What alignment are you?

[GreatRobo]

I got neutral... Probably because I said id help my family but I really wouldn't put anyone over me. I still said I'd support the government, but I said I wouldn't follow blindly.

[Whisper]

It appears, in particular, to lack any notion of the concepts of "agency" and "humanity" with respect to moral imperatives

Could you elaborate on this?

"Agency" is the quality of a sentient being whereby they are able to make choices regarding what to do, and then held responsible of the outcomes of those choices.

"Humanity" is the quality of a sentient being whereby their own experience is a worthwhile end unto itself, not just as a means of serving others.


An instance that self-sacrifice is a moral imperative denies both these principles. Let me give you some examples:

If I ask you to sacrifice your life to save a busload of children from going off a bridge, that is a valid request. You can choose to, or choose not to. But if I insist that you have a moral obligation to do so, I am denying your humanity. Your existence is useful because it is useful to you, not because it might save some children.

If the state taxes the population to support unwed mothers, it is denying the agency of those mothers. They have the right to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they are protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions, then they are infantilized, denied not only freedom of choice, but the opportunity to be self-reliant and learn from their mistakes.

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

To help others always is to deny them the opportunity to grow into full adults and become strong and confident. To insist that others always give is deny them the opportunity to enjoy their own lives, and to tell them that their internal reality is less important than that of those we expect them to give to.

[Libertad]

If the state taxes the population to support unwed mothers, it is denying the agency of those mothers. They have the right to make choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they are protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions, then they are infantilized, denied not only freedom of choice, but the opportunity to be self-reliant and learn from their mistakes.

Both self-sacrifice and charity are often seen as good things. And often they are. But sometimes they aren't. And sometimes they are positively immoral. And the principles of agency and humanity can tell us why.

To help others always is to deny them the opportunity to grow into full adults and become strong and confident. To insist that others always give is deny them the opportunity to enjoy their own lives, and to tell them that their internal reality is less important than that of those we expect them to give to.

Using tax dollars to support society's disenfranchised is not inherently a bad thing, and some people do need help to get back on their feet.  Whether it's from a private charity or government matters little.  Soup kitchens do works of good everyday, even if they're always "giving" to others.

[Whisper]

Using tax dollars to support society's disenfranchised is not inherently a bad thing, and some people do need help to get back on their feet.  Whether it's from a private charity or government matters little.  Soup kitchens do works of good everyday, even if they're always "giving" to others.

You seem to be responding to one of my examples. Let's look at each of your arguments individually.

Using tax dollars to support society's disenfranchised is not inherently a bad thing

Okay, this is your thesis statement, let's look at your reasons for believing this. But first let's analyze just what it means to "use tax dollar to support" someone.

It means to take resources from one person, by threat of force, and give them to another. We must recall that tax money is not an infinite pool of free-floating wealth that belongs to no one. It is instead taken from people who will be imprisoned by men with guns if they do not give, and the amount that is taken is decided based on expenditures like giving it to other people. Every dollar given to one person is a dollar which is taken from another.

Now, perhaps it is sometimes moral to do precisely this. But in order to argue that such an action is moral, we must show two things: first, that it is moral to give resources to the one party (or else we deny their agency), and second, that it is moral to take them from the other (or else we deny their humanity).

some people do need help to get back on their feet

Indeed. This explains why it might be moral to give resources. The agency of the recipient must be considered in the light of their power to effect their situation. A person with no power to effect their situation does not have their agency reduced by an offer of assistance, if their situation is also not a consequence of their own poor choices.

But it does not explain why it is moral to take them by force. It gives no justification for denying the humanity of the people whose resources we are taking.

Soup kitchens do works of good everyday, even if they're always "giving" to others.

Okay.

But this is not a supporting statement. It's just another assertion.

So the only justifying argument you have made is that "some people need it". Perhaps you could explain to me why a need in one entity creates an obligation in another?

[Libertad]

I'd enjoy debating this issue with you, but I don't want to derail the thread.

I created a new topic here.

[SneeR]

I am Lawful Neutral. Everyone I know pegs me as such.
I firmly believe that laws only function if everyone follows them. My saying is, "If I have to follow the laws, so do you," and I live by that creed, usually.

[RobbyPants]

I'd enjoy debating this issue with you, but I don't want to derail the thread.

I created a new topic here.

Thanks.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Chaotic Neutral.
Not surprised, though I probably lean a bit more true neutrral.

[zook1shoe]

Lawful Neutral

I have very strong morals in certain fields. Some slightly Evil tendencies, since I "steal" stuff off of the internet, and enjoy pushing the laws on people that take advantage of people not stepping in.

Example: contacting a store or office of people parked purposely in a no parking zone, since they don't want to walk as far.

Or having a sense of duty towards a job, like stopping shoplifting.

I admit, when I was broke, I myself, have stolen things. The most expensive of which was a pair of 64 gb thumbdrives. But mostly essentials.

Edit: the quiz gave me True Neutral, but I think the above is closer

[xaotiq1]

Hm, Neutral Good. I get this result on nearly every one of these I take. Hm.

[b100d_arrowz]

Depending on whether I take the test as what I'd do if I was an awesome fantasy character or myself I float between the neutrals... that being lawful neutral, true neutral, and neutral evil   

The more fun result is when I do one of those longer what class are you (I think the longest one I took was ~120ish questions), and when they show the results the only classes I have positive values in are full casters 

[littha]

Reading through these replies I had thought that you couldn't get Chaotic Evil.... apparently you can.

[Kajhera]

Yeah, my namesake character Kajhera tested as CE herself, despite my thinking she was CN. Her attitudes aren't all that askew from the possible. I think her relative apathy towards others' situations really condemned her.

Weirdly, two of my characters I thought might be evil tested as good. There's been some alignment drift there, or possibly strong personal loyalties are skewing the result. (For some of these questions, you'd think being the leader of a state would also skew the result, but neither tested so far has proven Lawful - pushed to Neutral Good but not all the way to Lawful.)