Seems like the halo wipes away lies the wearer has told themself about their motivations – on someone who honestly (no self-deception) believes in their cause, null effect.
I’ve seen similar reasoning used to describe how heaven and hell work, to get around the problems of things like free will in a universe where god knows what will do next, and the issue of objective morality (if it is truly objective, them god doesn’t decide, which is not compatible with the whole “all powerful” thing)
It works for a lot of people until you point out that this would result in heaven being full of actual psychpaths
Thousands of years of philosophers across numerous cultures and civilizations have discussed this. Many bias based on their social conditioning, religions, and other cultural standards. Those that try to go deeper don’t make sense to most they spoke to, and many were considered mad or outcasts from their society.
When I was creating a Hell for my own setting I ended up dividing “sin” into three categories and an imaginary algorithm created by the goddesses tallied them up against each other to where and what Hell to send the Soul Body and the conditions of it etc… But even then it was easier to find “this is not good, and works against your, the world, and societies’ better interest and survival” than “this is good and is rewarded” other than (don’t do the bad thing), but what could qualify as objectively good beyond that, especially removing “i only did this to avoid a real life punishment or a punishment my religion says I will suffer* as motivation makes the action not good on its own terms as you had to be threatened.
Even the villain didn’t like this page.
Every politician or businesswoman ever:
Good is what benefits me, here and now; evil is what doesn’t.
I think that’s most human morality, just with a few layers of obfuscation.
You disagree because you’re NOT “good girl” but someone once normal who was brainwashed: time to wake up.
Seems like the halo wipes away lies the wearer has told themself about their motivations – on someone who honestly (no self-deception) believes in their cause, null effect.
Uuuuuh! That sounds like a reasonable take.
I’ve seen similar reasoning used to describe how heaven and hell work, to get around the problems of things like free will in a universe where god knows what will do next, and the issue of objective morality (if it is truly objective, them god doesn’t decide, which is not compatible with the whole “all powerful” thing)
It works for a lot of people until you point out that this would result in heaven being full of actual psychpaths
not inconsistent, to have Heaven full of psychopaths, really. That might even be consistent with the mentality of Old-Testament G-d.
Optimists say man was made in God’s image
Pessimists fear that it might be true
So… What is good? Dun dun dun dun dun!
Bad girl don’t hurt me, no more!
Thousands of years of philosophers across numerous cultures and civilizations have discussed this. Many bias based on their social conditioning, religions, and other cultural standards. Those that try to go deeper don’t make sense to most they spoke to, and many were considered mad or outcasts from their society.
When I was creating a Hell for my own setting I ended up dividing “sin” into three categories and an imaginary algorithm created by the goddesses tallied them up against each other to where and what Hell to send the Soul Body and the conditions of it etc… But even then it was easier to find “this is not good, and works against your, the world, and societies’ better interest and survival” than “this is good and is rewarded” other than (don’t do the bad thing), but what could qualify as objectively good beyond that, especially removing “i only did this to avoid a real life punishment or a punishment my religion says I will suffer* as motivation makes the action not good on its own terms as you had to be threatened.
-and there inlays the millennia of debates.