Arbitrators believe that the concept of good and evil only has meaning within the boundaries of culture. Without cultural difference, they argue, ideological sameness will lead to stagnation and tyranny.
Benefactors are not committed to moral absolutism and don’t believe that the actions of individuals can be justified by cultural difference. Instead, they believe a balance of both viewpoints is necessary to maintain moral fitness in society.
Champions oppose absolutism and have no qualms upsetting the status quo to free the innocent from oppression and exploitation. They have great respect for diversity, tolerate differing ethical viewpoints, and strive to generate the most good for the most people.
Esurients believe the highest good is the pursuit of personal happiness. Laws that stand in the way of this goal are evil.
Guardians are stalwart altruists who believe there are universal, immutable ethical laws that transcend culture and selflessly strive to protect the innocent against oppression, regardless of the consequences.
Judicators are neither selfless nor egoistical in their disposition. To the Judicator, what is ethical is what is lawful, and so ethical judgments are inseparable from culture and society.
Masterminds are cunning egoists who believe that altruism as a philosophy is groundless. According to the Mastermind, people always act out of self-interest, even when they are ostensibly helping others.
Megalomaniacs are ruthless hedonists who reject altruism as amoral and have no tolerance for duty of any kind except the limitless glorification of the self.
Radicals don’t believe in a duty to help others, or derive pleasure from gaining power; instead, their motivations are often far more personal. What one believes is a good or evil action, the Radical argues, always depends on the circumstances of one’s culture, and the laws of one’s society.
Are you sure?