Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
Relying on the Emperor's own public beliefs, monodominance seems to me like the fundamental orthodoxy of the Imperial Creed.

Twenty bucks says that his public beliefs aren't public knowledge 10,000 years after the fact.

That's why I stressed what "we" know rather than what the average hiver of M41 knows. Even so, we have no reason to doubt that the Ecclesiarchy preaches anything but monodominance to the masses.

The Ecclesiarchy is not a unified whole, either, though. Much like the expansion of the Catholic church it's based on, many aspects of local worship is suborned and taken into the Ecclesiarchial Creed, then spit back out in a "Imperium-appropriate" manner. Thus, two different diocese of the Ecclesiarchy could practice very different versions of the faith.

The Ecclesiarchy is as likely to wage a War of Faith against itself as it is some other human group over issues of dogma and doctrine.

Is there in any published source or is it even imaginable that the Ecclesiarchy would preach tolerance of xenos or daemons anywhere at anytime in the Imperium without, as a matter of definition, being heretics?

 Manchu wrote:
Is there in any published source or is it even imaginable that the Ecclesiarchy would preach tolerance of xenos or daemons anywhere at anytime in the Imperium without, as a matter of definition, being heretics?

Oh hell no. But they DO tolerate non-standard cultures as long as they submit to Imperial authority (and let the Ecclesiarchy slowly subsume their religion to include Imperial icons, such as having the Emperor being the god of gods and his saints being his most dedicated servants, etc).

Remember, monodominance has nothing to do with selecting human cultures. It's a simple idea: the only way humanity can survive is if nothing else does.

 Manchu wrote:
Remember, monodominance has nothing to do with selecting human cultures. It's a simple idea: the only way humanity can survive is if nothing else does.

Actually it's about Imperial dominance specifically. Not just humanity as a whole, but the Imperium itself. Strict monodominants are more likely to condemn human cultures as heresy than others are.

Hold on, you're missing a major point. For monodominants, there is no difference between the Imperium and humanity. Any non-compliant strains of humanity are ipso facto sub humans (again, think of the Great Crusade). What I was saying is that compliance is not necessarily less broad for a monodominant than a Thorian or Almalanthian.

 Manchu wrote:
the puritan monodominants' beliefs correspond most closely to the Emperor's own public views.

+1 to this. The Emperor was definately a hardliner.

 Manchu wrote:
Hold on, you're missing a major point. For monodominants, there is no difference between the Imperium and humanity.

On the contrary, heretics are considered humans. They're just humans whose only right is redemption through death.

 Popenfresh wrote:

Chaos may be a bad thing from the point of view of humanity as a whole, but on individual level it may be a good option. If you are a witch about to be apprehended by authorities to be sent to feed the Emperor, a mutant or an alien about to be purged, or just any other oppressed person with no hope of the better, throwing in your lot with Chaos might start to seem like a really good idea. Chaos offers you chance to be something when you have nothing. Hell, if you please the gods you might even gain immortality, even though you were born as a lowly slave or a mutant scum. And yes, human sacrifice might be involved, but how is that different from sacrificing psykers to the Corpse God of the Imperium? I think some people take the imperial propaganda a bit too seriously. Chaos is no more evil than Imperium, it is just different kind of evil.

Sooo... does that make Chaos the sci-fi equivalent of libertarianism?

Relative morality is bad. Figured I'd throw that out there.

Is there any other kind out there that I'm not aware of then?

Absolutely and I am really glad you asked this. The idea that morality is relative is a common one shared by most people (including myself) until you begin to think about it. The key question relative moralist have to answer is relative to what?

Culture? Individual? Time?

It was considered okay in ancient times wipe a nation from the face of existence if it got in the way of your empire but did that make it right?

American culture condoned slavery for a time but did that actually make it okay?

I can believe I am righteous in torturing and raping someone but does that mean its alright?

The overwhelming majority of moral philosopher have rejected the concept of relative morality because the answers to each of those questions is a resounding no. Instead the institution of moral thinkers (all of the philosopher's whose professionis the study of morality) subscribe to universal morality. For example universal human rights. They believe there is an objective morality we can figure out but various individuals, culture's and time periods just haven't figured it out yet. And that's where the debate in the institution exists. It's not between relativists and universalist but rather between schools of universal thought.

Eh. The fact that most people tend to agree that certain things are evil, does not mean that good or evil objectively exists any more than objective beauty exists.

 Crimson wrote:
Eh. The fact that most people tend to agree that certain things are evil, does not mean that good or evil objectively exists any more than objective beauty exists.

Exactly. So you are a universalist.

I'd just like to point out that the concepts of good and evil as we know are ultimately meaningless in 40k, or even IRL (IMHO), so let's not apply them to the Imperium and Co.

Here's why I believe so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

 Melissia wrote:
On the contrary, heretics are considered humans. They're just humans whose only right is redemption through death.

That's a very good qualification, I agree. Allow me to re-phrase, monodominants see no difference between the Imperium and what portion of humanity "deserves" to survive.

I've been thinking about the various puritan positions and it seems to me that the chief difference between monodominants and Thorians is their perspective on the "salvation" of humanity. The monodominants believe in the track laid down by the Emperor himself during the Great Crusade: kill everything but compliant human populations. The monodominants seem to think that humanity depends on the continued prosecution of the Great Crusade. The Thorians don't disagree that the Great Crusade should still be pursued BUT they also don't think it will save humanity. Instead, they believe that the Emperor's ultimate intervention as a resurrected messiah is the necessary element.

As for the Amalanthians, they are the middle position by default: it is the Emperor's plan that will save us and it is working out in the galaxy as we speak. It's kind of a cop-out: maybe the plan is the Great Crusade, maybe the plan is resurrection. Maybe it's something else. This makes sense given that their focus is on unity.

Anyhow, it turns out that monodominance is logically the basic tenant of Imperial orthodoxy. From it's own perspective, the Imperium is worth saving because humanity is worth saving because humanity is the only thing that matters. Although that's not "objective" it cannot easily be gainsaid from a human perspective.

Depends, are we talking about the true Imperium or the bastardized 40k version of ignorance, oppression and stupidity.

That is the Imperium. Anything before that is pre-Imperium. If you think the Emperor was not oppressive, and did not prefer to keep people in ignorance... well... that's stupid. The Imperium exists, exactly as it does now, because the Emperor was the man he was.

Ya, there pretty much the same. Only difference in the "two Imperiums" is one has a church.