I'm really not sure if many of the editors of this page understand the concept of the trope; when a society with a certain moral code encounters another society with a different moral code, there's no hypocrisy or incongruity when those moral codes conflict or bring about strife. There's an example on the main page from Battletech with a leader being sniped and the retribution from his next-of-kin; this isn't a moral dissonance, it's just how that society works. I don't know if trying to go through and edit the whole board would be worth anything since, as I well know, the internet is full of idiots, but it's really troubling that the concept of conflicting moralities being 'wrong' is seen throughout.
Edited by 24.24.219.53 Hide / Show Replies
If you believe that the majority of the examples are misuse of the trope, take it to the Trope Repair Shop.
Most of the chunk about Taran Zhu in the World Of Warcraft segment either contradicts stated lore or misrepresents it. The whole thing kind of looks like a deliberate attempt to shoehorn in a character they don't like in a negative trope. Because I am relatively new to editing and don't want to act in haste, I figured I'd make an explanatory thread and wait for input instead of just insta-deleting a big example.
The problems read as follows: He dropped the alliance/horde hate and apologize for it right around the point where he got saved after it (literally) consumed him, which canonically happened before he lead a charge on any invaders. Plus it was a matter of defense, not a "war of extermination".
As for the ending cinematic with Garrosh, while it's true he claims his people suffered the most (and YMMV on whether it was worse, but the troper in question conveniently left out the destruction of the Vale of Eternal Blossoms), it's not done with an arrogant or dismissive subtext and there is no lore supporting that he'd be ignorant at this point. On the contrary, he's been presented as well-read within the game and trailers, and the cinematic has him say "justice will be meted out for all" (the other races later get a major role in the trial).
The last indent about the Isle of Thunder is a pretty fair representation of events, but should probably be edited to take out the "ironically" part about Zhu as it relies on the above misrepresentation to fit in.
So, does anyone have any input or should I go ahead and fix it?
Hide / Show Replies
Uh, yeah, that example strike me as a case of poor standard and not this trope. I would take it out.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I have no intention of adding back the Real Life examples (Real Life + morality tropes = controversy and natter), but had to comment that this is what always struck me as so bizarre about the Somali pirates last year reacting so self-righteously to getting attacked by special forces. "How dare you try to attack us! We will defend ourselves against your mindless aggression and make you pay for this moral outrage!" ...from pirates who kidnap people to hold them for ransom, said to the countries trying to rescue those people! O.o
Edited by BritBllt "And for the first time in weeks, I felt the boredom go away!" Hide / Show Replies
It's not about rescuing the hostages, it's about killing the pirates without fixing the problems that are making people turn to piracy (i.e. 20-year Civil War that the U.N. has given up on trying to fix).
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
B&
I wouldn't say it's a bug in altruism itself, as much as a bug in the hyper-extended and over-entitled version of altruism that forms the core doctrine of Marxist beliefs. It is possible for a society to be altruistic, by maintaining legal and ethical codes that don't prejudge members outside the known community of individuals. "Moral myopia," or at least the obsession with it, stems from an insistence that all people must not only be innocent until proven guilty, but also be innocent unless their special circumstances as an individual be taken into account... in short, there must be a different set of legal codes and requirements specially tailored to the circumstances of each individual. This is the diametric opposite of the actual concept of justice, in which it is as wrong for a prince to commit a crime as it is for a pauper, and as unjust to let a pauper get away with crimes as it is to let off a prince. Justice, and the morality it enforces, must not only be myopic, but outright blind, to be anything other than a masquerade hiding rampant injustice. The fact that enough Tropers reject the concept of "blind justice" in favor of "justice according to social class" to create a page dedicated to this trope doesn't bode well for western civilization.
Edited by tatterdemalian Hide / Show Replies
Who knows, but he said it more than two years ago. No reason to dredge up a dead conversation now.
...yeah, I couldn't make head or tail of it either.
But I'm more concerned at the way they seem to have used the phrase 'western civilisation' un-ironically. XD
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
A lot of these examples seem to be "People who care about themselves and their friends more than they care about their sworn enemies"? Is that really a trope or just... common sense?
Can we please get rid of the abortion example at the bottom of the page? Or at least edit it to a neutral stance? That's just asking for flamewars to be started.
Hide / Show Replies
I removed it since it violates the No Real Life Examples Please rule. And I got rid of the "Other" category altogether since it provides too much temptation for people to violate that rule.
◦Kamille has a point. All he's doing is killing soldiers in times of war. Jerid? He killed Kamille's mother and several unarmed civilians.
Point of contention... Jerid legitimately thought he was shooting at a bomb. And I don't recall any instance of him deliberately targeting civilians otherwise
Suggestion to replace the current page image with this Calvin and Hobbes example (possibly cropped) http://vannevar.blogspot.com/2009/03/depression-kant-categorical-imperative.html
because it is less in need of a caption and in my opinion illustrates the trope better
What if one mistakes Moral Myopia for Values Dissonance?
Suppose Tribe A kills and raids Tribe B, and expects tribe B to do the same. It does not(hypothetically)blame Tribe B as such, but it surely is not going to make it easier for Tribe B to succeed even though it will do so for itself. This is just Values Dissonance; it is assuming it is all right to pillage other tribes besides ones own but expecting other tribes to make the same assumption.
Any idea what this is called in real life?
Limpin' with the bizkit.