mattersverymuch | o7 ɂ voice

Consider this a disclaimer: what you are about to hear is not a question regarding the Admiral's motives. If I might be blunt, I don't actually care what his motives are, or indeed if he has any at all. Thank you so much for your time.

What purpose does it serve to assign legitimacy to one moral code over another? People subscribe to a moral code because it's what they've been taught, or because it allows them to survive, or because they enjoy it. Some give credence to their own code and consider it better than all others, while some aspire to a code they consider to be superior to theirs.

If one's moral code indicates one's ability to lead and make the "right" choices - the absurdity of which statement I'm not about to delve into, it's far too easy - where do people with elaborate designs on world peace by means of violence fit in, or, conversely, those who would kill to eliminate violent crime, or those who relish crime but would view assisting others as an equally worthy adventure? Of course, there are also hypocrites who betray their own code, or those golden, selfish few who exist alone and codeless.

I would like a definition of right, please. I would like all of them. Maybe I'll make a collage.

spam | merlin

[In a way, he's surprised he wasn't saddled with baggage sooner. Surprise and curiosity don't mean that he wants to be approached or even approach himself, however, so he has been steadfastly ignoring any and all messages from Merlin. They're excruciatingly unimportant.]

[Instead he takes a seat in the gardens - an unusual place of rest for him, which is part of the point. Besides, there's something enjoyable enough about plant life. It doesn't ask annoying questions.]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Right. Adjective. In accordance to what is good, proper, or just.

Of course, then you have to define good, proper, and just.

Are you one of those golden few?

Feel free to. I can add those in as well.

I'm a member of many elite circles, yes.

I get the feeling I'll end up defining a lot more than three words. That's how it always works, isn't it? We build these nebulous concepts, twist them all together, and then we try to use them to define each other.

Precisely the point. And, should a concrete definition emerge by some chance, someone will immediately disagree with it.

That's just human nature. [She pauses, and then amends.] Well, it's the nature of a lot of people, but humanity is my area of expertise.

How culturally sensitive of you.

It's the nature of fools to consistently try to define an indefinable concept.

Not sensitive, just thorough.

Grasping for what we can't reach is a tale as old as time.

Thank goodness you don't conflate the two.

Then change the ending.

I try not to conflate anything, makes things messy.

Wouldn't it be better to change the beginning?

I've noticed that, though most don't.

Define better.

Most people aren't self-aware enough. Or, honestly, aware enough in general.

In this instances, easier.

Most people are flawed.

-- I would say for most people, in most instances, the two are synonymous.

Every person is flawed.

I don't know about that. The better choice isn't always the easier one.

Of course. [Except for him.]

I'll rephrase: most people believe the better choice is the easier one.

Most people tell themselves that.

But not you.

It's tempting, but no.

Because of your incredible strength of will, no doubt. [s a r c a s m]

[She's completely unfazed. Damn right it is.] That, and I've seen what taking the easy option can do.

[He can't help being accidentally sarcasm-right sometimes.]

Such as?

o7 ɂ voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice

Voice