TEXT ✦ un: scion

[shtola]

[Hey, City network! What are you up to today? Having fun exploring the liminal spaces, reliving past memories, getting locked into vaults — or maybe just fucking around? Because apparently someone's in the mood for the latter.]

what's a girl got to do to get a little attention around here? ;)

[A short time after that initial post, a follow-up appears.]

because i certainly wouldn't mind being asked out for a meal and an evening in good company, myself. by someone worthy of the honor, of course; naturally, i'm a lady of discerning tastes.

[And then, a little bit later still: ]

takers must feel the unquenchable thirst of the pursuit of knowledge and be willing to participate in intellectual debate for bells on end. oh, and graciously accept defeat when i inevitably hand it to them. or don't — i'll best you at it whether you accept it or not. i'm ever so brilliant that way. how's that for sharing?

[OOC: If the content of this post sounds suspiciously unlike Y'shtola, that's because it isn't — Thancred (onlythans) and his sticky fingers have "borrowed" her network device for a short time. Responses will come from both Thancred and Y'shtola or possibly just Y'shtola after she murders Thancred in cold blood for this!]

Comments

[justscribing]

That there even was debate on the intention of the original wording shows that you did not prove it "without a shadow of a doubt", doesn't it? Mostly important of which was the inability to define a "good purpose".

[fussiest]

Oh, no, not this again!
Like I said before, the definition of a good purpose can only be derived based on which approach you apply to it. However, I know for a fact that Sage Zolfikar didn't say it with ethical egoism in mind. One only needed to look at the subject of his comment to know that he was drawing a clear ethical duty between the rich and the poor; if anything, the only thing on the table to debate is whether the ethical relativism posed is relevant to our north Sumeran culture - which it does!

[justscribing]

[It's THIS AGAIN. It's like that argument over the value of art without an audience and how the audience's inherent consumption begets commercial value. They never settled that either.]

I never disagreed that he held a viewpoint of ethical responsibility, but you insisted on an interpretation that a good purpose was one that was morally righteous. However, that means nothing if the wealth is spent on a purpose that provides no practical good.

[fussiest]

[ and what colours the drapes should be. by the way, the answer is not black. ]

Which brings me to my main problem with every answer you've posed to this question: that you choose to die on the hill of an unfair dichotomy.
You assume that choosing morality is not practical. That's absurd! Morality is practical because it provides rules that allow us to live with others, and live with ourselves! Morality is practised in our world, therefore it is practical - and choosing a good purpose with no positive moral attributions is far from ideal!

[justscribing]

[The one time Alhaitham is willing to take color matching into account and suddenly black doesn't "go with everything" anymore. It blocks more light! The purpose of curtains!]

It isn't an unfair dichotomy to hold charity to a standard that it must have practical results, which is what the wealthy passing their money down is. If it were a moral good to throw mora into an endless chasm then to actually do so would still be a meaningless task. You can't define a good purpose solely on its moral weight, and someone who engages in practical good without the intent of moral attributions has a much greater impact society as a whole.

[shtola]

( 🍿. )

[fussiest]

[ not when it drags down the entire ambience! the sunlight may not burn his eyes, but the lack of colour consistency would! what's wrong with neutral greens! what child of sumeru would reject a perfectly serviceable #043C15! ]

Absolutely not.
While I agree that there ought to be practical good from all aspects of the moral spectrum, to say that someone who engages in practical good without the intent of moral attributions has a greater impact is an unsubstantiated statement that I have serious issues with!
To begin with, your perspective ignores the nature of morality and the depth of human compassion. It focuses on immediate outcomes without understanding that even acts of altruism without immediate positive impact hold intrinsic value as it fosters compassion and empathy within communities, and it encourages others to perform similar behaviours until it does make an impact. A collective positive impact. All of that starts from a desire to perform a social good!

[justscribing]

And your perspective underestimates the role in which the rules of society define and encourage that morality. Your chain of idealistic compassion relies on a level of empathy that not all people will carry, but they do abide by the structure of society they are raised on. Moral views may change the reason in which someone engages in an action but the actual consequence of that action, good or bad, is the same.

Besides that, I would ask for your evidence where throwing your money at people who were capable of finding the means to work themselves purely because you felt it was the "right thing to do" had any collective good, but I already know you don't have it.

[fussiest]

And here you are, making presumptions of other individual's capability to work, and the inherent bias against the knowledge that even those who are capable of working require aid to reach the fullest of their potential. This is why speaking to an egoist is the most infuriating thing in the world.
Listen here: you sent those craftsmen out to sea, but if they had done so, Sumeru would have lost the expertise of their crafts honed through decades of accumulation of experience and knowledge. In turn, they would have lost their dignity.
What they gained in return from my mora and my contacts was the ability to continue what they are best at; each subsequent project they work on begets the dissemination of knowledge to new apprentices, to add value to Sumeran craftsmanship, and to feed their souls enough to care for those around them. As soon as I return from this world, I will get names to throw in your face, you immovable rock of a man.
Until then, live my thesis: this world, too, benefits from collective good. It is, in fact, the right thing to do!

[justscribing]

You forget I had spoken to those men before you did. Their expertise is being outpaced by new methods and technology that they couldn't keep up with. It's already begun to lose its value to Sumeru as a whole, and a single job and some mora only delays the inevitable: that they will have to find some other way to survive in life as less people require their skills.

You find those names when we get back and we'll see if there was any lasting impact or if you only provided temporary relief before reality set in.

[fussiest]

Hah! As if reality will ever settle for your version of it, which is missing all the crucial components of making it human.

If I am correct, and I will be, I will take liberties to move that absolutely appalling statue you bought from the front room to the back.

[justscribing]

That would make room for an interesting hollow bird sculpture I saw down at the Grand Bazaar, if the artisan is still there.

[""""Interesting""""]

[fussiest]

[ end him y'shtola. ]

Oh, you will not! The last one you brought back was missing a wing!

[justscribing]

That was the intention of the artist. You were the one who didn't wish to discuss the metaphor of a one-winged bird.

[Because it was painted in an awful pattern of bright orange and dirt brown, in addition to being only questionably bird-shaped.]

[fussiest]

[ moving us to here to save y'shtola's sanity... ]

[shtola]

( damn wdym she can’t be nosy. both y’shtola and thancred were enjoying that probably, snacking on fortune cookies that he stuffed in his pocket and stuff. entertainment is sparse around these parts. )

[fussiest]

[ BUT Y'SHTOLA, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.... THE STATUE WAS HIDEOUS!! ]