Fandom

Assassin's Creed Wiki

Comments61

A Moral Argument

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

It was recently brought up to me in another blog post: "Templar or Assassin? Which are you?" Well, this blog post is similar, but not exact. It brought to my attention, a better point of view in this Moral Argument, between the Templars and the Assassins. Let me explain... Normally, I would say, and do say, that I am best suited as an Assassin, simply because, well, I have my own sort of philosophy based on, in a nutshell, that everything is exact, and is the same. There is no light or dark, black or white; only 2 different shades of grey, and for the record, this is how I see life, little fun fact about me I suppose :D. But anywho, believe it or not, it may be from a game, but the phrase "Nothing is true, everything is permitted", is basically exactly how I perceive the universe from a philosophical standpoint. And because of it, when asked what I believe is the best route (Templar domination, or Assassin preservation), I will typically give the answer: It matters not, as peace is but an absence of conflict, and free will is the ability to wage conflict, with that being said, neither matters, as we are but specks within the universe (Yes that sounds like something out of the Codex, but it's pretty much the way I perceive and write :P ). So yeah, normally I would answer it with: it doesnt matter. However, that is my philosophical side. My moral side, or "humanity" (damn, I thought I shed my humanity long ago... blast...), puts me in a bit of a bind, as typically, I seek peace in all things, as an assassin. However, I also realize that for mankind to ever have a state of pure peace, free will must be forfeit, as is human to disagree and war.

The argument is: Is it morally better to revoke free will by means of something such as the Apple (non-violently), and by doing so, force a state of pure peace upon humanity without actually forcing it? Or, to preserve free will, knowing that, by doing so, you would cause future wars to be possible, and be responsible, by proxy, for the death of billions of people, due to the allowance of free will, and thus war? The Templar Way sounds tyrannical, yes. But is it really? Whether it is forced or not, is pure and worldwide peace not better than constant war, as we inevitably and always will have with free will? Is the removal of free will not a just punishment for our very nature as humans? Does millennia of killing in the name of divine deities, and simple disagreements, not merit such a punishment? It is within our very genetic makeup to war and disagree, as, deep down, we all possess that primitive concept of "I am right, you are wrong". Our free will is what makes us human, yes, but there's the rub: Is being human; (warring over petty things because both believe themselves to be correct, forcing ideas and opinions on people by fear of death, living for the touch of material means, destroying our very home out of ignorance, etc.) a good thing?

Who is to say, that humanity is not a curse in itself? And even now, out of ignorance we are in the process of killing our own home. So the question is:

Is being stripped of free will and thus humanity, for the sake of having forced peace, any worse than preserving free will/humanity, thus, ensuring an eternity of interspecies war, and the death of our current species 100 times over?

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki