• Regalian Roleplay Rules

    1. Roleplay rules apply in this category.
    2. Posts are in-character.
    3. Posts are not anonymous.
    4. Posts and reactions made to posts are public. What your character says or does is known by all other characters. If you would like a reaction to be private, do not post it as a public response to a thread. Roleplay it out on the server!
    5. Out-of-character commentary on threads is not allowed unless it is specifically spoiled or bracketed, and/or highlights additional information for in-character responses.
    6. Meme responses are not allowed. This includes reposting the same content as the poster(s) above, or repeating catch phrases on a post.

Meditations On Well-being

The Unknown

The Unknown

Lord
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
277
Reaction score
886
Points
483
Location
at home
A single paper was pinned up in the tavern, hand-written in neat but hurried script:​

A MEDITATION ON WELL-BEING AND THE MORALITY OF RACISM
Isaak Darkäfen​

———​

RACISM - The treatment of one race as lesser than another due only to being of that race, or holding characteristics intrinsic to that race as a result of being of that race.

———​

Preface​

Racism is correctly claimed by many to be an essential cornerstone of the Regalian way of life, for without racism there could be no Class system; no slavery; and, in the eyes of the devout, no entry to Paradise. For this reason the moral acceptability of racism is assumed; for upon this dogma (among others) Regalian society leans heavily. However, such dogmas MUST NOT go unquestioned. In the pursuit of progress no conviction may remain undoubted, if only in that once doubted, they may be proven true and leaned upon all the more heavily. In order for progress to be made; in order for the people of Regalia, nay, ALORIA, to advance, their convictions must be doubted many times over until there CAN BE NO DOUBT of their absolute truth. Now that such a conviction is being leaned upon so heavily to justify the actions of the Black Regiment, it is of the utmost importance to insure that racism is justifiable in itself.

I. The Value of Well-Being
To be sure, the Well-Being (that is, the moral, emotional, physical health and to a lesser extent contentedness and general happiness; the state of Being Well) of all sentient beings has a certain moral value. To demonstrate: it would be morally wrong to, upon meeting on the street a young Ailor lady, bludgeon her with a stick. It is wrong for the reason that it harms her Well-Being; it bruises her delicate body, and causes her great distress and fear. Moreover, it would not be any more morally acceptable if the one bludgeoning the other extracted enjoyment from the act - the lady's Well-Being is diminished by far more than the beater's is augmented.


II. Being Well in Death
It can easily be asserted that in death no non-human can Be Well, for they are always reincarnated (in which case they are not dead any longer) or simply die (in which case they do not exist in order to feel distress, or be harmed physically). Humans can Be Well in death, as they are able to join the Spirit.


II. Moral Destruction of Wellbeing
On the other hand, the value of the Well-Being of a dangerous Human Aberrant may be lesser than the value of the collective comfort of the victims which it will undoubtedly harass, and certainly the lives that it may extinguish. In such a case the Well-Being of the Aberrant may be sacrificed ONLY as a preventative measure¹, and similarly in the case of a murderer. Should the Human not be an Aberrant, there would of course be no adequate reason to destroy their Well-Being or life, and therefor, in so doing one would be acting immorally. Thus, it is only by directly endangering the Well-Being of others that the endangerer, similarly to the Aberrant, grants the moral right to diminish the endangerer's Well-Being.

¹ preventing the Aberrant from diminishing the Well-Being of others by attacking them directly or deluding and misleading them, corrupting their morality with its Demonic nature and leading them from the Great Way.


III. The Commonality of Well-Being
Should a Human wandering in his house stub his toe on a table leg, he would feel pain. Is there any adequate reason to believe that this pain would be any more or less intense had he been an Altalar? Similarly, if a Human child loses her favourite toy, would she feel any more or less anguish than if she had been a Maraya, an Allar, a non-Human? The answer is of course no². Humans and non-Humans suffer in the same ways and to the same degrees. Similarly, they can Be Well in the same ways and to the same degrees (while living). Therefor, as non-humans and humans suffer in the same ways and to the same degrees, the Well-Being of each must be of the same nature. Well-Being is a trait of a sentient being, not of a non-human or human, as it is clearly existent in all sentient beings and is no different from species to species.

² though a Varran child may have less of an interest in toys, this difference is purely cultural or personal. In the same way, a Velheimer child may have less of a connection to his toys than an Ithanian. This cannot mean that the capacity and nature of their Well-Being is different fundamentally, only that it is augmented and diminished by different things.


IV. CONCLUSION
If Well-Being is the trait of a sentient being, not of a Human or non-Human, and if it is the same across all Races, then how can it be more valuable in one case or another? The Well-Being of a Maraya is the Well-Being only of a sentient being, and so too is that of an Ailor. If this is true, how can they have a different moral value? Can two things of the same nature - nay, can two IDENTICAL actions be of different moral values? Of course not. Similarly, it seems that the Well-Being of the Ailor and the non-Ailor must be of the same value. Therefor, in diminishing the Well-Being of any sentient being, one diminishes one's own Well-Being in acting immorally.


V. On Superiority
The innate superiority of Humans has no effect on the relative value of their Well-Being on a basic level. Humans may be superior, but this does not give them the moral right to abuse non-Humans without good reason (see II).

Any reasoned questions or objections will be addressed on a later paper.
 
Christoph Lemans, the wealthy Blackguard and prominent Neo-Bulwarkist adourns a gentle smile as he places a quill in the hand of his Qadir slave. A copy of the Jacobin entry sits on the desk, basking in the warm glow of the sun that trickles through the open windows of the Blackguard headquarters. The slave, no older than eight or nine, quivers quietly as he grips the feathered end, unsure of his master's intentions.

The Blackguard takes two measured steps backward, creating a space between the two.
"I do hope the common saying that the pen is mightier than the sword holds up."
The Blackguard whips his Ithanian rapier from his side, pointing it purposefully at his slave. "En guarde."

A note is later found requesting the purchase of a new slave.
 
Aelfric looked over the parchment with utter disgust, giving a grumble. He took memory of the name, soon tottering off.
 
"Well, looks like someone is going to be flayed with this."
 
YLMadness said:
Christoph Lemans, the wealthy Blackguard and prominent Neo-Bulwarkist adourns a gentle smile as he places a quill in the hand of his Qadir slave. A copy of the Jacobin entry sits on the desk, basking in the warm glow of the sun that trickles through the open windows of the Blackguard headquarters. The slave, no older than eight or nine, quivers quietly as he grips the feathered end, unsure of his master's intentions.

The Blackguard takes two measured steps backward, creating a space between the two.
"I do hope the common saying that the pen is mightier than the sword holds up."
The Blackguard whips his Ithanian rapier from his side, pointing it purposefully at his slave. "En guarde."

A note is later found requesting the purchase of a new slave.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's horrifying n o

Azra gave a snort at the message, though pleased for the most part, she always had a comment. The lass folded her arms, bracelets jingling as she did while she commented, "They're not superior at all, like they say. They have an advantage because in Regalia they have an Ailor leader. Unless they mean to say that the Songaskia are superior in Amhkar, the Qadir in Burjja Tharwah, or the Nelfin in Windgarden, for examples?"
 
Älüde'en Ëlen'híden found and read the paper at the tavern and thought to himself, I've only been in Regalia for two weeks, and even I know this is recognized as heresy. It's a great message, but they were dumb enough to sign their name on the paper. He continued walking into the tavern.
 
A particular feathered raptors clicking steps approached the sign, the shimmering of his pageant green scales would reflect the beating sun. Despite the heat, he seemed rather comfortable. Joining Zzalangua, two al-allar and a mu-allar.
At a first glance, it seemed the raptor's slitted gaze might have just skimmed over it, upon seeing who it was signed by however, he'd read it aloud to his kin. A simple comment followed.

"Exzept Slizzar. They don't have a zenze of well-being and they never reincarnate. No way unionizm would allow that."

With that, the Mu-Allar, which branded a tall and vibrantly hue'd Mohawk, thrusted a taloned foot forwards, aiming to enter the Tavern. His forked tongue slightly escaped his longegated jaw, circling his scales lips.

@Utto_ @Juan_Plays @Retro_Huenison
 
Alban heard of the letter in his hiding,
"Why is Regalia being invaded by jacobinists.."
 
A second notice was tacked up, overlapping the Meditation ever so slightly, not long after the first release. The handwriting was even more hurried than in the first writing, but legible.
CLARIFICATION: ON JACOBINISM
———

Preface​
Out of the mutterings and general babble in the Tavern, it has been markedly easy to pick the word 'Jacobin', a term I did fear I would be labelled with upon releasing my Meditation. I had intended to take my time over my next essay, but it has become clear that a mistake has been made that needs rectifying. It must be made quite clear to any that may be uneducated on the matter that the concept of Well-Being is NOT a Jacobin one, or even a revolutionary one. Rather, it calls for an end to the needless harming of non-Humans (for example, by organisations such as the Black Regiment). Be it that you have merely skim-read the Meditation, or read and misunderstood, this will be explained to you in the following clarification.


I. On Superiority (II)
As stated in the Meditation, 'Humans are superior to non-Humans, but this has no effect on the relative value of their Well-Being on a basic level'. This may be liberal, but certainly not Jacobin. Humans have achieved far more than any other race, and have a deep connection to, arguably, the only known benevolent deity. THIS is what makes them superior, not the value of their Well-Being. Being superior to another does not give one the moral right to abuse those others. For example: to be sure, a Nobleman is superior to an Ailor peasant. This does not, however, give any nobleman the moral right to abuse a commoner. In stating that a non-Human must not be harmed needlessly, one does not simultaneously state that Humans are not superior to them. To believe these two statements mean the same would be, to my mind, a simple mistake. Further, it seems clear that the belief that harm ought not to come to non-Humans needlessly is not Jacobin, but in fact quite reasonable.


II. On Progress and Instability
In the Preface to my Meditation on the Morality of Racism, I wrote "such dogmas MUST NOT go unquestioned. In the pursuit of progress no conviction may remain undoubted, if only in that once doubted, they may be proven true and leaned upon all the more heavily". By this I mean that times change, and lest Regalia face the same fate of the Elven Empire its people must adapt to changing times. In order to do this, there must be doubt. If there is no doubt there can only be stagnation, which leads to failure. A Historian must not think, upon being presented with fresh evidence that conflicts with his findings, "I must not allow this fresh evidence to cloud my judgement, lest my studies be cast into doubt". Instead, he may say "Excellent, another piece of evidence with which I may test my theory," for in order for any conclusion (that is, any reasoned conclusion) to be made, there MUST be doubt. Without doubt there is no logic, and without logic there can be no progress. If the will to progress is labelled Jacobin, then Regalia is doomed to stagnate and fall as the Elven Empire.


III. On the Third Creed
The Third Creed of Unionism shows quite clearly the inferiority of the non-Humans, and I do not doubt this (for there is no place for doubt in matters of religion). The Creed states that when the Humans enter Paradise, the non-Humans will be their servants and slaves. I have no objection to this, and have never expressed any objection. It is only that it is not necessarily morally acceptable to beat or torture a slave or servant without adequate reason. A true slave, a slave which completes work for a master, may be treated badly so long as this is sufficiently beneficial for the master. For example: to diminish the Well-Being of a slave because it amuses the master would be morally wrong, even though legally it would be perfectly in their right. It would only be morally acceptable in the event that to diminish their well-being would sufficiently augment the well-being of others - for example, to produce important goods for sale by the state. For further exploration, please see II - The Moral Destruction of Well-Being.

IV. CONCLUSION
Need this any conclusion? The conclusion is evident, it seems. Simply: the previous writing is not Jacobin in nature, if liberal. To call my writing Jacobin would be a simple mistake, as it does not doubt Human superiority or call for any sort of reform. I have committed no crime, by any means.
 
Last edited:
"<ZA> Unionism is for the ailor. And so is Jacobanism. If any race is superior, let it be mine own, for the laws of caste and hierarchy have been naturally made within our civilization."
 
The Unknown said:
A single paper was pinned up in the tavern, hand-written in neat but hurried script:​

A MEDITATION ON WELL-BEING AND THE MORALITY OF RACISM
Isaak Darkäfen​

———​

RACISM - The treatment of one race as lesser than another due only to being of that race, or holding characteristics intrinsic to that race as a result of being of that race.

———​

Preface​

Racism is correctly claimed by many to be an essential cornerstone of the Regalian way of life, for without racism there could be no Class system; no slavery; and, in the eyes of the devout, no entry to Paradise. For this reason the moral acceptability of racism is assumed; for upon this dogma (among others) Regalian society leans heavily. However, such dogmas MUST NOT go unquestioned. In the pursuit of progress no conviction may remain undoubted, if only in that once doubted, they may be proven true and leaned upon all the more heavily. In order for progress to be made; in order for the people of Regalia, nay, ALORIA, to advance, their convictions must be doubted many times over until there CAN BE NO DOUBT of their absolute truth. Now that such a conviction is being leaned upon so heavily to justify the actions of the Black Regiment, it is of the utmost importance to insure that racism is justifiable in itself.

I. The Value of Well-Being
To be sure, the Well-Being (that is, the moral, emotional, physical health and to a lesser extent contentedness and general happiness; the state of Being Well) of all sentient beings has a certain moral value. To demonstrate: it would be morally wrong to, upon meeting on the street a young Ailor lady, bludgeon her with a stick. It is wrong for the reason that it harms her Well-Being; it bruises her delicate body, and causes her great distress and fear. Moreover, it would not be any more morally acceptable if the one bludgeoning the other extracted enjoyment from the act - the lady's Well-Being is diminished by far more than the beater's is augmented.


II. Being Well in Death
It can easily be asserted that in death no non-human can Be Well, for they are always reincarnated (in which case they are not dead any longer) or simply die (in which case they do not exist in order to feel distress, or be harmed physically). Humans can Be Well in death, as they are able to join the Spirit.


II. Moral Destruction of Wellbeing
On the other hand, the value of the Well-Being of a dangerous Human Aberrant may be lesser than the value of the collective comfort of the victims which it will undoubtedly harass, and certainly the lives that it may extinguish. In such a case the Well-Being of the Aberrant may be sacrificed ONLY as a preventative measure¹, and similarly in the case of a murderer. Should the Human not be an Aberrant, there would of course be no adequate reason to destroy their Well-Being or life, and therefor, in so doing one would be acting immorally. Thus, it is only by directly endangering the Well-Being of others that the endangerer, similarly to the Aberrant, grants the moral right to diminish the endangerer's Well-Being.

¹ preventing the Aberrant from diminishing the Well-Being of others by attacking them directly or deluding and misleading them, corrupting their morality with its Demonic nature and leading them from the Great Way.


III. The Commonality of Well-Being
Should a Human wandering in his house stub his toe on a table leg, he would feel pain. Is there any adequate reason to believe that this pain would be any more or less intense had he been an Altalar? Similarly, if a Human child loses her favourite toy, would she feel any more or less anguish than if she had been a Maraya, an Allar, a non-Human? The answer is of course no². Humans and non-Humans suffer in the same ways and to the same degrees. Similarly, they can Be Well in the same ways and to the same degrees (while living). Therefor, as non-humans and humans suffer in the same ways and to the same degrees, the Well-Being of each must be of the same nature. Well-Being is a trait of a sentient being, not of a non-human or human, as it is clearly existent in all sentient beings and is no different from species to species.

² though a Varran child may have less of an interest in toys, this difference is purely cultural or personal. In the same way, a Velheimer child may have less of a connection to his toys than an Ithanian. This cannot mean that the capacity and nature of their Well-Being is different fundamentally, only that it is augmented and diminished by different things.


IV. CONCLUSION
If Well-Being is the trait of a sentient being, not of a Human or non-Human, and if it is the same across all Races, then how can it be more valuable in one case or another? The Well-Being of a Maraya is the Well-Being only of a sentient being, and so too is that of an Ailor. If this is true, how can they have a different moral value? Can two things of the same nature - nay, can two IDENTICAL actions be of different moral values? Of course not. Similarly, it seems that the Well-Being of the Ailor and the non-Ailor must be of the same value. Therefor, in diminishing the Well-Being of any sentient being, one diminishes one's own Well-Being in acting immorally.


V. On Superiority
The innate superiority of Humans has no effect on the relative value of their Well-Being on a basic level. Humans may be superior, but this does not give them the moral right to abuse non-Humans without good reason (see II).

Any reasoned questions or objections will be addressed on a later paper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A passing stranger would look upon the notice with a sigh and a frown. "Well, he is as foolish as I. He put his damn name on the letter, which is pretty much a death sentence...though it does seem an Elvish name, so perhaps he will not be forced to leave his family as I was. Either way I do hope he remains alive." and with that he slunk off back to the Slums and back to his new hovel of a home.
 
Zas'kince thought to himself reading this, "Yeah, screw this guy," he muttered to himself before moving along.
 
The Unknown said:
A second notice was tacked up, overlapping the Meditation ever so slightly, not long after the first release. The handwriting was even more hurried than in the first writing, but legible.
CLARIFICATION: ON JACOBINISM
———

Preface​
Out of the mutterings and general babble in the Tavern, it has been markedly easy to pick the word 'Jacobin', a term I did fear I would be labelled with upon releasing my Meditation. I had intended to take my time over my next essay, but it has become clear that a mistake has been made that needs rectifying. It must be made quite clear to any that may be uneducated on the matter that the concept of Well-Being is NOT a Jacobin one, or even a revolutionary one. Rather, it calls for an end to the needless harming of non-Humans (for example, by organisations such as the Black Regiment). Be it that you have merely skim-read the Meditation, or read and misunderstood, this will be explained to you in the following clarification.


I. On Superiority (II)
As stated in the Meditation, 'Humans are superior to non-Humans, but this has no effect on the relative value of their Well-Being on a basic level'. This may be liberal, but certainly not Jacobin. Humans have achieved far more than any other race, and have a deep connection to, arguably, the only known benevolent deity. THIS is what makes them superior, not the value of their Well-Being. Being superior to another does not give one the moral right to abuse those others. For example: to be sure, a Nobleman is superior to an Ailor peasant. This does not, however, give any nobleman the moral right to abuse a commoner. In stating that a non-Human must not be harmed needlessly, one does not simultaneously state that Humans are not superior to them. To believe these two statements mean the same would be, to my mind, a simple mistake. Further, it seems clear that the belief that harm ought not to come to non-Humans needlessly is not Jacobin, but in fact quite reasonable.


II. On Progress and Instability
In the Preface to my Meditation on the Morality of Racism, I wrote "such dogmas MUST NOT go unquestioned. In the pursuit of progress no conviction may remain undoubted, if only in that once doubted, they may be proven true and leaned upon all the more heavily". By this I mean that times change, and lest Regalia face the same fate of the Elven Empire its people must adapt to changing times. In order to do this, there must be doubt. If there is no doubt there can only be stagnation, which leads to failure. A Historian must not think, upon being presented with fresh evidence that conflicts with his findings, "I must not allow this fresh evidence to cloud my judgement, lest my studies be cast into doubt". Instead, he may say "Excellent, another piece of evidence with which I may test my theory," for in order for any conclusion (that is, any reasoned conclusion) to be made, there MUST be doubt. Without doubt there is no logic, and without logic there can be no progress. If the will to progress is labelled Jacobin, then Regalia is doomed to stagnate and fall as the Elven Empire.


III. On the Third Creed
The Third Creed of Unionism shows quite clearly the inferiority of the non-Humans, and I do not doubt this (for there is no place for doubt in matters of religion). The Creed states that when the Humans enter Paradise, the non-Humans will be their servants and slaves. I have no objection to this, and have never expressed any objection. It is only that it is not necessarily morally acceptable to beat or torture a slave or servant without adequate reason. A true slave, a slave which completes work for a master, may be treated badly so long as this is sufficiently beneficial for the master. For example: to diminish the Well-Being of a slave because it amuses the master would be morally wrong, even though legally it would be perfectly in their right. It would only be morally acceptable in the event that to diminish their well-being would sufficiently augment the well-being of others - for example, to produce important goods for sale by the state. For further exploration, please see II - The Moral Destruction of Well-Being.

IV. CONCLUSION
Need this any conclusion? The conclusion is evident, it seems. Simply: the previous writing is not Jacobin in nature, if liberal. To call my writing Jacobin would be a simple mistake, as it does not doubt Human superiority or call for any sort of reform. I have committed no crime, by any means.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alban looked at this, giving a shake of his head.
"He defends himself in the oddest ways. Don't make an essay, make a /denouncement/ obviously, jeez."
 
Bluequill would observe the writings as he sipped at a glass bottle of Estoian Mead, before sighing and saying silently "I suspect the populace to undergo an impending conflict...." Followed by a quick glance around the Tavern before quietly exiting into the night, twirling a quill in his pocket.
 
In Deos magnificent mind he pondered on the idea, "Is it legal to ride down mainstream with a club and knock jacobin heads in, in a sort of ehh. Ride By Situation? Its fighting a plague and defending our Holy Empire from vile thoughts."
 
Top Bottom