text | ACTION

[dhil]

I have a question. It is not important, you need not answer.

It is just to create thought.

Do you suppose that morality is perhaps a subjective thing?

Or is it always a constant?


[ACTION]

[In the mean time, the nomadiest of nomads in Genessia is actually visible for a time! They'd slithered out of whatever comfortable crevice they've been holed away in for this long, and have again taken to wandering.

As usual, they can be found...

Anywhere.

In any city, in any building!

In your cupboard.

The shadow's curiosity is not a thing that should have ever been paired with the ability to alter their mass and density.

Sorry about all the heart attacks.]

Comments

[treesus]

That's true.

Well, if we look at what keeps a majority of people safe and content, causing as little harm as one can is a constant. When keeping others safe is not a matter personally not causing harm, but of protection and aid, then aid should be rendered when practical.

What do you think? To you, is morality constant or subjective?

[dhil]

To cause little harm is instinctual for most, is it not? Not causing harm or difficulty for others in turn keeps oneself safe from being harmed in retaliation. Perhaps then that bit of morality is simply inherited knowledge.

I believe that there are constants, but that defining them is difficult for most. One cannot be so good or so evil that they can truly break the limits of either, and thus it would be impossible for most to find what true morality could be.

[treesus]

It would make sense if that were true, that how we define morality is tied to self-preservation. I don't think that changes its importance.

I feel like searching for true morality would be pointless, if in the process one could not act for the uncertainty. The pureness of action, or inaction should the moment call for it, is less important than the result of what you do.

[dhil]

It does not, of course. But perhaps it is an explanation as to why it exists. Though perhaps stating so does sound cynical.

It is interesting, it is a logical and understandable response, but there are some who may still argue that their intent was pure, and therefore they are exempt from the possible negative outcome of their actions.

[treesus]

I'd say realistic, personally. Some would say it's the same as cynical, maybe they're right about that.

Some may argue that but it's naive, at best. Consequences rarely account for the intent of an action, for better or for worse.

[dhil]

It is a shame that people connect realism to bitterness.

But if you did it with the best intentions, would you not feel alarmed and offended if the resulting action ended poorly for you?

If you meant to heal, and hurt instead? Or if the action seemed so simple and small, but sparked something terrible, would it still not matter what the intention was?

[treesus]

Alarmed? I don't think so, saddened, perhaps. I am used to my decisions affecting whether people live or die. No matter my intentions, they can die and I must live with the consequences of that.

That is not very related to morality, however. To stick closer to your questions: what might be simple and small to one might be of incredible importance of those it affects. Something small and simple could mean the world to someone, yet, at the same time, it could destroy.

I think to be so fixated on one's good intentions over their impact on others is missing the point of the doing good in the first place.

[dhil]

What do you do?

One mans trash, as they say...

To become lost instead on what one imagined would be the outcome, a stated and premeditated script, instead of understanding that people and situations differ, and that one cannot always predict the outcome.

It stands to reason a person like that may unintentionally become quite evil themselves, does it not?

[treesus]

I lead an army against forces that wish to destroy my world.

[That might be the most abridged version of Pact Marshal he'd given yet.]

Trying to control every outcome is pointless, the best anyone can do is prepare and do what they can to lead events to the best result. Which is not to say that we shouldn't hope for the best. It is better than expecting failure at every turn.

As for good intentions turning to evil, yes. I've seen it happen more than I would like, sometimes in more horrible ways than I would've thought possible. This is why I mentioned it is good to question what we deem constants. It is a delicate thing.

[dhil]

It sounds like a terrible position.

[Sorry, mate, that's just what it sounds like]

Optimism does lead to a happier life.

Very delicate, I understand what you are saying. You seem to be of relatively the same opinion as many people I have spoken with at home.

[treesus]

I wouldn't call it that. It's strenuous.

[They weren't wrong about it, really. There wasn't much to do about it, however!]

Optimism doesn't come naturally to me, but a lack of it does affect what one is or isn't able to do, if in minor ways.

At home? Do you see these views much outside your home?

[dhil]

Yes, I suppose it could also be that.

[They wouldn't want that job in any case]

I hope that perhaps this changes for you. It is nice, to be happy for the future.

It is quite common. To different extents, but still common.

[treesus]

[Trahearne hadn't wanted the job either, that was fair.]

I intend to create a future to be happy for, despite what I think the future might actually hold.

That is good to hear. If I may ask, where is your home?

[dhil]

It is called Earth. I do not have a single place on it. I wander now.

Until I came here, of course.

Where are you from?

[treesus]

I have to wonder how many Earths overlap and how many are their own entity. I'm from Tyria, a place not similar to many "Earths" I've heard about.

I would hope a decent moral system would be a common thread between various Earths.

[He wondered if he was speaking to another human. There were so many humans. So many. Why were there so many humans?]