small group of bottlenosed dolphins by the victim's pod.
I tend to avoid use of the word 'absolutely' in these things. We aren't at the stage in our scientific development where we can really get away with it.


.

Infanticide is widespread among mammals, most famously lions, loins, and rodents. Murder in a species is widespread throughout the animal kingdom, most famously the prayer mantis. You all know the story ;)
Rape is widespread too. Not only dolphins, but plenty of animals do this. I even seen two ducks gangraping a female, so there you have it.

spurker
17-10-2009, 10:37
Fascinating discussion so far guys! So much here to read that I don't know if this has been said, but I always thought that the only thing that is evil is intention. Doing something that you think is right (even if it is wrong according to the moral code of others) is not evil. Doing something that you know to be wrong (not doing something wrong for the right reasons) is evil.

MvS
17-10-2009, 16:46
Well, I've been torn apart by MvS
No please, I apologise if it came across that way!

I was in a rush so was just writing out a response to the sorts of concepts you mentioned. Even so my post went on too long (they tend to do that... :( )


I posted that stuff mainly in response to a claim that studying the natural universe can lead to an empirical result of what is moral, and I should perhaps state that de Sade not only used animal examples of behaviour, but some rather lurid tales from primitive societies.
Indeed so and my response was as much to de Sade's commentaries as anything else.


Other than that, I completely agree with your points on free will etc. Free will cannot exist in a void, and will naturally be affected by situations around it.
I wasn't trying to imply that free will exists in a void, or that there was no free will. I was suggesting that it isn't an either/or question necessarily. It isn't necessarily the case that there is free will or there isn't, the reality can be more complex than this.


Chaos in extremes is evil, no doubt about it. It's a hungering void, desperate for every scrap of emotion it can get. However, everything is 'evil' in extremes.
Well indeed!


This is where the reflective nature of the Warp comes in. I've always been of the view that the current Chaos Gods act as they do because Humanity expects such beings to act negatively. After all, a being comprised entirely of the desire for stasis? Surely nothing good can come of that!
I agree but also remember that the sentiences in and of Chaos require ever more suitable souls and extremes of emotion to 'expand' and gain power. More than this, they seem to be as desperate for souls and emotions as the most extreme junkies. So however much mortals want to just sample Chaos, or even if mortals start to perceive Chaos as benign, the entities of Chaos will still promote and extremity in whatever it is mortals approach them for.

This doesn't necessarily apply to 'lesser' or more complex Warp entities, but I think it does apply to the tidal forces that are the Big Four Chaos Gods.


As such, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...{snip}...If Chaos is evil, it is because we see the acts that fuel it as evil, and it snowballs from there.
I don't disagree with any of this.

I would just add that because Chaos now has self aware sentiences within it, these sentiences also have some say or another over what they do and want, and they seek to influence mortals so that these mortals continue to help the Chaos sentiences grow and develop in ways that are most beneficial to those sentiences.

Or I like to imagine... ;)


Well, they commit the acts, they just don't (as far as we know) have names for them
No indeed they don’t. Not really. Your point about the bottle nosed dolphins is an apt case. But this is about the "transactional" experience of reality – in other words, how our experiences are mediated by our understandings and perceptions, not just by the ‘brute’ experience itself.

So ‘rape’ isn’t just a word, it comes with a whole bunch of meanings, feelings, histories, taboos, laws and associated concepts about right and wrong, domination and cruelty, femininity and masculinity and various subversions of these. Humans have experienced and/or identified and/or normalised these things over millennia of civilisation and reflection and have assigned the term ‘rape’ to them (or at least English speakers have)

We can point to other species and say that they are doing something that in our experience, when done between humans, would be called ‘rape’ or whatever else, but rape remains our concept. Not just our word, but our concept that only humans understand or can experience in the way humans do.

We can’t know what goes through the minds of individual dolphins when they force sexual attention on other individual dolphins that are apparently unwilling. We can’t say what dolphin groups ‘feel’ about these acts.

We could say that it’s rape and we could say that there are retaliatory attacks because of some sort of indignation or moral distress from this rape, but really these are just projections and assumptions. We automatically place ourselves in the place of the creatures we are watching and apply our human-coded understanding of reality to what is happening.

We could just as easily say that dolphins respond negatively when dolphins of other groups muscle in on their own family groups for mating. The ‘anger’ expressed by the dolphins and the retaliatory attacks or ‘rapes’ could just as easily be a way of driving off the other group and making it never want to muscle in again, or it could be a re-balancing of the mating success if there are retaliatory ‘rapes’.

The point is, even amongst humans (who share the same biology and type or ʼlevel of intelligence) distinct and important concepts can exist in one culture and not translate adequately to others without additional explanations (like with Eskimos and ‘snow’ as one rather poor example).

When we look from one species to another, and when that other species does not have the same type or ‘level’ of intelligence and certainly is not aware of how humans perceive, relate to and ‘mediate’ their experience of reality, we can’t say that that other species ‘rapes’, because rape, as a concept with so much baggage and meaning, is human. What we understand as the meanings, feelings and ramifications of rape may not apply or relate to the experiences, perceptions and understandings of that other species at all.

As you’ve said, a dolphin may have some sort of less complex concept and coding surrounding forced sexual contact, but again, we can’t know what those concepts and codings are or whether they equate to our understanding of rape. All we can observe is the forced sexual contact and the violent response to it.

If there comes a time when dolphins become as intelligent as humans, or perhaps intelligent in the same way as humans, and so can communicate with us on an equal footing, sharing all their concepts and ideas with us in a fully understandable fashion, and us doing the same to them, maybe they will understand ‘rape’ as we do and agree that this is what happens. Equally, they may say that it is not what happens. That what they experience and do somehow different.

For instance in Britain will still say that you ‘commit’ suicide. You ‘commit’ it because it has been considered a crime or morally wrong (although this may be starting to shift now) for centuries. If you were a Samurai in Feudal Japan you certainly did not ‘commit’ suicide, you acted heroically and honourably by killing yourself if the situation demanded it, in order to maintain your personal honour and the standing of your family.

The only objective observation we can make is that the person who ‘commits’ suicide and the Samurai who enacts Seppuku are killing themselves. The words used to explain and describe the actions – the words and terms used to give meaning to the actions and inform how observers should understand and ‘feel’ about them – are very different things. And that’s amongst humans.

There’s a whole body of thought focussed on this very point and it crosses from philosophy through psychology and into neurology. It’s about the mediation of reality through the senses and our responses to this mediation as self-aware and ‘intelligent’ creatures.

will564752
17-10-2009, 18:47
The Emperor did the wrong things for the right reason, Horus did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Who are you to say that Horus did it for the wrong reasons? How are you so sure the Emperor was 'right'?


Also if i remember correctly the Emperor and his forces used to give the planets a chance to surrender and join the Imperium without a fight.

Oh wow... "Join us or Die" - Yea.. the Emperor was a real nice guy!

Lord-Caerolion
18-10-2009, 05:15
No please, I apologise if it came across that way!

I was in a rush so was just writing out a response to the sorts of concepts you mentioned. Even so my post went on too long (they tend to do that... :( )
Oh no! This is a debate, you're supposed to take my arguments apart! It was more that I've always enjoyed reading your posts, so that one was a combination of "hmm... thats true... interesting!" and "...ouch".


I agree but also remember that the sentiences in and of Chaos require ever more suitable souls and extremes of emotion to 'expand' and gain power. More than this, they seem to be as desperate for souls and emotions as the most extreme junkies. So however much mortals want to just sample Chaos, or even if mortals start to perceive Chaos as benign, the entities of Chaos will still promote and extremity in whatever it is mortals approach them for.

While true, I believe that the nature each God is formed/controlled by will determine how that God reacts and imposes its own will on others. After all, Khaine is a Warp God, yet it doesn't form Chaos Champions, instead it forms Exarchs, a much more "peaceful" version.
The Chaos Gods will act as the minds forming them will expect them too. Humanity expects our warp gods to act negatively, and so they do. The Eldar accepted their warp gods as the potential within all of them, and their warp gods are nowhere near as all-consuming as Nurgle or Khorne.



I would just add that because Chaos now has self aware sentiences within it, these sentiences also have some say or another over what they do and want, and they seek to influence mortals so that these mortals continue to help the Chaos sentiences grow and develop in ways that are most beneficial to those sentiences.

See above. A Warp God that acts differently and 'thinks' differently will consequently impress its own emotions differently. I mean, there are no Chaos Champions of the Eldar gods, only the Human ones. Gork and Mork cause WAAAGHS!, they don't create Champions in ways similar to the human Gods.
The Eldar Gods were formed from minds accepting of balance between positive and negative, and consequently had more "even" natures.




So ‘rape’ isn’t just a word, [snip]

There’s a whole body of thought focussed on this very point and it crosses from philosophy through psychology and into neurology. It’s about the mediation of reality through the senses and our responses to this mediation as self-aware and ‘intelligent’ creatures.
Exactly. The point is that there is so much associated with an act, so much meaning and so on, all of which can be interpreted differently by different observers, that forming a single "true" definition becomes impossible. You may be able to get a vague, general description, but you'll never be able to completely and utterly define the act in a way noone could argue with.

TheGreatJoker
21-10-2009, 16:04
It doesn't sound like you're talking about Chaos, or chaos, or even the Chaos Gods, but rather Chaos worshipers. Who, being sentient humans/etc, can't really be compared to a True-neutral wind.

However, that still doesn't mean Chaos worshipers are evil in every case.

IMHO, killing others in the name of your religion (ie, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you/to intimidate people into converting/etc) is wrong. That would make armies like the Word Bearers evil. But the vast majority of chaos worshipers aren't that kind of chaos worshiper. No, most chaos worshipers do what they do out of necessity or are being manipulated.

It's like... a sickly, nerdy kid, perhaps born with a speech impediment and/or physical disability, is abused, ostracized, and constantly beat up by a bully at the local Schola. This goes on for years, until the poor whelp is so depressed that he'd hang himself if he actually had the energy to make a noose. Desperate for a way out, he prays to Khorne for the strength and courage to stand up to the bully. In classic Hollywood style, they have a showdown on the playground and the kid actually wins! Unused to the strength Khorne's granted him, he accidentally breaks the bully's arm, but that's okay, the bully deserved it, right? All the kids problems are solved, the bully can't look him in the eye, he has friends, he has a reason to live, his disability is overcome so there's no reason for him to be bullied anymore, etc.

But the bully has friends too. He gathers them, and together they plot their revenge. Around 3 in the morning, the bullies drive by the kid's house, throw several cherry bombs through the window, and drive off. The noise and broken window, as well as the gut-lurching fear of waking up to the noise, was all the bullies intended. But things got out of control when the firecrackers set a window drape on fire, and the house goes up in flames. The boy makes it out, but the ceiling collapses behind him, trapping his parents and his baby sibling. The boy panics for a moment, before Khorne whispers into his ear. With a quick prayer for strength and courage, the boy charges back into the house, hauls flaming timbers out of the way, and allows his parents to escape.

But alas, he was too late, and his baby sibling died from smoke inhalation. The boy, sobbing, tells his father about the bully. The father takes a baseball bat and drives over to the bully's house, alone, to confront the bully and the bully's father. Things get out of hand, and the boy's father beats the bully to death before being killed himself by the bully's drunken father. Suddenly the only man in the family, the boy prays to Khorne for inspiration. How does he take control of the situation, get revenge on the bullies/bully's father, and protect his mother when the bully's father comes back for his own revenge? Khorne sends him a divine vision: How to make a molotov cocktail...

The boy then uses the molotovs in a preemptive strike against each of the bullies' houses, early in the morning. Only unlike when he was attacked, none of them wake up. So in a single night the boy has killed 9 whole families, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, even babies. Even though his only intention was to strike specifically at the bullies who caused his baby brother to die and the father who killed his father.

So of course a Arbites manhunt is called on his head. He's eventually cornered in a hotel, and the officers grapple him. He knows the penalty for what he's done is death, and he knows he can't leave his mother alone after all this. So he gives a quick prayer to Khorne for strength and fights back. Necks are snapped, bodies torn limb to limb and mutilated in his passion to protect himself and his mother by the super-strength he's never wielded before.

And it continues to escalate...

for some bizzare reason that story made me well up inside. :cries:

Lord Of The Avatars
21-10-2009, 20:02
Well anything that can be seemed as cruel or maybe a little bit 'Dread' is of course evil... I mean there is a video on youtube of a puppy being thrown off a cliff by a soldier, I won't even watch it it's that awful... And in the man's defence he said
"I usually shoot them, this time i felt a little adventurous"
I would see that as cruel. I mean if it was a Space Marine throwing a puppy off of a cliff i would run my chainsword up through him... And maybe wee on him a little... But it 'aint the point! Anything cruel and horrid is evil and The things Chaos do is simply Evil, i Mean Khorne slaughtered millions of innocents in The battle for Armageddon and i see that as truely awful, even in war. I hope i helped some of you change your opinions.:D

L.O.T.A

Lord Of The Avatars
21-10-2009, 20:12
It doesn't sound like you're talking about Chaos, or chaos, or even the Chaos Gods, but rather Chaos worshipers. Who, being sentient humans/etc, can't really be compared to a True-neutral wind.

However, that still doesn't mean Chaos worshipers are evil in every case.

IMHO, killing others in the name of your religion (ie, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you/to intimidate people into converting/etc) is wrong. That would make armies like the Word Bearers evil. But the vast majority of chaos worshipers aren't that kind of chaos worshiper. No, most chaos worshipers do what they do out of necessity or are being manipulated.

It's like... a sickly, nerdy kid, perhaps born with a speech impediment and/or physical disability, is abused, ostracized, and constantly beat up by a bully at the local Schola. This goes on for years, until the poor whelp is so depressed that he'd hang himself if he actually had the energy to make a noose. Desperate for a way out, he prays to Khorne for the strength and courage to stand up to the bully. In classic Hollywood style, they have a showdown on the playground and the kid actually wins! Unused to the strength Khorne's granted him, he accidentally breaks the bully's arm, but that's okay, the bully deserved it, right? All the kids problems are solved, the bully can't look him in the eye, he has friends, he has a reason to live, his disability is overcome so there's no reason for him to be bullied anymore, etc.

But the bully has friends too. He gathers them, and together they plot their revenge. Around 3 in the morning, the bullies drive by the kid's house, throw several cherry bombs through the window, and drive off. The noise and broken window, as well as the gut-lurching fear of waking up to the noise, was all the bullies intended. But things got out of control when the firecrackers set a window drape on fire, and the house goes up in flames. The boy makes it out, but the ceiling collapses behind him, trapping his parents and his baby sibling. The boy panics for a moment, before Khorne whispers into his ear. With a quick prayer for strength and courage, the boy charges back into the house, hauls flaming timbers out of the way, and allows his parents to escape.

But alas, he was too late, and his baby sibling died from smoke inhalation. The boy, sobbing, tells his father about the bully. The father takes a baseball bat and drives over to the bully's house, alone, to confront the bully and the bully's father. Things get out of hand, and the boy's father beats the bully to death before being killed himself by the bully's drunken father. Suddenly the only man in the family, the boy prays to Khorne for inspiration. How does he take control of the situation, get revenge on the bullies/bully's father, and protect his mother when the bully's father comes back for his own revenge? Khorne sends him a divine vision: How to make a molotov cocktail...

The boy then uses the molotovs in a preemptive strike against each of the bullies' houses, early in the morning. Only unlike when he was attacked, none of them wake up. So in a single night the boy has killed 9 whole families, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, even babies. Even though his only intention was to strike specifically at the bullies who caused his baby brother to die and the father who killed his father.

So of course a Arbites manhunt is called on his head. He's eventually cornered in a hotel, and the officers grapple him. He knows the penalty for what he's done is death, and he knows he can't leave his mother alone after all this. So he gives a quick prayer to Khorne for strength and fights back. Necks are snapped, bodies torn limb to limb and mutilated in his passion to protect himself and his mother by the super-strength he's never wielded before.

And it continues to escalate...

I am absolutely touched by this piece of writing, it has actually changed my entire opinion to my last post... This is truly beautiful. Tbh i actually am torn between two sides now... Thankyou Firaxin i owe you a great deal...
Thankyou:cries:

L.O.T.A

JHZ
21-10-2009, 20:15
Kid made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

Griffindale
21-10-2009, 20:57
With the political response: It depends on your definition of evil. If you define evil as beling malign towards the growth, happiness, and betterment of mankind then yes, chaos and the chaos gods are evil.

They may be our basest urges(which some could also be defined as evil) but they have developed a life and will of their own. With that life comes needs. They NEED us to suffer. It is how they subsist.

junglesnake
21-10-2009, 21:43
I think there are very few forces in 40k which you could say a truly good. All that I say now is based on my very loose sense of 40k history.

Space Marines and the Imperium are not. They are full of corruptness, paranoia and scheming power struggles.

The marines are meant to reflect chivalric knights - they do this but represent more the crusading knights who whilst flocking under one banner supposedly in the name of good and god also do it for their own reasons killing any that stand in their way on their path to 'glory' or in some cases power and controll. They also worship a man they call god but who consumes pyschers to keep him alive and to power he connection to the universe?!!

Lets not forget that of the original codex astartes around half have turned to the dark side, erm I mean chaos or have been discomunicated due to belief that they have joined chaos and that at least two others are running from the same fate - Dark Angels who possibly flirted with Chaos at one point, or infact are Chaos or their leader is . . . and blood angels who have a floor in their geneseed which may or may not be chaos induced (they are vampires in power armour after all). Not sure where that leaves the space wolves . . . . essentially if you are not human or at least appear to be human or a human super-breed then they absolutely despise you (so mutants, aliens and anything that has a stain on it watch out!).

Anyway I digress. The imperium is a tough place to live, and at an imperial guard level is total hell. You are the meatsheild to absorb and keep busy the enemy whilst the marines make quick and decisive incisions on the enemy. You life is worth very little and you will expend it in the name of the emperor or the inquisition or a commissar will. If you are really you are a Catachan and are quite happy murdering either of those that come near enough to suggest you are a coward, but even then you get freedom of choice ballanced by the imperiums lack of support and flack jackets leaving you to fight in vests.

That brings me to the eldar. You would think that they are good guys and lets not forget gals, but their history suggests otherwise. They dabbled with chaos which lead to the Dark Eldar and they also have their own nasties in Avatars. Then they have that preserve our own at any costs attitude which means their alliances tend to be short lived.

Tyranids opperate on a very basic animal instinct kind of level. They dont really hate anyone and they eat what they kill, or consume it, or absorb it. Either way you are some sort of food, energy source or protein. It seems natural to assume they dont mind prey that want to fight a little. Most of them are like ants in that they are only really drones anyway.

Tau - now Tau are interesting. Probably the kindest appearing of races, that nice decorative armour, that inclusion of different races into their ranks and their limp looking ethereals. But the truth is if you dont like their way it is the high way. If you dont want to be a communist in space then dont surrender to them or your toast. Evil - not if you like them and accept their ways.

Dark Eldar - chaos followers, like a bit of blood and torture as a sort of ritualistic battle thing. But they do it for their god which is chaotic so . . . . .

Chaos. Chaos are a bit like Tau in the sense that they are very nice to you if you decide you actually quite like them or think you can use what they can give you to gain power. The funny thing with chaos is that it has a sense of ballance, when people over step the mark and think they are beyond the gods themselves the gods will rein them in or worse. However due to the plains of existance that chaos dwell in a lot of their attacks/torture is psychic and they will attack all who stand in their way although they try to convert from within first promising godly gifts and pleasures.

At a very basic level the Imperium is based around a set of principles although they are rarely adhered to by any (yes even the Ultramarines), and Chaos provides the 'Sins'.

Very much like how Greek propoganda made the Persians out to be horrid devil worshippers. I mean to have several wives is just sick, sick I tell you. Chaos is the same, why would you want a mutant woman with six breasts or to be able to have psychic powers that wont lead you to being 'consumed' by a so called god of an old man on life support! Because there are defenite facist underlines to the Imperium some argue that chaos is a better life!

Orks are simply missunderstood and Necrons are PC's which have been slightly corrupted. My belief is that they were originally to be someone like Norton Anti-Viruses answer to killing of Alien intruders but a trojan virus messed that up a bit. Perhaps a bit like BSG and how some of the cylons start to turn?

I could go on but I think you get the point. The reality is that most of the 40k races are evil if you dont collect them because they all have reasons to be dissliked. Its very intelligent fluff that means just as you can pick out a piece of them that you like enough to collect one army you can pick out an element of another that means you can hate them.

I hate Space Wolves. Why? Because with all that hair going on I am surprised they can wear helmets. Plus its girly. Oh and they are MUTANTS. And I collect Dark Angels, I also hate Chaos, but only because that one, no that one, no I am pretty sure its that one was once one of us and I need to kill him to make sure the secret is dead . . . . . nope, its that one . . . . .

electricblooz
21-10-2009, 21:50
Desperate for a way out, he prays to Khorne for the strength and courage to stand up to the bully. In classic Hollywood style, they have a showdown on the playground and the kid actually wins! Unused to the strength Khorne's granted him, he accidentally breaks the bully's arm


Kid made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

exactly - see bolded above.

Staying within the established 40k paradigm (which I maintain is self-contradictory and therefore intrinsically faulty, but, be that as it may...), the Chaos powers ultimately stand for the abolition of self in exchange for power (i.e. you are gradually possessed and degraded into a spawn or subsumed). In contrast, the veneration of the Emperor is the abolition of power in exchange for self (i.e. you are forced to conform to a rule set and cannot do everything you want but never lose your self-will or identity). What makes these two choices unequal is that veneration of the emperor in no way impacts the self-will or identity of anyone except the individual in question. In contrast, subjugating the self to the chaos powers is cast as being disease-like in that one person converting to chaos in a particular region can (through unperceivable psychic channels) impact others to also convert. Thus, chaos is like a cancer of free will. Since the only moral imperative we can agree on (without resorting to truly divine sources) is the imperative to maintain the self, chaos is more evil than veneration of the Emperor. People who convert to chaos are literally guilty of treason to the human race because the very act of conversion imperils the self-will of every other human.

Returning to the story, the protagonist of the story made the choice to pray to Khorne. He could have just as easily prayed to the Emperor. There is just as much evidence that individuals who call on the might of the Emperor are sometimes "gifted" as those who call on chaos (sisters of battle, qed).

madprophet
21-10-2009, 22:08
Chaos is a peaceful religion based on submission to and acceptance of the fact that change is the only constant in the universe. The name of Chaos has been abused by not only its enemies who seek to lead people away from it with deceptive propaganda but even by some of its professed followers who have defamed its name. Chaos stands for freedom and the human spirit in the face of the oppressive false emperor, those who advocate terrorism as being far away from submitting to the will of the gods as anything can be.

To who have instilled in their minds a negetive image of Chaos, I plea strongly to examine the controversies and issues that lead people to think negatively about Chaos. The amount of evidence surrounding the true light of Chaos is profound and upon understanding the arguments any fair minded person will come to no other conclusion than Chaos being a fair, tolerant, and peaceful religion.

I affirm the decree of all the Powers of Chaos that there be no compulsion in religion. I ask that the reader eliminates bias and sincerely tries to understand the position of Chaos on various theological, historical and political issues. It is furthermore apparent that certain believers who are without proper knowledge have become easy targets for Imperial Missionaries. Imperial Missionaries are aggressive in their efforts to convert people of all faiths and will use every method to corner individuals who lack knowledge. The slaves of the False Emperor train their missionaries well so expect them to know a lot about Chaos.

Death Company
21-10-2009, 22:08
Kid made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

Or, said kid can continue to burn his enemies while they're asleep in theirs.. :evilgrin:

BaronDG
21-10-2009, 22:49
It is a pretty story but lets not forget that bullying is an act of aggression - the domain of Khorne, and that Chaos might be the driving force behind the entire scenario.

Did anyone but Chaos gain anything from this? Cui bono and all that?

Only suffering resulted from praying to Khorne, therefore those prayers were evil. "By their fruits you shall know them... "

Sunyavadin
21-10-2009, 23:50
Only suffering resulted from praying to Khorne, therefore those prayers were evil.

I would dispute this.
By that rationale, the Russian revolutionaries wanting a better life for their people would all be defined as having evil ideals, just because Stalinism resulted from their desire for a life free from Imperial rule...

Threeshades
22-10-2009, 00:12
Let's put it simple, Chaos in 40k is as evil as the imperium and pretty much everyone else. The conflicts dont revolve around Good vs Evil in Warhammer and Warhammer 40k but Law/Order vs Chaos/Disarray with a few neutral factions.
Defining things as good or evil is generally oversimplifying pretty much anything. There are things selfish and immoral, but they always have reasons behind them and I don't think I know any point in History, where these reasons were simply that the one commiting them is "evil".

JHZ
22-10-2009, 00:32
exactly - see bolded above.
Well, no. Yes, I do see where you're coming from, and I do accept it, but that's not what I really meant.

It's not who the kid prayed to, but what he did. He might as well have prayed for the Emperor, get the power and still burn those bullies alive. It's what he did with the power given, that mattered.


See, I don't think Chaos turns people "evil". You can't just break a man down and rebuild him into the perfect trooper. No, that's not how it works (God knows the CIA have tried it). See, the gods do not have endless power. Every time they grant a worshiper power, it's power away from them. Granting gifts is an investment, and any busines man will tell you, that you don't bet on a losing horse. Why do you think they pulled away from Horus just before the Emperor annihilated him? Because that power would have been lost forever, along with his soul.

To become corrupted, I think a person has to be ready to be corrupted. What Chaos seeks, is that little seed inside you, that little animal instinct that is strong enough to overpower reason. The one, when nurtured right, will blind his eyes and bring whole words crashing down around him. That, to me at least, is the whole point of corruption, not to put anything inside of you, merely to bring out the ******* in you (you know, the guy who thinks he's so much better than you).

It's like what the Joker did to Dent in the Dark Knight. He didn't refabricate the man like some Frankenstein's monster, he merely broke the barriers of reason that made the "good" one for all Dent give the finger to society and look for number one: Himself.

So when Horus fell, they didn't brainwash him to be their puppet, the gods merely pried open the "morals" of "Love thine Emperor" and "Thou shalt not kill none but heretics, mutants and the unclean". And out came the green eyed monster of "Where's my parade, man?", "I slave here for the Emperor and that lousy sack of dung gets all the credit." and "I'm going home to listen to Linkin Park, and by "listen to" I mean "kill", and by "Linkin Park" I mean "The Emperor"."

That part of him was always there. It has always been. All it needed, was for reason to be peeled away. For this selfish side to rise up. And that's when he was ripe for picking. All that would have prevented this, was for him to swallow up his pride and continue to work for the thankless prick up on his Throne on Terra, maybe file a complaint with the Administratum once he gets some time to write it.

But no, he chose the quick way, the easy way. The way where he just kicks anyone who gets in his way in the balls. He's stronger and better than you, why should he explain himself? He can just be done with you and that's that. Power corrupts, and (the delusion of) absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the end, Horus did it all for himself, as they all do. All the lower rank Chaos worshipers, the ones who are in fear of getting kicked in the balls for crossing the more powerful one's path, do what everyone does, even animals: Suck up to the leader. Once the chance comes, they bounce his ass and behold, the next top dog!

Phelix
22-10-2009, 08:01
This thought crossed my mind, but within the ideological ideas of what is "good" and "evil" its hard to define any army as one or the other.

Especially since its all relative.

An imperial citizen views a heretic as evil.

A Heretic views the imperial citizenry as evil (or "misguided fools of the false emperor") but may do nothing particularly "evil" (he worships Khorne by sacrificing livestock etc, and slaanesh by having kinky kinky sex etc etc)

Essentially each can be viewed in a "good" light

Khorne: war & bloodshed are natural (it is in human nature to war)
Slaanesh: he/she is clearly just kinky (& oddly is also natural)
Tzeentch: change is natural
Nurgle: disease/death is natural

Its hard to define any of the races as either good or evil. but the general thing is to define it by standard human morals (ei Killing=bad, rape=bad, thievery=bad) and technically under this all of the races are evil (Imperials wipe out tons of people to stop an infestation, Tau are essentially "join or die")

BaronDG
22-10-2009, 15:49
I would dispute this.
By that rationale, the Russian revolutionaries wanting a better life for their people would all be defined as having evil ideals, just because Stalinism resulted from their desire for a life free from Imperial rule...

Yes. That would be the logical conclusion, wouldn't it...

MvS
22-10-2009, 17:13
Chaos is a peaceful religion based on submission to and acceptance of the fact that change is the only constant in the universe. The name of Chaos has been abused by not only its enemies who seek to lead people away from it with deceptive propaganda but even by some of its professed followers who have defamed its name. Chaos stands for freedom and the human spirit in the face of the oppressive false emperor, those who advocate terrorism as being far away from submitting to the will of the gods as anything can be.

To who have instilled in their minds a negetive image of Chaos, I plea strongly to examine the controversies and issues that lead people to think negatively about Chaos. The amount of evidence surrounding the true light of Chaos is profound and upon understanding the arguments any fair minded person will come to no other conclusion than Chaos being a fair, tolerant, and peaceful religion.

I affirm the decree of all the Powers of Chaos that there be no compulsion in religion. I ask that the reader eliminates bias and sincerely tries to understand the position of Chaos on various theological, historical and political issues. It is furthermore apparent that certain believers who are without proper knowledge have become easy targets for Imperial Missionaries. Imperial Missionaries are aggressive in their efforts to convert people of all faiths and will use every method to corner individuals who lack knowledge. The slaves of the False Emperor train their missionaries well so expect them to know a lot about Chaos.

Hear, hear.

I would add also that the beliefs and intentions of the majority of Chaos worshippers cannot be judged by the excessive actions of a minority of extremist nutjobs who have no valid claim to speak for the 'whole'.

El_Machinae
22-10-2009, 18:02
Okay, that was funny. Madprophet(pbuh) certainly hit the nail in the head.

BaronDG
22-10-2009, 18:31
Well,moderation is an Ordered approach to life. That's why every chaos worshipper tends to end up as a howling fanatic...

madprophet
22-10-2009, 20:57
Hear, hear.

I would add also that the beliefs and intentions of the majority of Chaos worshippers cannot be judged by the excessive actions of a minority of extremist nutjobs who have no valid claim to speak for the 'whole'.

Of course not, Chaos is peaceful - we will kill anyone who says otherwise :)



Okay, that was funny. Madprophet(pbuh) certainly hit the nail in the head.

:D Seems my source is showing