Yuyuyami: you're reading too much into what Tripredacus said. He's basically saying that Autobots are good and Decepticons are evil because that's how HasTak has marketed them - and since they own the property then it's a fact. Only a marketing fact, but a fact nonetheless.

 

For the most part I was only talking about the need for a higher power to exist to help us define what's right and wrong and all the stuff in between.

 

And Tripredacus wasn't talking about HasTakTomy owning it and thus being able to say who is evil and who isn't, he even denounced that fact with:

 

When Hasbro = Teh God of Men then shall Evil = Fact

 

Damolisher2 was the one who was saying that since HasTakTomy owns the Transformers they can say who's evil and who's not.

 

In this case I agree with Tripredacus, though. HasTakTomy is not a higher power and thus cannot tell us which transformers are good and evil. And even if it were they still couldn't tell us which ones where good and which were evil. It's a matter of our perception of them...

 

Which does seem to debunk my previous argument for needing a higher power...

 

But it doesn't and here's why:

 

What is right and wrong is what we need a higher power to help us define. It's our responsibility to figure out who is good and who is evil.

 

Let's take a classic example to show what I mean: Frankenstein's monster.

 

I don't believe he was purely evil, I believe he did evil things and was partially evil. There was good in him as well as evil. Some people I know would consider him to be good yet misguided. Each of these viewpoints is valid to an extent. The monster was misguided by his lust for love, yet he was also vengeful to an extent that he would kill William, Justine and Elizabeth.

 

It comes back to my previous statement: Evil is often done in the name of Good. Or in the case of the monster, love.

For the most part I was only talking about the need for a higher power to exist to help us define what's right and wrong and all the stuff in between.

I beg to differ. You'll notice that in all my discussion about moralities and philosophies that I've never once mentioned divinity or religion (except for one reference to Primus).

 

Morality and philosophy are at the core of religions, but not vice versa - that is to say that religions don't exist without morality and philosophy, but morality and philosophy do exist without religion. For example, Christianity is supposed to be based on the moral philosophy of egalitarianism and pluralism, claiming to support and encourage social justice based on the notions of equality, compassion, forgiveness, inclusion, tolerance, peace and love. But egalitarianism and pluralism are not based on Christianity. For example, anti-discrimination laws are not based on the premise that we are all equal but not based on the premise that God and Jesus exist. Whether you believe that God/Jesus exists or not is irrelevant. We have pluralists and bigots amongst religious and non-religious people. So religion is essentially irrelevant in this discussion of fundamental morality.

holy CRAP people. Do I need to post a huge response explaining why you're all getting way out of hand with this thread (complete with little pictures of the members in question, just in case you don't know who I'm talking about)? Here's what this thread is really about:

 

Kids grow up watching a show that they really like.

 

They want to keep liking it as adults, but find themselves unable to identify with the simplistic world view presented in it.

 

They imagine it to have more depth than it really did, in order to continue their enjoyment of it.

 

That's it. The show (and comic) were about heroic Autobots and evil Decepticons. Is that unsatisfying for an adult viewer / reader? Then grow up and stop obsessively clinging to Blotty 23-year-old toy commercials.

 

(see what I mean, I get riled about this)

 

And Bingo is his name-o. Couldn't have said it better myself. Hence why I didn't. :P

 

Oh, and Yuyuyami, yeah, Hasbro CAN tell us which Transformers are good and evil. It's their creation, and their characters. Therefore, they bloody well CAN tell us which characters are good and evil, and it doesn't get much simpler than that. What scares me is that certain people say "Oh, I need more complex stories," and yet seem to be too thick to understand Decepticons Bad, Autobots good. It's not "Our perception", they aren't our characters, they're theirs. They are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS CREATED BY HASBRO. THEY DICTATE WHO IS GOOD AND EVIL. IT DOES NOT TAKE A BLOODY ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE IT OUT. We're not talking a "Well, for some good there is evil, what is evil anyway?" philosophical discussion. We are talking about a freaking cartoon/comic/toyline for KIDS.

For the most part I was only talking about the need for a higher power to exist to help us define what's right and wrong and all the stuff in between.

I beg to differ. You'll notice that in all my discussion about moralities and philosophies that I've never once mentioned divinity or religion (except for one reference to Primus).

 

Morality and philosophy are at the core of religions, but not vice versa - that is to say that religions don't exist without morality and philosophy, but morality and philosophy do exist without religion. For example, Christianity is supposed to be based on the moral philosophy of egalitarianism and pluralism, claiming to support and encourage social justice based on the notions of equality, compassion, forgiveness, inclusion, tolerance, peace and love. But egalitarianism and pluralism are not based on Christianity. For example, anti-discrimination laws are not based on the premise that we are all equal but not based on the premise that God and Jesus exist. Whether you believe that God/Jesus exists or not is irrelevant. We have pluralists and bigots amongst religious and non-religious people. So religion is essentially irrelevant in this discussion of fundamental morality.

 

I meant religion in the broader sense that they are intricately linked, not Christianity or Judaism specifically and certainly not the Afterburner members of religious groups.

 

Of course morality exists without religion, religion is a man made artifact to honor a particular God and His wishes. And God can exist without religion.

 

But there is no morality molecule floating around. Before a sentient race of beings came about (us or any other that may have preceded us or will come later) the concept might as well have been non existent. Same with liberty (though liberty is defined as having the ability to do whatever you want despite the consequences. It can easily be defined without a 'WHY?' added to it).

 

So my basic premise is "Does morality need a sentient being to exist to do right and wrong (apply this question to the God question for interesting results)?"

 

An odd question, I know, but I truly do believe it's a valid one.

 

If a higher being is not needed to define morality for us, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that a supreme being does not exist.

 

Then how would morality be defined?

 

A personal code of honor? Why care? It's so much easier just to bash the other guy's head in. You cull competition and get some loot. You get the babes, too.

 

I refuse to believe that a rational sociological self-interest is the basis for morality. If it TRULY is then morality can be lumped into "This is better for my group, we can screw over that group." Because... Why care if that group suffers? A rational sociological self-interest would deem that it's better to protect your society and further it.

 

I refuse to believe that. I believe morality HAS to be something MUCH MUCH more.

 

But how could it be if not given and defined to us by a higher power? A supreme being.

 

There is another alternative to a supreme being. When "herds" formed, to help protect one's self from the other members of the herd, a judicial system was put into place. An "eye for an eye." This taught the herd the supposed Golden Rule "What comes around goes around." "I don't want to lose my foot so I won't cut off his." And morality stemmed from there.

 

But that's still a higher power. A man made one, albeit, but a higher power nonetheless.

 

Still, I hate the idea of governments deciding what's right and wrong. Politicians have a tendency to be corrupt (thus skewing morality if it is based on a government, even one tens of thousands of years old that a future society may look to for morality. Corruptness bleeds through time). So I choose to look to God for morality.

 

That's what I mean.

 

You CAN argue right and wrong without God or religion but nihilism formed because God has become separated from morality in recent times. "Why does morality matter? we're all just lumps of carbon and Blot."

holy CRAP people. Do I need to post a huge response explaining why you're all getting way out of hand with this thread (complete with little pictures of the members in question, just in case you don't know who I'm talking about)? Here's what this thread is really about:

 

Kids grow up watching a show that they really like.

 

They want to keep liking it as adults, but find themselves unable to identify with the simplistic world view presented in it.

 

They imagine it to have more depth than it really did, in order to continue their enjoyment of it.

 

That's it. The show (and comic) were about heroic Autobots and evil Decepticons. Is that unsatisfying for an adult viewer / reader? Then grow up and stop obsessively clinging to Blotty 23-year-old toy commercials.

 

(see what I mean, I get riled about this)

 

And Bingo is his name-o. Couldn't have said it better myself. Hence why I didn't. :P

 

Oh, and Yuyuyami, yeah, Hasbro CAN tell us which Transformers are good and evil. It's their creation, and their characters. Therefore, they bloody well CAN tell us which characters are good and evil, and it doesn't get much simpler than that. What scares me is that certain people say "Oh, I need more complex stories," and yet seem to be too thick to understand Decepticons Bad, Autobots good. It's not "Our perception", they aren't our characters, they're theirs. They are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS CREATED BY HASBRO. THEY DICTATE WHO IS GOOD AND EVIL. IT DOES NOT TAKE A BLOODY ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE IT OUT. We're not talking a "Well, for some good there is evil, what is evil anyway?" philosophical discussion. We are talking about a freaking cartoon/comic/toyline for KIDS.

 

If that were true every Decepticon would basically act like Megatron and Starscream. The FACTION is evil, not all of the characters.

 

I think HasTakTomy (or whoever the hell wrote the Beast Wars. I forget) fleshed that out quite a bit with Dinobot. Dinobot was the exact same person right when he joined the Maximals as he was before. Honor bound and battle driven. You CAN'T tell me that whether he was good or not depended solely on his faction. His actions may have been more on the good side, but your actions only define WHAT you are (in Dinobot's case, in the beginning, a Maximal. Nothing more, nothing less). But WHO you are defines your actions.

 

Also. If we were not allowed to have our own interpretation of things and fiction, story telling NEVER would have become successful.

 

And your statement is also parellel to the statement "Hitler was his own man. He decides whether he is a evil or not." Though it is true, people can change, sometimes there's just no going back if your actions are too horrible (I.E. Hitler and Stalin).

 

That is all.

 

EDIT: DAMNIT. I didn't mean to double post. I meant to edit my above post and paste this in.

Yeah, but you can't "Personally interpret" clear and obvious facts. I could say "Well, I personally interpret Chris Benoits family came back from the dead and hung him that way!" Doesn't make it right, since it's clearly wrong, and it's not what the truth is. You can't say Autobots=Evil and Decepticons= Good. It's not true, and it isn't how Hasbro are marketting their characters.

Yeah, but you can't "Personally interpret" clear and obvious facts. I could say "Well, I personally interpret Chris Benoits family came back from the dead and hung him that way!" Doesn't make it right, since it's clearly wrong, and it's not what the truth is. You can't say Autobots=Evil and Decepticons= Good. It's not true, and it isn't how Hasbro are marketting their characters.

 

Except dead is a MUCH more concrete fact than evil. Especially since evil has varying degrees.

 

AND.

 

I can interpret you as living in my house if I want to. I never said it had to be right. It's just my interpretation. Especially since it's a matter of correct rather than morality.

 

=D

I think these pics pretty much confirm which side is supposed to be the good side, and which side is supposed to be the evil side:

 

Damolisher is right. It's Hasbro/TT's line, their intellectual property. They market the 'Cons as evil, so they're evil. Now I admit that perhaps he's been a little harsh in conveying this point, but he's 100% non the less.

 

I agree that as an older fan, the simple explanation of the 'Cons trying to take over the universe just because they're evil doesn't appeal to me, and like most older fans I've attempted to retcon some sort of meaning and goal behind the actions of Megs and Co. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. I don't see anything wrong with trying to say "Megatron and the Decepticons are evil because they do *insert action* to achieve *insert goal* rather then just accepting they do "insert action* just because they're evil. There's nothing wrong with that, just as long as we acknowledge that it is retcon, as someone before me mentioned.

 

So there's nothing wrong with trying to add layers of complexity to the classic 'Bots=Good/'Cons=Evil story, as long as we accept that the Autobots are good and the Decepticons are evil as a "base." Give whatever motives you want to Prime and Megs, or any of their underlings, just as long as you acknowledge that the Autobots are the good guys and the Decepticons are the bad guys. Sure, you can say that some 'Bots acted in an evil manner, but they're still on the good side, and vise versa for some honourable 'Cons.

 

I hope my above ramblings made sense :D

 

Oh, Yuyuyami, whatever little credibility you had with me was lost after your Nazi Apologetic blurb.

A personal code of honor? Why care? It's so much easier just to bash the other guy's head in. You cull competition and get some loot. You get the babes, too.

 

I refuse to believe that a rational sociological self-interest is the basis for morality. If it TRULY is then morality can be lumped into "This is better for my group, we can screw over that group." Because... Why care if that group suffers? A rational sociological self-interest would deem that it's better to protect your society and further it.

 

I refuse to believe that. I believe morality HAS to be something MUCH MUCH more.

 

But how could it be if not given and defined to us by a higher power? A supreme being.

 

This line of thought is about feeling important in the universe. The problem is, we're not. We are not the special moral children of god. We have concepts of sociological self interest that have allowed us to survive in the way we have. If it is just cool on a large scale to bash everybody's head in You are just as likely to get bashed as to bash. Any group of animals who behaved this way would be evolutionarily unstable.

 

Most animals have codes of behavior and most of them are a hell of a lot nicer to their own species then we are. With all our philosophy and Religion, we are some of the most amoral creatures on the planet.

 

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. We are the all singing all dancing Crap of the World."

Basically speaking, "good" is when you are considerate of others. "Bad" is when you act selfishly and inconsiderately. There are varying degrees of good and bad along this scale, but that's pretty much it.

 

The Decepticons, as a faction, are self-gratifying and inconsiderate of those who obstruct them in achieving their goals. The Autobots are generally more considerate of others. For example, Optimus Prime once ordered the Autobot Race Car Patrol - who were hunting down Whisper - to retreat, because their battle had inflicted too much environmental damage to the natural habitat where they were fighting. It meant that Whisper was able to escape and the Race Car Patrol's mission was forfeited - but Optimus Prime was not willing to allow the mission to continue if it meant further habitat destruction (he afterward used a spark of the Matrix to restore the parts of the habitat which had been damaged in the fight). Decepticons generally do not sacrifice their own needs or goals for the sake of others if the other's needs conflicts with their own. Defending the lives of others (e.g.: humans) has often been an obstacle for the Autobots - but it's something that they'll do because that's how their morality works. In the movie, Optimus Prime refused to rescue Bumblebee when he was being captured by Sector Seven because he didn't want to harm humans. Bonecrusher on the other hand blew up a bus just because it was in his way and he didn't want to go around it.

 

There are exceptions on both sides (as already cited), but generally speaking, that's how these factions work. So overall, the Autobots are kind and considerate good guys, whereas the Decepticons are self-centred and inconsiderate pricks who need to go and stand in the naughty spot. :)