#teleology

There is no physical attribute or biological process, in humans or any other species, that is "supposed to" or "intended to" or "meant to" be a certain way. That is not a meaningful concept.

"People are supposed to be able to walk a mile without assistance."

No. Perhaps most people can walk a mile without assistance, but many people cannot. There is no "supposed to."

"People with ovaries are intended to be able to get pregnant."

No. Many people with ovaries are able to get pregnant, and some are not. There is no "intended to."

"People are designed to have XX or XY chromosomes."

No. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes, but many do not. There is no "designed to."

"Your child should be sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old."

No. Many children are sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old, but some are not. "Should" has no place here.

Too often, well-meaning people try to rebut these arguments with some kind of "accepting" teleological argument for "why" disabled/queer people might exist.

"Maybe autistic people exist to be lone shepherds watching the flock. Maybe gay people exist to be adoptive parents for orphans. Maybe people with Down syndrome exist to be peacekeepers and mediators. Maybe ADHD people exist to be creative problem-solvers"

No. These may be social roles that may be well-suited to some people's strengths, but they're not the reason that anyone exists, because people don't exist for a reason. Autistic people exist. Gay people exist. People with Down syndrome exist. ADHD people exist.

This also opens the door to people arguing "What about the BAD disabilities, that don't have a function? What about cancer? What about Tay-Sachs disease? What about cystic fibrosis? What about major depressive disorder? Surely THOSE disabilities aren't supposed to exist!"

And yet they do. People with cancer exist. People with Tay-Sachs disease exist. People with cystic fibrosis exist. People with major depressive disorder exist. They deserve rights and dignity and equality because they are people who exist.

Some people will try to get around this by using "evolved to." "People evolved to practice heterosexual reproduction. People evolved to have two legs and be able to run."

But evolution isn't goal-oriented. It just happens. Having two legs and running and reproducing heterosexually are predominant human traits, but clearly, they are not necessary ones, because you can look around and see people who don't have two legs, people who can't run, people who don't practice heterosexual reproduction.

when confronted with multiple opportunities to allow uther to die—or to actively facilitate that outcome—merlin consistently intervenes to preserve him. this cannot be dismissed as mere aversion to killing. merlin does not simply refrain; he acts, repeatedly, to save a man engaged in the systematic persecution and execution of magic users. notably, the prophetic framework does not clearly prohibit uther’s early death. on the contrary, figures such as Kilgarrah explicitly advocate for it. merlin’s refusal, therefore, is not obedience to destiny but a choice to maintain a political order that is actively harmful to his own people.

the prophecy itself is articulated as a shared destiny: arthur and merlin, together, are meant to restore magic to albion. yet merlin systematically reconfigures this partnership into a unilateral arc in which arthur appears as the sole agent of restoration. this is not simply the byproduct of fear, though fear is certainly operative. it is also an exercise in control. by withholding his identity and suppressing his role, merlin ensures that the burden of revelation—and the attendant risks—never materialize. in doing so, he fundamentally alters the structure of the prophecy, converting a reciprocal relationship into a hierarchical one in which he operates invisibly, orchestrating outcomes without accountability.

his treatment of other magic users further complicates any claim to moral consistency. merlin does not merely defend camelot against clear antagonists; he adopts a preemptive logic in which potential or hypothetical threats to arthur justify intervention. this frequently manifests as sabotage, manipulation, or lethal force directed at individuals whose primary “crime” is existing outside the narrow parameters merlin deems safe. the ethical framework here is stark: the value of a life is contingent upon its relationship to arthur’s well-being. in effect, merlin reproduces the exclusionary logic of uther’s regime, albeit in a more selective and individualized form.

this logic extends into the curation of arthur’s public and private identity. merlin repeatedly interferes in contests, conflicts, and political situations to secure favorable outcomes for arthur, thereby constructing the image of an infallible and divinely favored king. these interventions are not neutral acts of assistance; they shape the narrative through which arthur is perceived, both by others and by himself. consequently, arthur’s legitimacy becomes, in part, an artifact of merlin’s unseen labor. merlin is not merely supporting the future king; he is actively producing the conditions under which that kingship appears natural and deserved.

deception is central to this process. merlin’s secrecy exceeds what is necessary for survival and becomes structural, governing his relationships with virtually every significant figure in his life. by monopolizing knowledge of the prophecy, of magic, and of the true stakes of various conflicts, he positions himself as the sole arbiter of action. others are denied the capacity to make informed decisions, including arthur, whose ignorance is both protected and enforced. this asymmetry of knowledge consolidates merlin’s power, even as it isolates him, and ensures that alternative courses of action are never meaningfully considered.

over time, there is a discernible shift in merlin’s ethical sensibility. early hesitation gives way to increasing decisiveness; moral conflict is not resolved so much as it is bypassed. actions that once required justification become routine. this is not character development in the sense of moral growth, but rather a narrowing of perspective. the horizon of acceptable action contracts until it aligns almost perfectly with arthur’s preservation. the question is no longer whether something is right, but whether it is necessary.

in tandem with this, merlin effectively limits arthur’s agency by controlling the information available to him. the possibility that arthur, if fully informed, might make different or more just decisions is consistently foreclosed. merlin’s silence is not passive; it is an active constraint on arthur’s moral and political development. by denying him the truth, merlin ensures compliance with a future that arthur himself has not freely chosen, thereby undermining the very ideal of a just and enlightened ruler.

finally, it is significant that merlin’s actions rarely coalesce into a broader effort to challenge systemic injustice. despite his power and proximity to the throne, he does not organize, advocate, or build alliances on behalf of magic users as a collective. his interventions remain episodic and selective, oriented toward immediate threats rather than structural change. the liberation of magic is deferred to a future moment that never fully arrives, perpetually subordinated to the more urgent task of safeguarding arthur.

Explaining/Interpreting the traditional alignments in this way is surprisingly complex, as they can sometimes contain many seeming contradictions, like the ones you listed. But also consider for Chaos that the Goetia demons are ordered and ranked by hierarchy (aka the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, or "False Monarchy of Demons"--essentially a hellish parody of traditional European governance, but ordered nonetheless) and also that typically the most powerful Chaos demons are Tyrants--in Japanese, 魔王, maou, demon king--in other words, yeah, there are an awful lot of demons of authority overseeing the chaos and ensuring their operation is shipshape. Then there's the idea that the demons' very existence in the "real" world is due to YHVH, as explained in this snippet from the JJCAT article:

Are there any similar paradoxes for Law? Surely, and one that comes to mind is that Law is typically responsible for launching the apocalyptic ICBMs and kickstarting the ensuing chaos. Then again, the Book of Revelation has lots of chaotic imagery, but it's all considered to be part of a "plan."

This is why I think SMT's alignments are best understood as teleological, which I will casually define as the goal being more important than how said goal is achieved. So if a police state, summoning in the name of God, and demon rulers are what it takes to achieve a world of Chaos, then so be it.

And speaking of Gotou and seeming contradictions, it reminds me of Yukio Mishima and this meme, one of my favorites I've seen of late:

This real-life visual inspiration for Gotou had a sexual attraction to artwork of the Christian saint Sebastian, not that the person and the SMT character have too much in common. But if SMT dealt more with saints, it might not be out of the question to have Gotou summon St. Sebastian, who would certainly be Law-aligned.

Also consider @alephskoteinos's article on Chaos:

And this @kidcapes video for good measure:

Ronald A. Judy

The philosophy of human flourishing—also known as eudaimonia in ancient Greek philosophy—concerns what it means to live a good, meaningful, and fulfilling life. It explores the conditions and values necessary for humans to thrive, not merely survive.

Core Philosophical Themes:

1. Eudaimonia (Aristotle)

Aristotle defined human flourishing as the highest good, achieved through virtuous activity in accordance with reason over a complete life. It is not mere pleasure or wealth, but a deep fulfillment rooted in excellence of character and action.

2. Virtue Ethics

In virtue ethics, flourishing depends on the development of moral virtues (like courage, wisdom, and temperance), which help individuals live in harmony with their nature and community.

3. Naturalism and Teleology

Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas argue that humans have a natural telos (purpose or end), and flourishing is achieved by fulfilling that natural potential.

4. Modern Perspectives

Contemporary philosophers (e.g., Martha Nussbaum, Alasdair MacIntyre) examine flourishing in terms of capabilities, relationships, and community well-being—not just individual success.

5. Subjective vs. Objective Theories

Some see flourishing as subjective well-being (happiness, satisfaction), while others argue it must include objective elements like health, knowledge, and moral development.

6. Political and Social Dimensions

Flourishing is often tied to justice and social conditions. Liberal and communitarian thinkers debate whether flourishing is a personal pursuit or a goal society should help provide.

7. Human Potential and Fulfillment

Flourishing also involves questions about creativity, purpose, autonomy, and growth—how people realize their best selves in varied life paths.

Summary:

🥚?🐔 What if the chicken came not before the egg, but as a byproduct of how we choose to understand causality, knowledge, and the limits of both? Blog post: