voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you write this all up as an article, or,
> at least, write up your side, and I write mine
> when I can.
>
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When I say "Smith (or Lovecraft) is moral," I
> do
> > not mean to comment on their personal moral
> code
> > (although these aspects could inform this
> > discussion, were we to want to discuss the
> source
> > of moral influences in their work). I mean
> the
> > "moral landscape" they tend to create.
> >
> I'm not familiar enough with his entire work to
> say if there is a consistent moral landscape
> thereby created, or if it varies by story or
> setting. All I can comment upon are the few
> stories that I'm reasonably familiar with.

In the "cycle" stories it varies, but not by much.

>
> > But the aspect of the world that decides
> their
> > fate is often a manifestation of a
> supernaltural
> > being, and a lot of times (not always, as
> another
> > poster has shrewdly observed) there is an
> impetus,
> > or "reason," for the punishment. Now, the
> reason
> > may not be one that traditionally is
> adequate
> > cause for punishment--but it often is.
> >
> Given this, then, can we apply morality to the
> supernatural being, and if so, whose? Do they have
> their own morality, ambiguous or unknown as it is,
> compared to the human characters? How do the two
> orders of being interact, and in doing so reflect
> upon their forms of morality?

These are fascinating questions!

I've thought long and hard on the problem of "morality" (or "ethiccs"), and while I certainly have nothing new to contribute to this area of philosophy--far greater minds than mine have plowed over this field countless times--I can say that I have gotten my head partway around it.

If we come at the discussion from the assumption that there is a diety, much of what follows is worthless. Beginning with the postmodernist assumption that their is no God, nor external order, it would follow that morality is the creation or adoption of those who are capable of consciously practicing its tenets. And, since what is considered moral varies a great deal in both time and place, we have to conclude that it is not absolute, but relative.

Further, it seems that there is "individual" vs "group" morality: the individual has his/her own code--which overlaps (or is overlapped by) the collective morality of the group, but is very seldom congruent with it. To the degree that the individual's morality is consonant with the group's, that individual can co-exist with the group, as a whole.

To make matters worse, "morality" as such, tends to be unrecorded, and is quite vague and fuzzy. I'd argue that "law" is an attempt to record all aspects of a group morality that represent the minimum standard of accepted moral behavior.

So, to answer your questions: since my assumption is that there are no supernatural beings, this cannot be answered in a meaningful way; however, in the artificial universe of a fantasy writer (and I'm excluding religious texts here), the Top Dog's morality prevails, but only to the degree that s/he wants to make it stick. Since, by definition, they *are* the top dog, and answer to no one, they are bound only by their own whims (and this is the basis for most moral behvior, in my opinion), and the degree to which these whims are consistent is the degree to which their desires can be predicted and satisified by rituals.

>
> > This one is ambiguous, though. Interesting
> that in
> > this story, a *living* person was going to
> be
> > eaten--or worse. This "broke" the code of the
> god,
> > in favor of the degenerate who wanted to buy
> the
> > protagonist's young wife. And *he* got his
> moral
> > come-uppance.
> >
> From the evidence to the story, it was the lesser
> characters not the god that treated her as if she
> was dead when not. Thus she was in no danger of
> being eaten.

I just this instant re-read the story, and am in accord with you on this.

> Likewise, the god's code allowed
> Abnon-Tha his necromancy, but only in the temple,
> and only temporary; he could play, as it were,
> with Mordiggian's food.

...and this seems to serve no purpose except to advance the plot. It is pretty much arbitrary and unsupported by anything else in the story.

I guess that this is an example of the whimsical morals of a god, huh?

> Deciding to bugger off
> with one was the point he transgressed the god's
> whims, and so he was toast, if you pardon the
> expression, or, rather, croutons in Mordiggian's
> morning meal.

Right you are!

As an aside, as regards amoral behavior: the main necormancer--whose name escapes me at the moment--engaged in what I might call amoral behavior. Very like Ripley! He lusts strongly after the noblewoman, who is *far* beyond his reach socially. So, for no other reason than self-indulgence in the extreme, he *kills* her, then reanimates her in the temple. He is also all set to screw Mordiggian by making off with a legitmate corpse, AND he is fixing to kill the noblewoman's lover, as a replacement. (This seems to make little or no sense, in terms of what happens.)

>
> > Well, Namirrah *was* violating the edicts of
> a
> > god. From Prometheus onward (and doubtles
> before)
> > this is a pretty sure way of getting
> stomped.
> >
> Yes; but from Prometheus onwards, the
> non-fictional gods have all embodied,

Exactly what is a "non-fictional" god?

> to varying
> degrees, their worshippers' morality.

Right. Since they don't actually exist, they share a lot of the morality, or least, the sensibilities, of their creators--who, ironically, like to claim that they are taking the god's authority to legitmize their own code of behavior. The ultimate in circular logic...

> Zeus doesn't
> care about buggering off with a comely lass, but
> he's pretty down on killing a suppliant.
>
> > No question there. I don't even know what
> Smith
> > believed in, only that I find his worldview
> and
> > moral sensibilities, as is evidenced in his
> > stories, to be very stimulating and
> intruiging.
> >
> Perhaps this is another area that you could write
> upon: the moral universe of CAS.

Hah, hah! This will happen about the time Mordiggian goes vegan.

>
> > must the POV, itself, be subject to a moral
> code in order
> > for there to be a moral perspective; and if
> the
> > POV is not subject to such a code, is it
> possible
> > for the work in question to be other than
> amoral?
> >
> That's like asking the related question: can a
> moral code be created independently of the
> creator, or must it come from the creator?

It would seem to me that no moral code exists independently of a creator.





--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~