The Sword and Laser discussion

Anyone here besides me think that Chivalry was a douche ?

To me he was the epitome of a deadbeat dad.

Fathers a child
Refuses to see the child
Refuses to give any monetary support, let alone emotional
Runs away from the problem

Yes, the book claims he did this to "protect" the child, but really ? The arguments brought up about safety could have just easily have been applied to any legitimate child he had as well.

I see him as a weak man who latched onto any excuse to distance him from the problem - and worse yet - he managed to shovel the guilt and shame of his abdicating the thrown onto a newborns shoulders.

Chivalry ? A better name might have been Scum-bucket.

Yes, the book claims he did this to "protect" the child, but really ?
I don't remember it saying that. He just didn't know about Fitz until he showed up at the fort's doorstep.

Granted you don't need a degree in biology to show a bit of sense here...

Yep - and after he found out ?

Makes sure to move to another town before the kid could get there

Quits his job and blames it on the kid

And still - never sends a red cent to help

Lets not forget to mention - he retires to the equivalent of a Mansion in the county while he lets his child sleep with dogs in a kennel

And - STILL - mananges to convince people he is a good guy.

That was always my take. Of course, absentee fathers are such a standard trope of the genre that it might actually be odd if Chivalry were not a jerkface.

Where do you get the "never sends a red cent to help"? It's not like Buckkeep lacked for funds. What do we or Fitz know about how royal family finances worked? He gave him to his stablemaster and since Burrich was a (view spoiler)[King's Man to Chivalry there was probably no one he knew better due to the supernatural bond they shared. (hide spoiler)].

Then again Lady Patience did feel guilty for how it ended up.

Completely disagree with you.
Chivalry was not going to leave his wife and his wife couldn't produce an heir. The only thing he could do was to leave which provided the safest environment for his wife and his bastard son.

I got the impression that if Chivalry had shown support for Fitz openly, it would have endangered Fitz, Chivalry, and Lady Patience. By leaving Fitz received a place to live, food to eat, guidance in the form of instructional lessons for life, etc. Clearly his maternal family didn't want Fitz which caused me to speculate that outside of Buckkeep, life wasn't exactly flush.

Did Fitz have the best childhood? Nope, sure didn't. But a crappy childhood is better than no childhood and Fitz would have been most likely killed if his father had tried to openly protect him.

Realistically, Chivalry was about the best dad he could be for Fitz in the sociopolitical setting of Hobb's story.


On a side note:
The only douche-like thing I see is the title of this thread. Really? Seems a bit "blue" to me. But hey, maybe I'm in the minority.

Can't put it any better than Casey just did.

I agree with Casey for the most part. You have to view things like that in the setting of the story and not just from the moral PoV of today's regular Joe.

(book 1 early spoiler:) (view spoiler)[The context where Chivalry was likely murdered is also important. (hide spoiler)]

KevinB wrote: "I agree with Casey for the most part. You have to view things like that in the setting of the story and not just from the moral PoV of today's regular Joe."

Aren't truly moral people supposed to rise above the limitations of their cultural matrix? Either way, if an author can't convince the "regular Joe" (or Jane) that a supposedly "good" character's actions meet a sufficient definition of "moral" behavior, given the diagesis, then that author had failed.

Note that I don't think that's the case here with Hobb, who handles moral nuance so exquisitely that it gives Orson Scott Card nervous fits.
I think Chivalry is *supposed* to come across as something of a short-sighted egotistical jerk.

I had the impression that Chivalry's most dominant characteristic was also his greatest flaw. The choices he made about his son were completely dictated by his self-imposed code of honor, and had less to do with what was best for the boy and more to do with what was more "honorable" as defined by the morals of the time and place in which he lived and his own myopic character traits. In other words, I think both of the views expressed here are a little right and a little wrong. He wasn't a "douche" per se, but that doesn't mean that his choices where Fitz was concerned were all about doing right by his child.

Casey wrote: "Completely disagree with you.
Chivalry was not going to leave his wife and his wife couldn't produce an heir. The only thing he could do was to leave which provided the safest environment for his ..."

So -

If Chivalry had produced a child with his wife, then the safest thing to do for the child would be to ignore it and let it be raised in a kennel ?

No - he would have taken that child into his fortress and surrounded it with soldiers, guards and all kinds of protection.

Why isn't this this best thing to do for Fitz then ? Because Chivalry didn't want him.

And face it - if he wanted, Chivalry could have remained the prince and just given the big ole finger to any one who looked sideways at him. Remember, he was the bloody prince.

He used the birth of a child to give himself the excuse to quit - and then let all the guilt of that fall to the child.

Yep - he was a douche.

P.S.

I do not intend this post to be flame bait - I was just really irritated that someone in the book who was praised so highly by other characters, acted like such an incredibly selfish person, all the while protesting that his actions were for the good of others.

I see this as psychological manipulation at its worse - remember he was not (view spoiler)[ above using the Skill to totally brain wash and manipulate Galen (hide spoiler)]

I think the main point was that Fitz was of questionable birth...a bastard. If Chivalry had acknowledged him, it would have led to Fitz being drawn to the forefront of a battle over who inherits the kingdom. We all saw what a good and honorable guy Regal was. So I can buy that publically, Chivalry needed to cut all ties.

That said, I don't see how he couldn't have at least left a letter of explanation for Ftiz if not a secret correspondence. I see no reason that he couldn't have some private communication with him (albeit probably not frequently) to ensure that his son was being cared for and give instructions on how to navigate the complex political world he was shoved into. In that I think he was a douche. Through most of the book I (view spoiler)[ assumed Patience was the reason he cut all ties. Then we find out she got over it quickly and wanted to adopt him. So yeah, wasn't to impressed with him by the end. (hide spoiler)].
I like Karen's explanation of how he was a letter of the law kind of guy instead of looking at the spirit of a situation.

I think the issue is that Fitz as a bastard is royal enough to threaten the potential successors to the throne but is not afforded the status which protected a legitimate heir. Killing a legitimate heir is treason. Killing a bastard is not. Fitz was in a lot more danger as a bastard even from the King himself.

Fitz is a potential heir, just he is in last place. Why Shrewd told him that someone might approach him and plot a palace coup.

Killing him might be treason.

I got the impression that Fitz complicated the line of succession. Since Lady Patience was barren, the only rightful heir to Chivalry would have been Fitz. I think Chivalry was forced out of his position rather than opting to abandon it.

As for the lack of contact, I think that was also a carefully calculated choice that was forced upon Chivalry. He couldn't be seen as communicating or supporting Fitz, otherwise be accused for accepting a bastard as a legitimate heir.

The way Chivalry was spoken of through out the book and finally what Lady Patience says of him, Chivalry did not openly choose to abandon Fitz, but was made to do so in order to keep Fitz out of the line of succession.

It all comes back to politics and I think that Chivalry was right in not keeping contact, accepting or in any way supporting Fitz.

P. Aaron wrote: "Aren't truly moral people supposed to rise above the limitations of their cultural matrix? "

That's assuming there is anything like an absolute morality, which there isn't. One's morality is mostly shaped by one's culture.

Chivalry did the only thing he could to save both the kid and his marriage. if he kept Fitz whith him, he would wound Lady Patience and fitz would be running for the throne putting hin on Regal's target's list.

I expect that there is more to it then just Chivalry being a douche or royal politics and that the next books in the trilogy will shine a new light on the whole situation.
Just because Chivalry reminds me of Game of Throne's Ned Stark. For both such a one-time screw up that produces a bastard seems so at odds with their described character that you know there has to be more to it.

Actually I guess the odd thing is that Chivalry wasn't married by the age of 17 if its so important for him to not father bastards. Cultures that make a big deal about not having sex before marriage also usually have teenage marriage... makes a lot of sense.

but I guess then there wouldn't be much of a book.

Stan wrote: "Casey wrote: "Completely disagree with you.
Chivalry was not going to leave his wife and his wife couldn't produce an heir. The only thing he could do was to leave which provided the safest enviro..."

The context of the environment calls for different treatment of Fitz because of the fact that he was born out of wedlock. It's not like they have blood tests or DNA tests in that world. If one royal legitimizes a child born out of wedlock (however ethical that may be) how many other children would be put forward with the claim that they are sons or daughters of princes with no way to prove or disprove?
Social custom is dictated by the abilities and competence of the society they exist in. In this day there are paternity tests, so the laws regarding that kind of thing are loosened due to the fact that people can rely on reproducible scientific evidence. No one calls anyone a bastard (at least in that context in our country) and such children aren't denied opportunities below that of their peers who are born within wedlock.

Interesting thought.

Society encouraged harsh treatment of bastards in order to discourage false claims at a tiime when they could not be easily disproven.

KevinB wrote: "That's assuming there is anything like an absolute morality, which there isn't. One's morality is mostly shaped by one's culture. "

J. L. Mackie had an interesting take on absolute moral values in that if they exist, they would be so foreign to the human mind that we would not be able to recognize them as existing. Thus due to the human construction of morality, all values are subjective at best.

Stan wrote: "Interesting thought.

Society encouraged harsh treatment of bastards in order to discourage false claims at a tiime when they could not be easily disproven."

People are a fearful species.

Casey wrote: "KevinB wrote: "That's assuming there is anything like an absolute morality, which there isn't. One's morality is mostly shaped by one's culture. "

J. L. Mackie had an interesting take on absolute ..."

I would disagree. For a social species like human beings, certainly the application would differ, but not the value. But, for instance, The Mountain Folk in this story seem more humane and forgiving, excepting when it comes to "infirm" infants and the elderly. The value is the preservation and efficient use of resources by getting rid of the people who may use them without equitable contribution. For the people of El and Eda there is a graduated distribution where those who are high born receive better and more and those who are low born receive less and perhaps substandard.
I bet when you compare both societies the result is equal.
The Mountain Folk seemed to have no concept of bastards likely because their infant mortality rate is higher due to the practice of euthanizing weaker babies. They can't afford to discount someone simply because they weren't born to the "right" person in the "right" way.
The people of El and Eda, with more arable land and therefore likely more food don't feel the need to euthanize babies, but must control distribution of resources also (because nothing is infinite) and so they control station and information. Takes all kinds.

@Leslie – Wait a sec. Are you disagreeing with respect to Mackie's take on absolute moral values or the treatment of Fitz by his father Chivalry? It's cool if you disagree but I don't want to misunderstand your disagreement. wait, am I making sense? :)

WOW. Were we even reading the same book Stan. Chivalry's motivations were made clear repeatedly through the book. To keep a distance to keep Fitz safe.
And as far as Sending money goes.
1) It fits with Chivalry's motivation to Keep Fitz safe that he wouldn't send money for fear of outing Fitz and Second...His father was the frakking King...Fitz was living under the roof of THE KING what could a basically unemployed Chivalry provide that THE KING couldn't.
I in all honesty thought that Chivalry's chivalrous actions in protecting the child were very obvious, even giving up his beloved position in the kingdom and place in line for the crown for him. I think that's pretty noble compensation for one mistake.

PS not trying to sound like im belligerent here hope I didnt come off rude, wasnt intended that way.

Paul wrote: " in all honesty thought that Chivalry's chivalrous actions in protecting the child were very obvious, even giving up his beloved position in the kingdom and place in line for the crown for him. I think that's pretty noble compensation for one mistake"

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how giving up the crown was done for Fitz. I didn't get that impression at all. It was my understanding that he gave it up because in the act of fathering a bastard outside of his marriage, he believed he had somehow become a moral failure in the eyes of the people, and thus did not deserve to lead them. It's possible I'm missing something here, but that's what I got from the events. As far as outing Fitz, everyone already knew he was Chivalry's bastard, so what was there to out? And it wasn't his father who insisted that he be educated and housed in the castle instead of sleeping with the animals, it was Shrewd (when he was finally and accidentally reminded of the boy's existence) who decided it might be a good idea to keep a closer eye on Fitz and secure his loyalty.

Casey wrote: "@Leslie – Wait a sec. Are you disagreeing with respect to Mackie's take on absolute moral values or the treatment of Fitz by his father Chivalry? It's cool if you disagree but I don't want to mis..."

Yes, that made sense. I am disagreeing that all values are subjective. I think SOME are, but basic value of life, family, society. Those things are traits of most people in most places. How a society distributes resources may be different, but food, shelter, clothing, and mental stimulation are necessary for all societies.

I don't think that Chivalry was immoral. His objective was to protect both his son and the stability of a vulnerable kingdom. We may not have agreed with the way that he did it, but when Patience shows back up and expresses regret for her choices, and you understand Chivalry's behavior as described in the past, including skilling Gaven so that his hate turned to idolotry, the fact that Chivalry was "perfect" in his application of honor is suspect. He seems to have made a hard decision in an effort to protect Fitz.

But those kinds of things are the problem I have with this book. I understand the perspective is a teenage boy, and so we may not be privy to everyone's inner thoughts or motivations, but even then Chivalry is such a ghost. We don't quite believe in him. I wish she had solidified the character at least in Fitz' eyes. Made him hate him or idolize him, instead I was left with an ambiguous sort of feeling about him.

Karen wrote: "Paul wrote: " in all honesty thought that Chivalry's chivalrous actions in protecting the child were very obvious, even giving up his beloved position in the kingdom and place in line for the crown..."
FitzChivalry, is shown to have watched over him through Verity's eyes, and to have received messages about FitzChivalry from Verity. He never met FitzChivalry and abdicated the throne and moved away in an attempt to keep Fitz from harm from his enemies.

Pulled this from a site about the book... a little cheat but I needed to make sure I was right as well.

Chivalry, is shown to have watched over him through Verity's eyes, and to have received messages about FitzChivalry from Verity. He never met FitzChivalry and abdicated the throne and moved away in an attempt to keep Fitz from harm from his enemies.

ummmmmm......

Chivalry married Patience out of love, against his father's wishes. He was expected to marry for political gain. The fact that Patience couldn't bear children placed a further expectation that he should put his wife away and remarry because his own line of succession is in doubt leading to possible turmoil if he dies without an heir. Suddenly Fitz shows up. So not only does Chivalry have to face the expectation that he should remarry, but the succession is thrown into further doubt placing further pressure on Chivalry to produce a legitimate heir.
So Fitz suddenly showing up brings to a head an already precarious situation. As there was no way Chivalry was ever going to get rid of his wife, Patience's life was already in danger - from those who wanted Chivalry to produce an heir (which includes King Shrewd). Fitz is also in danger from those who DO NOT want Chivalry to have any heirs (ie Regal). So Chivalry, by putting himself out of contention for the throne, at least keeps Patience safe. Fitz is still in some danger which Chivalry seeks to alleviate by distancing himself, allowing Fitz to be brought up in the keep.

That's my take on it all anyway. Whether it was moral or not moral, it was certainly not a simple decision

@Leslie -
Okay, cool. I see now where you are coming from.
With respect to moral values, there is certainly lines of thought supporting moral values being socially instilled and claiming absolute. This gets into the area of Positivism and Realism and all too quickly we slip into the shadow of Kant and his views regarding value of personhood, examining how we use one another to derive satisfaction, etc. Some say moral values are a byproduct of the social contract theory, which basically is a subconscious agreement that we in short, won't eat one another (I'm trying to be brief). But then we must venture into the fast flowing waters of Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, Nietzsche, Milton, and the list keeps on going and going and going. The real problem is that with any perceived absolute moral value, so too must we embrace absolute right and wrong, absolute good and bad. While I am passionate about philosophy, many others are not. So if some wish to identify moral values as being absolute, that is their decision. But I just happen to disagree with that line of thinking. Any moral value that would be absolute must be attributed to an external source such as God. I for one believe God is a construct of humanity's need to be reassured of the dark. But hey, this is just my opinion. And I fully respect anyone who wishes to have an alternative opinion on this subject.


Leslie wrote: "Yes, that made sense. I am disagreeing that all values are subjective. I think SOME are, but basic value of life, family, society. Those things are traits of most people in most places. How a society distributes resources may be different, but food, shelter, clothing, and mental stimulation are necessary for all societies."

Food, shelter, and mental stimulation while necessary to family and society, have very little to do with morality. These are aspects of culture, which is in itself subjective.

As for Chivalry and Fitz, I tend to think Chivalry was not a horrible father, counter to what this thread seems to be claiming.

David Sven wrote: "Chivalry married Patience out of love, against his father's wishes. He was expected to marry for political gain. The fact that Patience couldn't bear children placed a further expectation that he s..."

Well put, I think this an summary of the difficult decision he faced. Excellent point about the low opinion of his wife and further pressure added by her inability to produce and heir. Combine that with the point made about the difficulty to prove or disprove whether Fitz was his really lays a good foundation for why it would be important to distance himself from Fitz. I still think he could have left at least one letter for Fitz to give him some basic ideas of what he would be facing.

Leslie wrote: "I understand the perspective is a teenage boy, and so we may not be privy to everyone's inner thoughts or motivations, but even then Chivalry is such a ghost. We don't quite believe in him. I wish she had solidified the character at least in Fitz' eyes. Made him hate him or idolize him, instead I was left with an ambiguous sort of feeling about him. "

A very important point I need to keep in mind but tend to forget is the perspective of this story. An old man's recollections of his own experiences as a child many years past, solely from his point of view. Thanks for the reminder.

And I agree with you about Chivalry. I wonder why the author chose to create such a vague and yet pivotal character? I'm sure there must be very good literary reason for it that me and my old neurons just fail to grasp.

The bit I dont understand is why he didnt just sign away his right to the throne and those rights of any current or future offspring which he may/have sire? Then again, if he did that it would take away from the basic character interactions in the book.

Leslie wrote: " I am disagreeing that all values are subjective. I think SOME are, but basic value of life, family, society. Those things are traits of most people in most places. How a society distributes resources may be different, but food, shelter, clothing, and mental stimulation are necessary for all societies."

You'd be wrong. The impetus or catalyst for those values come from similar places (e.g., the reality that a society's survival depends on cooperation and thus individual freedom has to be suppressed to some extent, physiological needs, etc.). But their actual expression and implementation are shaped by culture, which in turn is a product of environment and history. Otherwise we'd all have the same culture with the same religious beliefs.

Dave wrote: "The bit I dont understand is why he didnt just sign away his right to the throne and those rights of any current or future offspring which he may/have sire? Then again, if he did that it would take away from the basic character interactions in the book. "

Because in most pre-modern societies, monarchy and royal blood are at least in part, something sacred. Something more sacred than "one man, one vote" or "freedom of speech" would be in a modern Western society. Any one with the right heritage has could conceivably sit on the throne. The fact the Farseer dynasty actually demonstrate special magical powers rarely seen outside of royal Blood gives royal succession even more weight than it did in real history.

I'll add a vote for "Chivalry ignored Fitz to protect him."

I agree that Chivalry's motivations are honest, honourable and what he thinks is 'doing the right thing'. Burrich is his most loyal servant and he effectively leaves him to watch Fitz for him because he does believe its the safest/best option.

The parallel here to Game of Thrones is a good one in that, by playing the game 'honourably' when others (like Regal) have no intention of doing so, this may end up being completely the wrong call - so he is potentially doing the wrong thing for (what he believes) are the right reasons.

Ian wrote: "I agree that Chivalry's motivations are honest, honourable and what he thinks is 'doing the right thing'. Burrich is his most loyal servant and he effectively leaves him to watch Fitz for him beca..."

it would all turn for the best if Fitz wasn't such a dumb-ass

Kamil wrote: "it would all turn for the best if Fitz wasn't such a dumb-ass."

I disagree that Fitz was a dumbass but thank you for making me laugh this morning, seriously thank you.

I think Fitz was a kid who was in the process of growing up and honestly, who isn't a dumbass when you are growing up? I was. But my ability to identify my dumbass behavior is from the perspective of my present-day self, somewhat older and slightly less dumbassish.

Casey wrote: "Kamil wrote: "it would all turn for the best if Fitz wasn't such a dumb-ass."

I disagree that Fitz was a dumbass but thank you for making me laugh this morning, seriously thank you.

I think Fitz ..."
once he grows I ment

i also understand why he did it, but not so much how he did it. i mean it's understood he had some guile in negotiations and subterfuge, avoiding any contact with Fitz makes sense, but i wonder if he couldn't have used secret ways to care or contact Fitz (Chade, maybe?)

Maybe had him trained in the skill so he could contact him that way...

Casey wrote: "...With respect to moral values, there is certainly lines of thought supporting moral values being socially instilled and claiming absolute. This gets into the area of Positivism and Realism and all too quickly we slip into the shadow of Kant and his views regarding value of personhood, examining how we use one another to derive satisfaction, etc. ...."

Whoah there, Hoss. Which Kant have you been reading? That sounds more like Hobbes than Kant. Kant's answer to moral relativism is much less a function of social coding than an appeal to propositional logic. The nice thing about the Categorical Imperative is that it gives you an effective 'moral absolute' without requiring any appeal to a deity's command, social determinism, etc. Nothing but pure logic.

Of course, it's also got holes you could throw Descartes through, but that's neither here nor there. For practical purposes here, all we have to ask is whether Chivalry himself would want to be treated the way he treats Fitz. I think that people in this thread have covinced me (counter to my first reading) that the answer is yes. That makes him "moral."

But is he "ethical?" That's a different question. Does he behave in a manner which a group of reasonable people might consider a generally humane fashion? That's less certain. Further demonstration of Hobb's masterful control of nuance, I think.


tldr:
Chivalry is the Paladin in the party. His Holy Smite is awfully useful when you're surrounded by clutching undead, but his Lawful Uptight alignment gets in the way when it's time to interrogate the captured goblin chief.
Who here hasn't wanted to throw a paladin through the nearest stained glass window?

Hi P. Aaron:
What Kant Have I been reading? Honestly it has been a few years but the last Kant I read was Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Critique of Judgment. Is my Kant rusty? (that sounds so bad)

I remember finding it interesting that in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime Kant seems to fully support the subjective nature of feelings. He actually appears to possibly endorse subjective morality which he then counter-suggests in his Critique of Judgment.

I don't know, I didn't dive headlong into the three statements that make up the Categorical Imperative because quite honestly, it can be a tough subject to banter about the campfire so to speak.
1. Universal law (fascinating idea but pretty holey sorry no phonetic pun intended)
2. Respect for persons (this was what I mentioned)
3. Kingdom of ends (contrary to popular notions, not the title of a fantasy novel)

And then... See what I mean?
Don't get me wrong P. Aaron. I dig your whiteboards, I think you're very sharp, and I really enjoy reading your posts here but please don't call me Hoss, it's just not my name. I didn't think I misrepresented Kant or any aspect of moral philosophy in my post as I tried very hard to be ever so brief. I am sorry if you feel I portrayed Kant in the wrong light though, it wasn't my intention to do so.

In the words of Val Kilmer as he played the role of Doc Holliday, "There, now we can be friends."

Gah. You've been reading Kant the literary critic (subjective experientialist). I'm quasi-shamed to say I could never make it through those, even in translation. I only managed to stomach Kant the moral philosopher (pseudo-objective rational empiricist). We could have a whole 'nother discussion about whether the two can be reconciled.

As I freely admitted, the Categorical Imperative has at least two major flaws, but it least attempts to account for one relevant observable phenomenon: ethical systems change over time. If they were strictly the product of social conditioning, we would expect them to remain static. After all, from whence would new moral imperatives arise? So I give props to Kant for that (though I think Bentham's 'moral calculus' makes for a better model, in general, for how we actually decide what's right and wrong).

Apologies if 'Hoss' offended. I grew up in the hinterlands of Oregon, and occasionally my inner hick rises to the surface.

My comment about Paladins stands, though.

Joe wrote: "But their actual expression and implementation are shaped by culture, which in turn is a product of environment and history. Otherwise we'd all have the same culture with the same religious beliefs."

In other words, the Nazi's did not act immorally with there death camps and their racist ideals were not evil - There actions were simply a product of their social engineering, and if they had won the war and eliminated all who opposed their ideas then the Nazi philosophy would be considered morally ok.

I'm sorry, but I can see no difference between moral skepticism and "might is right." The opinion of the fit and the strong rule supreme over the weak and dying with selection based on survivability as opposed to truth or objective morality. Why reference morality at all? To even mention subjective morality is to infer a distinction to objective morality. Why not simply called it cultural or social opinion? Or favorable behaviors?

The logical/rational problem with moral skepticism is that it is so opposed to my intuition that there are some things that are truly wrong - for example raping little children to death appears to me to be truly wrong or objectively evil. And the premises behind the arguments against objective morality appear less obvious than the reality of objective morality. So unless I am faced with some powerful defeater for what otherwise appears obvious, it would be irrational for me to deny that objective moral values exist. And I believe most philosophers or at least many philosophers whether secular or theists would agree.

Anyway, if I am a moral skeptic then I think I would have to say that Chivalry should have dumped Patience and remarried for the good of the realm, executed anyone who threatened existing social structure ie Fitz and re married and had as many children as possible to secure his claim to the throne and reduce the threat of assassination or general upheaval.

As I'm not a moral skeptic then I am left with the complicated question ie What was the moral thing for Chivalry to do? Now my head hurts.

P. Aaron wrote: "We could have a whole 'nother discussion about whether the two can be reconciled."

We could but only around a campfire with a guitar or over a cribbage board with a cup of coffee.

P. Aaron wrote: "So I give props to Kant for that (though I think Bentham's 'moral calculus' makes for a better model, in general, for how we actually decide what's right and wrong).

I hate to admit it but I've never had the pleasure of reading much Bentham.
When it comes to those issues of right and wrong (if they exist) and many people believe they do, I think if you could blend Jean Hampton and John Rawls, we would come very close to identifying these ideas and subsequently identifying ethics beyond the complete "alien" that Mackie likes to point to. I really like Meta-ethics but Personal Identity will forever be my first philosophical love. On a completely separate note, I also very much enjoy the fits that time travel plays with respect to freewill. See, I never should have started down this road...

I'm from the woods and farmlands of Oregon myself :)

P. Aaron wrote: "The nice thing about the Categorical Imperative is that it gives you an effective 'moral absolute' without requiring any appeal to a deity's command, social determinism, etc. Nothing but pure logic."

I remember reading something in school about the paradigms of morale. Kant never denied the existance of a superior deity, but believed it shouldn't be niether confirmed ( in this case people would do good out of fear) niether denied( there would be no fear of retribution)

And speaking of paladins, I'll walk away before something regrettable may happen.